Typophile - more font awareness - Comments

“For internet junkies,

dezcom — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:44:45 -0700

“For internet junkies, that’s plain English”

Now my head hurts already. I guess I will just spend my remaining geezerly years terminally unhip. Lock me up in the home right now and throw away the key. Maybe Rich Keglar will visit me on ocasion and we can speak English together just for fun :-)

ChrisL

If I understand it

Nick Shinn — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:46:59 -0700

If I understand it correctly

You don’t, William does.

OpenType substitution is certainly code, and hinting and kerning may also be considered “instructions” that control the way bezier shapes are rasterized.

Pre- OS X, “suitcases” were considered to be “utilities”, a form of mini-program.

The key concept for utilities is that they “manage and tune” higher-up forms of software, such as applications. Digital fonts manage and tune the way that the bezier outlines they contain are rasterized.

The definition of software

kentlew — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:29:28 -0700

The definition of software (i.e. “computer program”) from the U.S. Copyright Code, Title 17, §101:

A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

Databases are also eligible for some copyright protection. If one doesn’t accept that font software is a computer program, then at the least it can be considered a database.

If I understand it

James Puckett — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:24:46 -0700

If I understand it correctly, nobody really believes fonts are software, but vendors and lawyers treat them that way to get around the lack of copyright protections for typeface designs in the US.

Fonts are an implementation

HaleyFiege — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:31:41 -0700

Fonts are an implementation of a design more than a software code.

In the US, as I understand

William Berkson — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:53:59 -0700

In the US, as I understand it, only the code as software is protected, and the name. So if you copy a font and manipulate it by a few rules—eg increasing its size 10% and try to sell it you are violating the rights of the maker.

The shapes are not protected as such unless there is a design patent. I think in principle they could be, but it is difficult to tell when a variation is a violation, which is perhaps why the current US law is in the state it is. I have heard that European laws are better in this respect, but I don’t know what they are.

Is that distinguishable from

eliason — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:46:16 -0700

Is that distinguishable from a jpg image? - that is also a set of numerical instructions to be interpreted by the computer, but we certainly see CC limits attached to jpgs.

Yes, I agree completely. But

Quincunx — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:42:00 -0700

Yes, I agree completely. But where most software is written as such, or programmed/coded, most fonts are drawn with béziers. I think this is a important difference?

Also, where do the shapes come in to play? My knowledge of legislation about typefaces is very limited, although I think the laws about it are more forgiving in the Netherlands, for example, than in the US.

Rasterizers I guess have

William Berkson — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:36:08 -0700

Rasterizers I guess have *executable* code, whereas the font only has executable code in the form of the open type instructions. But the rest of the font is still code: every glyph is stored as a set of numbers—locations of nodes, handles, sidebearings, etc. This information is designed to be exectuted by rastizers’ code, which yields the picture on the screen or printed on paper.

The world may not be made of numbers, as Pythagoras thought, but software sure is, and that includes fonts.

> Aren’t fonts software? I

Quincunx — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:23:11 -0700

> Aren’t fonts software?

I guess they are. But they aren’t really programmed, or written as software usually is? (Not counting the, in comparison little, pieces of opentype code).

Please don’t hurt me

fontplayer — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:13:33 -0700

Please don’t hurt me Dennis, it was only a joke!

I only meant to point out that those kind of things can get out of hand. Just ask the Hatfields and the McCoys. Or George Bush and the Taliban.

Creative Commons can apply

Nick Shinn — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:56:14 -0700

Creative Commons can apply to anything traditional copyright can be. They advise against licensing software code though. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.

“Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software.”
-CC FAQ.

Aren’t fonts software?

I think this thread may be

Chipman223 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:50:37 -0700

I think this thread may be getting away from, us. Then again, maybe we can employ jenna jameson as a font awareness mascott.
(insert your own pun about tittles and ascenders).

Creative Commons can apply

HaleyFiege — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:48:46 -0700

Creative Commons can apply to anything traditional copyright can be. They advise against licensing software code though. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.

Most of the original

Mark Simonson — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:32:26 -0700

Most of the original internet innovations were dictated by porn.

Ah, well, that would explain the state of fonts on the web. Nothing better than what we have now is needed for porn.

more font awareness

Ch — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:47:08 -0700

i’d like to tie together a few threads i’ve been contributing my 2 cents to recently.

i began a thread about “the future of licensing” =
http://typophile.com/node/42540
and have read with much interest several other threads about licensing, originality,
and credit where credit is due, most recently “a cheater” =
http://typophile.com/node/43240

in various threads i’ve described my own evolution from reckless young upstart to respectful professional. not having formally studied design, my knowledge of fonts and the work of font designers has evolved slowly with exposure to fonts and design writing, with a lot of time reading and following links on typophile.

when i was young and reckless i did what so many students do : i grabbed whatever i could. as i matured and began to better understand the complexities of font work, my attitude changed. as i graduated to high-end professional contracts i adopted a policy of legality, despite my frustrations with what i still consider to be illogical and overly restrictive EULA’s.

what changed for me ? AWARENESS. i think fonts are traded so easily among friends partly because they remain, in many people’s minds, fairly anonymous. this may be hard for some of you to believe, but it’s true. you are unsung heroes.

this is an open call to typophile for suggestions on how we can raise awareness in the public, among small and amateur designers, crafters, magazine readers, etc. as to the real work and time that the font designer spends at their craft.

i really appreciate the bio’s and histories of designers on myfonts.com.

the FDRC could promote a public campaign along the lines of :
“it took me two years to design this font. it took you two seconds to download it”.

maybe i’m naive but, despite my call for EULA reform, i’m on your side.