The United States does not offer copyright protection to typefaces. Now a TrueType font *can* have a copyright because the font is drawn by a program in the font file itself. However, if you sat down with a font maker and drew your own font from scratch, you own the program, and how the typeface looks is irrelevant. See Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer.
But the absence of an EULA in a boxed, purchased good doesn't mean you are restricted in what you can do with that, quite the contrary. You should be perfectly entitled to use those fonts as long as you don't break any of the agreements, and since all they talk about is about piracy, you'll be fine. I wouldn't worry about Bitstream not having the legal ability to give you permission to use those fonts, by the way. When you use a clone font (such as Swiss 721) you are not infringing Helvetica's copyright. Truetype files are protected (they contain code and are considered software) but the typeface themselves are not (at least in the US). And since Bitstream cloned fonts by a process of digitalization or printed materials (and remember, those typeface forms are not protected), what they did is perfectly legal. You may think that Bitstream were a bunch of jerks, but there are many things to consider in the case. For example, Bitstream was often better at the digitalization process, so in many cases the 'clone' performs better than the original... And a big reason for that was that the font authors were often working at Bitstream, not at Linotype (Bitstream itself was founded by ex-Linotype designers). Also, in many cases, the original fonts were often not available in computer form when Bitstream made their library, or were available under extremely draconian terms. I wouldn't say that what Bitstream did was ethical, but it is not as clear cut as it may seem.
If this were just a generic font pack with original fonts, I would agree with you. But being specifically about a well know property that another large multimedia company owns, makes this more complicated. Monotype(the current owner of the remains of Bitstream) probably wouldn't care what I did with this. However, Paramount would probably have a different opinion.
If Bitstream actually acquired the rights from Paramount to make this boxed copy, then its still legal for you to use and call this font the Star Trek font. I would bet that the agreement only applied to the that boxed copy, which is why the can sell the same font as Horizon now. That dose nothing to remove any legality from the original licenced product you have.
Software licensing is a hell of a subject. Cool to see you taking a stab at this example of "okay, you have fonts, but you can't actually USE them." Oh man, if only more people understood the concept, not just with fonts, but with everything computer related... like games, for instance...
I suspect it has to do with the laws regarding fonts in the US: they can copyright the code to generate the shapes, but they can't copyright the shapes themselves (and Bitstream did a LOT of font duping).
We used to have a Mac version of a similar Star Trek font pack published by a no-name company that ended up never having existed as far as I can tell, but in the early 90s the Star Trek craze was huge while TNG and DS9 were happening. No awesome box art though. It may have come on an old Metatec NautilusCD demo disc now that I think about it. As far as I know could just be these same fonts.
I think one issue here is a divide between stock art (which falls under the same umbrella as recorded music and photos), and fonts, which have AFAIK always been understood to be one-time-fee and royalty-free. I've never heard of foundries demanding royalties for traditional desktop publishing use, although the situation may be different for web fonts. As for font piracy, well, even before Bitstream the hot-metal vendors (even better ones like ATF!) had their own stocks of knock-off fonts. In the US, you can't patent or trademark a face itself, just the name, so copying the *design* was (and is) rampant (and IMO not a problem for fonts that were never officially digitized, like a lot of the rarer Visual Graphics faces). I see a lot of "typeface snobs"-and yes, those exist-trash-talking Bitstream when, as noted in other comments, they actually did really good work for what they were (and eventually moved into original typefaces). If they're going to pick on people, they should really be picking on the shovelware vendors like SWFTE and Casady & Greene that didn't put any effort into their clones (they look jagged or rough-hewn).
That’s pretty wild. A few years ago I too found that font pack at a thrift store, also sealed. Still haven’t opened mine either, so that’s cool not only knowing what’s in the box but also some info on font licenses as well.
Yes. ST Voyager Elite Force was perhaps most famous for the holomatch multiplayer - essentially a clone of Quake III Arena's due to sharing the same engine.
A big part of my job is centred around design, and I've gotta say that subscription services like Adobe's otherwise largely awful Creative Cloud do save money if you have many clients who want different fonts. Some of the typefaces I use just for one client would cost me hundreds if I had to buy them individually, which makes me wonder how much they get for subscription licensing versus outright purchases.
