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
Idk if it's provable how it was recreated but if you type in "XBAND Rough" into the sampler box at the bottom of the page https://www.myfonts.com/collections/ff-confidential-font-fon... and compare to https://fontzone.net/font-details/xband-rough it's exactly the same and the letter splotching is very distinct in the lower case letters.

>>sct202+S4
"It looks the same" is completely different than having been directly extracted from digital source.

If the digital source is the only thing that can be copyrighted, then you have to prove the digital source is what was used inappropriately. If you can't prove that, either because it didn't happen or because there's no technological way to prove it, then you can't prove copyright infringement.