Comment by rafram
They are computer programs. Not sure why you’d crudely insult the judge for saying that.
They are computer programs. Not sure why you’d crudely insult the judge for saying that.
TrueType, which has been around since the 80s, includes a full Turing-complete instruction set for hinting: https://developer.apple.com/fonts/TrueType-Reference-Manual/...
This is sophistry. Does anyone write apps in ttf? Can I download a calendar app? Has anyone even cranked out some proof of concept?
Fonts aren't software in any meaningful sense of the word.
We’re talking about copyright here. A typeface on its own isn’t copyrightable. The judge ruled that turning a typeface into a digital font involves writing a nontrivial computer program, which is a creative work under US copyright law. That simply is true. It doesn’t matter whether you can write “apps” in TrueType; you can write digital fonts in it.
Fonts aren't just programs, they can contain and run an entire AI model to give you access to an LLM in any program running Harfbuzz: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766791
I would say that counts as interactivity.
Yes. And they're also copyrightable.
That's why this shit is so stupid.
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.
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?).