Font
Saturday, December 19, 2020 - 15:24
Art Type:
License(s):
Favorites:
3
Share Icons:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION:
Here is the original https://www.fontspace.com/avqest-font-f4004. I have edited this font to be a sprite and gave it a gold-like color with some shadow.
COPYRIGHT/ATTRIBUTION:
You can credit the original author as Graham Meade. Credit me as Vincent LaClair if you choose to do so.
UPDATES:
None at the moment.
File(s):
avqest_font.png 92.1 Kb [170 download(s)]
Comments
Oh nice, not the ttf itself. Well done.
Though you should not put "freeware" in the copyright box. Freeware is not the same as cc0. The original font file is freeware, this sprite sheet is not.EDIT: Fixed, thanks.
Is that okay to do? Take a typeface with an ambiguous license such as "Freeware" & re-license it under CC0?
Edit: This is the license info from fontspace.com:
The font is under fontspaces "freeware" terms*, the typeface is not. This is not changing the license of the font. It's making a derivative using the typeface, which fontspace's terms do allow, as far as I can tell. Not sure what the personal and commercial terms are for, as they don't seem to correspond with the license designation on this particular font.
*(Their terms are not exactly specific, but more so than you'd expect from a typical non-license)
fontspace.com only defines two types of licenses: Personal Use and Commercial Use. Which does "Freeware" fall under? What's the difference between "font" and "typeface"?
I made sure to do some research on the topic.
That's what I'm saying: "freeware" seems intended as neither; a (none) license. Though the last blurb may still apply to 'freeware' even if 'personal' and 'commercial' don't. Of all the fonts on fontspace, some are listed as "Commercial", some are "Personal", and still others are "Demo" or "Freeware" etc., so although they only define two terms-of-use in the FAQ, there are several others that seem intentionally left less-than-well-defined.
The font is the "software" itself. The instructions used by an operating system to draw the typeface on the screen or printer paper.
The typeface is the set of stylized shapes that form the letters and glyphs. The image above uses the typeface, but it isn't a font at all, it's an image.
You are correct. Generally, copyright law in the U.S. does not protect typefaces. Fonts may be protected as long as the font qualifies as computer software or a program (and in fact, most fonts are programs or software).
But since the font is an image and a derivative, the copyright is not applicable and I am free to do with it as I please.
Yes, though be cautious about that. The fact that it is an image and a derivative is not the entirety of why this is allowed. It is also that the terms implicitly allow for 'pretty much anything' while explicitly saying "the font itself" as the component that is still subject to restrictions.
You can't copyright the typeface, only the font but I am not using the font, I am using the typeface. This means I am free to share it and license it in any way.
According to https://glarts.org/font-and-typeface-legal-tip-sheet/
Listen to what I'm saying: Be cautious about that attitude. Here on OGA, we generally go a step further than the letter of the law. If it does not appear to be in the wishes of the author, we will not allow it even if it is legal to do so. Yes, you are legally allowed to share it, but that does not necessarily mean we will allow it to be shared here if it looks like it is taking advantage of a loophole.
To the best of my knowledge at this point, this is in the clear and it is welcome here, even with our extra-stuck-up standards :) but not simply because it is technically legal. That is all I was cautioning about.
Ok, thank you for your concern. I have been told that I have the attitude of a lawyer btw.
And I understand, I would not want to do something that the author would be against. That is a catalyst for trouble and I don't like to start trouble.
Haha, I also have the attitude of a lawyer. I know just what you mean. And thank you for being understanding.
No problem
As far as I read, it's not generally true that typefaces are not protected.
That appears to be only the situation of the US and Japan.
In Germany they are (automatically) protected as a registered design for 10 or when extended for 25 years. (which appears to be similar to a design patent)
Irish copyright law covers typefaces for 15 years.
Russia has them fully copyrighted.
In UK it is copyrighted for 25 years.
The general rule for the EU appears to be automatic registered design for 3 years and can be extended for up to 25 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefa...
article:
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/you-wouldnt-think-it-but-typeface-piracy-i...
> Similarly, there are no copyright laws protecting the design of any given letter, style, shape, or brushstroke.
... that article just tries to makes it sound criminal to copy a typeface in the US.
There are reasons why typefaces are not covered by copyright laws here in Germany. Every print would effectively become a derivative work of the typefaces.
So, in theory, I could create a bitmap image of all the characters of a Microsoft copyrighted font & redistribute it under an open source license?
Pretty much, yeah. Kinda stupid, right? I mean, you'd have to have permission to use the Microsoft font in the first place, and making bitmaps using the font would need to be within the font's terms of use (essentially every font's usage terms includes this, though), but yeah. Under current US law* and currently accepted font licenses, that would be legal. Not ethical though, which is why I was harping on OGA's policy regarding loopholes and the author's implicit wishes.
If it comes to light this author did not intend the font to be derived into a spritesheet and distributed CC0, I may reverse my decision. And, in fact, I would feel more comfortable if this were licensed OGA-BY instead, in order to enforce the attribution for the original author.
*(This site is hosted in the US, so although copyright laws in other jurisdictions are relevant, US law is the primary focus.)
I guess it depends a lot on where the company is from, which created those fonts. And whether it's also covered design patents, I don't think they get awarded automatically in the US.
If they are from a country where typefaces are protected by copyright law, it could be possible that could be done within the US, but I'm not sure. But some people from other countries couldn't use it, I don't think it would be legit to put it under an international open license.
Fixed