Ah yes, Creative Cloud which does allow access to Adobe's font library, which I think does also include not only Adobe's own fonts, but possibly fonts from their partners. They did only mention it as "premium fonts" in their pricing table some time back, so I had assumed it was just Adobe's own fonts.
Not only do fonts have licenses, but as shown in the video, the licenses tend to be VERY restrictive and expensive. This even goes for fonts like Times New Roman, which Microsoft certainly paid a pretty penny to have included in every copy of Windows. It's been an issue for designers for a long time and only in (relatively) recent years we've started getting a nice collection of 100% free-to-use fonts under the SIL Open Font License.
Fonts are crazy, especially in that time period. I have an old "Macintosh Bible" from around 1991, it has an entire chapter about Fonts and actually lists and shows examples from a bunch of different "Font Pack" software. The entire book uses a font that is actually in one of those font packs. As I understand it, and based on the contents of that book (which is around that time period) when you bought a Font Pack you basically expected that you were buying a license to use that font for whatever purpose you might like aside from redistribution of the font files. It wasn't altogether unusual for software not to include explicit license terms especially from smaller outfits like this. For stuff like this I expect bitstream licensed the Star Trek IP from CBS, and Bitstream then created fonts based on the type seen in various parts of the movies and show. Bitstream owned the fonts as their own IP but they could only redistribute under license with CBS, which is why when the license expired 5 years later the product was dropped. (I guess it didn't sell well enough to justify extending their license). The licenses you saw apply to the Fonts, I expect; Fonts are a type of software since they are instructions for the Glyph renderer. One issue with your comparison is that "Wow 250,000 Graphics" was released 6 years later in 1998, and looks to largely cover images, which have definitely had a lot better IP protection. It's also possible the differences in how they treat the licensing information may be a result of companies becoming more careful in that regard since the DMCA bill was introduced in July of 1997 (and eventually passed), or maybe it came from a larger company that was less cowboy with regards to licenses. I think it is worth noting that Bitstream was not alone in this, so it's not entirely fair to "single them out"- Font companies made copies of each others fonts constantly. For example, Monotype's Arial was a copy of Linotype's Helvetica. Optima was Adobe's version of the same. Linotype itself based a lot of it's designs (including Helvetica) on Fonts dating back to the 16th century which are owned by "Hoefler & Co.". ITC (International Typeface Corporation)'s Garamond font is based on similarly old typeface designs. Adobe licensed a lot of ITC Fonts, but they also copied them- They created "Benguiat Book" instead of licensing Benguiat from ITC, and Cooper Black was 'stolen' from Linotype, Adobe hired Hermann Zapf to design fonts like Zapf Chancery, for example- and Linotype promptlycame up with their own versions. Basically, Fonts were cutthroat and nobody, not even companies or seemingly the law, respected any licenses or intellectual property for font typefaces- if they didn't want to license, just copy it, tweak the outlines, and give it a new name. And now they can license THAT font! Unless somebody doesn't want to, then they copy that copied font... etc. The DMCA might have made it a bit less wild west but not as much as one would think.
Bitstream is popular to single out, because they offended some metal font designers who took to the court of public opinion when they found there was no LEGAL basis for their claim that Bistream's digitization of their metal fonts constituted piracy under US law. And indeed, this is still true today. In America, fonts are not copyrightable, though the software that produces the shapes is.
Hi All , What a mess. This reminds me of early Microsoft Office, either Win 3.1 or Win 95. At one stage the Word program ( winword ) had some format / save options, one of them attached all non standard fonts into the document so that when you saved the document ( typically on a floppy ) you could give it to some one and they would call up your doucment and it would be a 1005 exact copy as all the fonts were the same. Adobe had similar issues as did HP with some of the built in fonts in its LaserJet add on cartridges ( i remember at work they bought a 32 in 1 cartridge for @ $600 in early 90's ) this was about the price for say 2 or 3 fonts bought from HP on a floppy and could only be installed legally on 1 PC . So i think when fonts was challenged and it was decided its a grey area, the shops were flooded with Cd's containing 100's of fonts, i found it usefull for a little while but got annoyed as you could never remember what font you used on your desktop publishing
I know this much from the Emulation scene with the GameCube and Wii Emulator Dolphin. That fonts do have some sort of copyright how I know this is from one of Nintendo's GameCube games Star Fox Assault. The devs of Dolphin didn't include the Fonts that the GameCube uses out of fear of breaching Nintendo's copyright which lead the game's font to be not even compared to the GameCube Font. Since Nintendo owns the rights to the GameCube hardware and Software that's included on the GameCube (what ever OS is on there) which includes the Fonts that go with it.
