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
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.

>>codedo+Ca
> takes a lot of work

The "sweat of the brow" argument is not valid in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

>>ars+pc
>Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them.

This person isn't just collecting existing letter shapes; inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?

>>snyphe+Jt
> inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?

It is settled law that letter shapes aren't copyrightable. Period.