← Back to context

Comment by NoMoreNicksLeft

1 day ago

> was itself arguably a copyright-infringing knock-off.

In US law, there is no such thing. The shape of a glyph (or many) isn't even slightly copyrightable. This is settled law. Fonts (on computers) have a special status that makes them semi-copyrightable in that some jackass judge from the 1980s called them "computer programs" and so they have the same protection as software... but this won't protect against knockoffs.

Is this fair? It actually takes a lot of work (I assume) to design letter's shapes. Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation.

  • > Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation

    I can't tell which way you mean this, but that sounds similar to the situation with most public domain musical compositions - the manuscripts may be completely open but a specific typesetting can still under copyright. And like that case, "just" tracing a font / typesetting a composition is still a fair amount of work.

  • Who are you paying for a 400-year old font? Who deserves to get paid for a 400-year old font?

They are computer programs. Not sure why you’d crudely insult the judge for saying that.