Fonts on the whole are a legal gray area. In practice print and design shops commonly "pirate" fonts, if you can call a single or a few uses piracy. Foundries basically live off the big guys like IBM whom they know they can chase down, they just can't play whack-a-mole with every single occurrence of a font in the wild, what with the effort involved in tracking down the parties involved, counting their machines and so on. I guess they're sort of like patent trolls; of course they should be paid for their work, but telling me that I can't copy the font file from one of my computers to the others is just an immoral legal fiction.
I agree that tracking down every single use of a font would be nearly impossible. And that it is still immoral to pirate them. Also that "single seat" license are ridiculous. But would like to point out that "patent trolls" are a different kind of problem. As a software developer that one of those phrases that gets my attention. Patent trolls typically have an overly broad patent that they purchased from a defunct company that they try to use to muscle money out of big companies. A lot of times the big companies just settle for a one time fee rather than fight it because it's not worth their time/money. This is why I love Newegg as a company though. Time and again they have been approached by patent trolls and refused to pay them anything and usually sue them back. One time over a patent on "digital shopping carts" they got the settlements overturned for other companies as well. Here's an instance of them fighting someone with a patent on a "daisy chain-able serial bus" that was originally created by General Magic! arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/newegg-sues-patent-troll-that-dropped-its-case/ So patent trolls aren't quite the same. They are usually grey in their claim validity and almost always just looking for a quick cash grab.
Oh I agree, patent trolls are the extreme end of the scale of IP law (ab)users, where you also have companies like Disney repeatedly and successfully lobbying for things like the CTEA, Nintendo and their attitude towards game footage, and so on. Thanks for the article, glad to see Newegg fighting the good fight!
The fact that Helvetica now costs boatloads of cash to license doesn't really prove that things could not have been more permissive years earlier. There's definitely an enclosure-type thing going on with a lot of this so-called "intellectual property" stuff. Read up on enclosure, and on the purpose of copyright.
Well, if you ask me. RUclips or all over Social Media of the status of Streaming Video. All of it should be deleted and removed. As it is all against the legal status of the copyright laws. At least how the Record Labels feel and so many other multimedia base companies. As they would love to see RUclips gone or even other Streaming services. That includes Twitch (Even though they are owned by Amazon now).
Qardo Record labels have already learned how to make money from modern platforms like RUclips. It's why pretty much all music uploaded to RUclips is automatically claimed and monetized by the respective companies. Basically, they've agreed to a certain license with material uploaded to Google. It's a mess, but it works.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Ha, had no idea about Bitstream's legal trouble. That's wild!
LGR nice to see ya here !
LGR did not expect you here :p
Tfw an almost 1 million sub channel watches an 18k channel.
Ali Abdallah oh i saw youtubers with a few milions of subs watch people that have like 1000 or 2000
+LGR Fodder for a LGR Tech Tales?
The United States does not offer copyright protection to typefaces. Now a TrueType font *can* have a copyright because the font is drawn by a program in the font file itself. However, if you sat down with a font maker and drew your own font from scratch, you own the program, and how the typeface looks is irrelevant. See Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer.
But the absence of an EULA in a boxed, purchased good doesn't mean you are restricted in what you can do with that, quite the contrary. You should be perfectly entitled to use those fonts as long as you don't break any of the agreements, and since all they talk about is about piracy, you'll be fine.
I wouldn't worry about Bitstream not having the legal ability to give you permission to use those fonts, by the way. When you use a clone font (such as Swiss 721) you are not infringing Helvetica's copyright. Truetype files are protected (they contain code and are considered software) but the typeface themselves are not (at least in the US). And since Bitstream cloned fonts by a process of digitalization or printed materials (and remember, those typeface forms are not protected), what they did is perfectly legal.
