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
> 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.

>>NoMore+D8
They are computer programs. Not sure why you’d crudely insult the judge for saying that.

>>rafram+Mj
Are fonts really programs? Is a digital image file also a program?

A font file is more like a config that’s used by your OS to render something, there’s no real interactivity in fonts (except some ligatures but those are just static tables, right?).

>>echoan+Z21
Yes. And they're also copyrightable.

That's why this shit is so stupid.

>>djfivy+8a1
Many things are copyrightable that shouldn't be. When you can spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress to get them to extend copyright protections beyond reason, that tends to happen.

In the United States, it is settled precedent that typefaces are not copyrightable. That doesn't change just because they became digital in 1984.