zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
That is an absolutely brilliant turn of events – strong evidence that the font in an anti-piracy campaign was itself arguably a copyright-infringing knock-off.

Someone should sue FACT for copyright infringement – and refuse to settle.

>>azalem+t1
You can't copyright a font.

>>charci+O1
A typeface design, in the U.S., no, but the digital font file comprising outline data and instructions, according to current U.S. law, for an overview of current case law and a proposal see:

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol10/iss1/5/

>>WillAd+k2
There's no evidence XBAND Rough was extracted from a digital source bit-for-bit, unless someone can point to any?

It seems like it was just a hobbyist project to recreate the look of the font from the anti-piracy ads? Which is 100% legal.

Edit: OK, so the original font appears to be "FF Confidential"? Why didn't the post even mention that? So maybe it is a digital clone, which would be illegal. But then strange that there aren't any DMCA takedowns of it on major font sites?

>>crazyg+Y3
XBAND Rough could not have been inspired by those ads, as the OP shows the ads are using XBAND, and not FF Confidential, the original tyepface it cloned.