You may think that Bitstream were a bunch of jerks, but there are many things to consider in the case. For example, Bitstream was often better at the digitalization process, so in many cases the 'clone' performs better than the original... And a big reason for that was that the font authors were often working at Bitstream, not at Linotype (Bitstream itself was founded by ex-Linotype designers). Also, in many cases, the original fonts were often not available in computer form when Bitstream made their library, or were available under extremely draconian terms. I wouldn't say that what Bitstream did was ethical, but it is not as clear cut as it may seem.
If this were just a generic font pack with original fonts, I would agree with you. But being specifically about a well know property that another large multimedia company owns, makes this more complicated. Monotype(the current owner of the remains of Bitstream) probably wouldn't care what I did with this. However, Paramount would probably have a different opinion.
If Bitstream actually acquired the rights from Paramount to make this boxed copy, then its still legal for you to use and call this font the Star Trek font. I would bet that the agreement only applied to the that boxed copy, which is why the can sell the same font as Horizon now. That dose nothing to remove any legality from the original licenced product you have.
Software licensing is a hell of a subject. Cool to see you taking a stab at this example of "okay, you have fonts, but you can't actually USE them."
Oh man, if only more people understood the concept, not just with fonts, but with everything computer related... like games, for instance...
I suspect it has to do with the laws regarding fonts in the US: they can copyright the code to generate the shapes, but they can't copyright the shapes themselves (and Bitstream did a LOT of font duping).
We used to have a Mac version of a similar Star Trek font pack published by a no-name company that ended up never having existed as far as I can tell, but in the early 90s the Star Trek craze was huge while TNG and DS9 were happening. No awesome box art though. It may have come on an old Metatec NautilusCD demo disc now that I think about it. As far as I know could just be these same fonts.
I think one issue here is a divide between stock art (which falls under the same umbrella as recorded music and photos), and fonts, which have AFAIK always been understood to be one-time-fee and royalty-free. I've never heard of foundries demanding royalties for traditional desktop publishing use, although the situation may be different for web fonts.
As for font piracy, well, even before Bitstream the hot-metal vendors (even better ones like ATF!) had their own stocks of knock-off fonts. In the US, you can't patent or trademark a face itself, just the name, so copying the *design* was (and is) rampant (and IMO not a problem for fonts that were never officially digitized, like a lot of the rarer Visual Graphics faces).
I see a lot of "typeface snobs"-and yes, those exist-trash-talking Bitstream when, as noted in other comments, they actually did really good work for what they were (and eventually moved into original typefaces). If they're going to pick on people, they should really be picking on the shovelware vendors like SWFTE and Casady & Greene that didn't put any effort into their clones (they look jagged or rough-hewn).
loving your videos lately. keep em up
Finally, I’m early for a video! Good Morning, AkBKukU! :)
That’s pretty wild. A few years ago I too found that font pack at a thrift store, also sealed. Still haven’t opened mine either, so that’s cool not only knowing what’s in the box but also some info on font licenses as well.
Wait, is that game at the end a Star Trek Quake 3?
Yes. ST Voyager Elite Force was perhaps most famous for the holomatch multiplayer - essentially a clone of Quake III Arena's due to sharing the same engine.
Star Trek: Elite Force is a great Star Trek FPS that is well worth checking out.
It still fun in 2020. trust me.
A big part of my job is centred around design, and I've gotta say that subscription services like Adobe's otherwise largely awful Creative Cloud do save money if you have many clients who want different fonts. Some of the typefaces I use just for one client would cost me hundreds if I had to buy them individually, which makes me wonder how much they get for subscription licensing versus outright purchases.
Ah yes, Creative Cloud which does allow access to Adobe's font library, which I think does also include not only Adobe's own fonts, but possibly fonts from their partners.
They did only mention it as "premium fonts" in their pricing table some time back, so I had assumed it was just Adobe's own fonts.
Well, you learn something new every day. I had no idea fonts could have licences.
Not only do fonts have licenses, but as shown in the video, the licenses tend to be VERY restrictive and expensive. This even goes for fonts like Times New Roman, which Microsoft certainly paid a pretty penny to have included in every copy of Windows.
It's been an issue for designers for a long time and only in (relatively) recent years we've started getting a nice collection of 100% free-to-use fonts under the SIL Open Font License.
Fonts are crazy, especially in that time period. I have an old "Macintosh Bible" from around 1991, it has an entire chapter about Fonts and actually lists and shows examples from a bunch of different "Font Pack" software. The entire book uses a font that is actually in one of those font packs.
As I understand it, and based on the contents of that book (which is around that time period) when you bought a Font Pack you basically expected that you were buying a license to use that font for whatever purpose you might like aside from redistribution of the font files. It wasn't altogether unusual for software not to include explicit license terms especially from smaller outfits like this. For stuff like this I expect bitstream licensed the Star Trek IP from CBS, and Bitstream then created fonts based on the type seen in various parts of the movies and show. Bitstream owned the fonts as their own IP but they could only redistribute under license with CBS, which is why when the license expired 5 years later the product was dropped. (I guess it didn't sell well enough to justify extending their license).
The licenses you saw apply to the Fonts, I expect; Fonts are a type of software since they are instructions for the Glyph renderer. One issue with your comparison is that "Wow 250,000 Graphics" was released 6 years later in 1998, and looks to largely cover images, which have definitely had a lot better IP protection. It's also possible the differences in how they treat the licensing information may be a result of companies becoming more careful in that regard since the DMCA bill was introduced in July of 1997 (and eventually passed), or maybe it came from a larger company that was less cowboy with regards to licenses.
I think it is worth noting that Bitstream was not alone in this, so it's not entirely fair to "single them out"- Font companies made copies of each others fonts constantly. For example, Monotype's Arial was a copy of Linotype's Helvetica. Optima was Adobe's version of the same. Linotype itself based a lot of it's designs (including Helvetica) on Fonts dating back to the 16th century which are owned by "Hoefler & Co.". ITC (International Typeface Corporation)'s Garamond font is based on similarly old typeface designs. Adobe licensed a lot of ITC Fonts, but they also copied them- They created "Benguiat Book" instead of licensing Benguiat from ITC, and Cooper Black was 'stolen' from Linotype, Adobe hired Hermann Zapf to design fonts like Zapf Chancery, for example- and Linotype promptlycame up with their own versions. Basically, Fonts were cutthroat and nobody, not even companies or seemingly the law, respected any licenses or intellectual property for font typefaces- if they didn't want to license, just copy it, tweak the outlines, and give it a new name. And now they can license THAT font! Unless somebody doesn't want to, then they copy that copied font... etc. The DMCA might have made it a bit less wild west but not as much as one would think.
Bitstream is popular to single out, because they offended some metal font designers who took to the court of public opinion when they found there was no LEGAL basis for their claim that Bistream's digitization of their metal fonts constituted piracy under US law. And indeed, this is still true today. In America, fonts are not copyrightable, though the software that produces the shapes is.
You cannot copyright fonts in the US. Not sure where you are going with the video.
The Computer Chronicles - Consumer Buying Guide (1992) at 8:00 they show this font pack along with Flintstones and Christmas ones :)
That's cool, I'll have to check that out some time
Hi All , What a mess. This reminds me of early Microsoft Office, either Win 3.1 or Win 95. At one stage the Word program ( winword ) had some format / save options, one of them attached all non standard fonts into the document so that when you saved the document ( typically on a floppy ) you could give it to some one and they would call up your doucment and it would be a 1005 exact copy as all the fonts were the same. Adobe had similar issues as did HP with some of the built in fonts in its LaserJet add on cartridges ( i remember at work they bought a 32 in 1 cartridge for @ $600 in early 90's ) this was about the price for say 2 or 3 fonts bought from HP on a floppy and could only be installed legally on 1 PC .
So i think when fonts was challenged and it was decided its a grey area, the shops were flooded with Cd's containing 100's of fonts, i found it usefull for a little while but got annoyed as you could never remember what font you used on your desktop publishing
I wouldn't put this past being fan-made fonts lifted off BBSs/AOL/Compuserve and then sold by a company who didn't even make or license them.
I can remember downloading a Farscape font many years ago, don't know if it was official or not.
Thing is before internet. No one will notice or care what font you use for party invitations or something
I know this much from the Emulation scene with the GameCube and Wii Emulator Dolphin. That fonts do have some sort of copyright how I know this is from one of Nintendo's GameCube games Star Fox Assault. The devs of Dolphin didn't include the Fonts that the GameCube uses out of fear of breaching Nintendo's copyright which lead the game's font to be not even compared to the GameCube Font. Since Nintendo owns the rights to the GameCube hardware and Software that's included on the GameCube (what ever OS is on there) which includes the Fonts that go with it.
$600 for a font...wow that's the entire cost of my PC...
Fonts on the whole are a legal gray area. In practice print and design shops commonly "pirate" fonts, if you can call a single or a few uses piracy. Foundries basically live off the big guys like IBM whom they know they can chase down, they just can't play whack-a-mole with every single occurrence of a font in the wild, what with the effort involved in tracking down the parties involved, counting their machines and so on. I guess they're sort of like patent trolls; of course they should be paid for their work, but telling me that I can't copy the font file from one of my computers to the others is just an immoral legal fiction.
I agree that tracking down every single use of a font would be nearly impossible. And that it is still immoral to pirate them. Also that "single seat" license are ridiculous.
But would like to point out that "patent trolls" are a different kind of problem. As a software developer that one of those phrases that gets my attention. Patent trolls typically have an overly broad patent that they purchased from a defunct company that they try to use to muscle money out of big companies. A lot of times the big companies just settle for a one time fee rather than fight it because it's not worth their time/money. This is why I love Newegg as a company though. Time and again they have been approached by patent trolls and refused to pay them anything and usually sue them back. One time over a patent on "digital shopping carts" they got the settlements overturned for other companies as well. Here's an instance of them fighting someone with a patent on a "daisy chain-able serial bus" that was originally created by General Magic! arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/newegg-sues-patent-troll-that-dropped-its-case/ So patent trolls aren't quite the same. They are usually grey in their claim validity and almost always just looking for a quick cash grab.
Oh I agree, patent trolls are the extreme end of the scale of IP law (ab)users, where you also have companies like Disney repeatedly and successfully lobbying for things like the CTEA, Nintendo and their attitude towards game footage, and so on.
Thanks for the article, glad to see Newegg fighting the good fight!
Thanks for the lesson about font licensing. I had no clue.
Got this on a trip to the US ... nice to have
I miss loading and running floppy disks .
I used to have that font pack!
The fact that Helvetica now costs boatloads of cash to license doesn't really prove that things could not have been more permissive years earlier. There's definitely an enclosure-type thing going on with a lot of this so-called "intellectual property" stuff. Read up on enclosure, and on the purpose of copyright.
1:15 "FLEENTSTONES???"
What the fuck?
I could talk about fonts for hours on end...
Very nice vid!
Having no idea what software does is a fun way to waste away an evening...
Licensing fonts? -- friggin' ridiculous.
I remember the game in sega genesis, cody nu IV.
s/steel/steal/ (in description)
Fixed, thank you
Intellectual property is not true property
you win
The best things in life are Sans MS
Omg early gang! Maybe I can get a reply : are you interested in a second Microsoft game pad with game port connector and original driver cd?
Neat.
What do you mean "do with a font?".
lil biiiiiiiiits
Had to scroll too far to find this
Hey Jokers, Druaga2 here.
Oh Yeah Yeah
Well, if you ask me. RUclips or all over Social Media of the status of Streaming Video. All of it should be deleted and removed. As it is all against the legal status of the copyright laws. At least how the Record Labels feel and so many other multimedia base companies. As they would love to see RUclips gone or even other Streaming services. That includes Twitch (Even though they are owned by Amazon now).
Qardo Record labels have already learned how to make money from modern platforms like RUclips. It's why pretty much all music uploaded to RUclips is automatically claimed and monetized by the respective companies. Basically, they've agreed to a certain license with material uploaded to Google. It's a mess, but it works.
Sell font... Not say thus to apple corp :D
Dislike because it is ilegal