enclose font in website

Discussion in 'HTML' started by hoit, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. hoit

    hoit Guest

    Hi all,

    Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially created
    for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.
    I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.

    Is this possible and if so, how?

    Any help is greatly appreciated


    hoit
    hoit, Feb 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. hoit

    Peter Guest

    http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/




    "hoit" <> wrote in message
    news:49a436ce$0$193$4all.nl...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially created
    > for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.
    > I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.
    >
    > Is this possible and if so, how?
    >
    > Any help is greatly appreciated
    >
    >
    > hoit
    >
    Peter, Feb 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. hoit

    +mrcakey Guest

    "Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hoit <> writes:
    >
    >> Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially
    >> created for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.

    >
    > It's not. There's been some effort in this area in the past, but it never
    > caught on.


    Actually the latest Firefox beta and the latest Opera alpha both support
    font-face as specified in the draft CSS3, so it's on its way back. It's been
    nixed in the past because of issues over downloading the actual font file to
    the user's machine which is usually in breach of the font licence.

    >
    >> I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.

    >
    > Publish a PDF then - HTML is not the appropriate media for such things.


    I wouldn't think PDF is appropriate either for online publishing. That's
    what Flash is for.

    OP may also want to Google for SIFR which replaces inline text in the HTML
    output with text rendered in the designer's choice of font using Flash. It
    has issues though.

    --
    +mrcakey
    www.dreamberry.co.uk
    +mrcakey, Feb 24, 2009
    #3
  4. On 2009-02-24, Peter wrote:
    > http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/


    <http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2005/04/i-hate-sifr>

    > "hoit" <> wrote in message
    > news:49a436ce$0$193$4all.nl...
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially created
    >> for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.
    >> I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.
    >>
    >> Is this possible and if so, how?



    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Feb 24, 2009
    #4
  5. hoit

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    <> wrote:

    >"Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> hoit <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially
    >>> created for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.

    >>
    >> It's not. There's been some effort in this area in the past, but it never
    >> caught on.

    >
    >Actually the latest Firefox beta and the latest Opera alpha both support
    >font-face as specified in the draft CSS3, so it's on its way back. It's been
    >nixed in the past because of issues over downloading the actual font file to
    >the user's machine which is usually in breach of the font licence.


    Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    item which can not be copyrighted?
    Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    life there can be no license.

    As most windows products come equipped with several hundred fonts, you
    can't find one suitable enough for your use?

    Actually, the probable reason that feature was nixed is because most
    people prefer to choose their own fonts. When I come across a site
    that fixes fonts and sizes to a point where I can not change either,
    bye bye.


    >
    >>
    >>> I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.

    >>
    >> Publish a PDF then - HTML is not the appropriate media for such things.

    >
    >I wouldn't think PDF is appropriate either for online publishing. That's
    >what Flash is for.
    >
    >OP may also want to Google for SIFR which replaces inline text in the HTML
    >output with text rendered in the designer's choice of font using Flash. It
    >has issues though.
    richard, Feb 24, 2009
    #5
  6. hoit

    dorayme Guest

    In article <49a4473c$0$8980$>,
    "Peter" <> wrote:

    > http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/
    >


    The technique you quote has some downsides. I found a particular serious
    one myself ages ago and I have forgotten what it is! But I only really
    reply here to say that this is not good for the OP because it would send
    him crazy to do *all his text* this way. The technique is not intended
    for such, let me quote from the technique's webpage:

    "sIFR is meant to replace short passages of plain browser text with text
    rendered in your typeface of choice, regardless of whether or not your
    users have that font installed on their systems. It accomplishes this by
    using a combination of javascript, CSS, and Flash."

    Please don't top post.


    >
    > "hoit" <> wrote:


    > > Does anyone know if it is possible to use a font face (specially created
    > > for the site) and then upload the font face with the site.
    > > I don't want the browser to pick its own font, I want it to use my font.
    > >


    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 24, 2009
    #6
  7. hoit

    dorayme Guest

    In article <go1h3u$o94$>,
    "+mrcakey" <> wrote:

    > "Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message

    ....
    > > Publish a PDF then - HTML is not the appropriate media for such things.

    >
    > I wouldn't think PDF is appropriate either for online publishing. That's
    > what Flash is for.


    I would have thought that Sherm was quite correct and I am not sure that
    Flash is *for* such a purpose?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 24, 2009
    #7
  8. hoit

    rf Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    > <> wrote:


    > Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    > item which can not be copyrighted?
    > Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    > life there can be no license.


    You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works. Fonts can
    be and are subject to copyright.
    rf, Feb 24, 2009
    #8
  9. hoit

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    >> item which can not be copyrighted?
    >> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    >> life there can be no license.

    >
    >You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works. Fonts can
    >be and are subject to copyright.
    >


    So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    copyrightable.

    You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent it.
    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

    Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......

    Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
    mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    coloring....
    ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.
    richard, Feb 24, 2009
    #9
  10. hoit

    Eric Bednarz Guest

    richard <> writes:

    > ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?


    I can’t wait.

    > A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.


    A novel is a variation of typographc [sic] ornamentation order.

    (I just realized that somebody smarter than me would just have said
    ‘idiot’ without sacrificing any semantics)
    Eric Bednarz, Feb 24, 2009
    #10
  11. hoit

    rf Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> richard wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    >>> item which can not be copyrighted?
    >>> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    >>> life there can be no license.

    >>
    >> You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works.
    >> Fonts can be and are subject to copyright.
    >>

    >
    > So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    > copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    > copyrightable.


    So that you will understand better, the actual font IS copyrightable.
    >
    > You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent it.


    A font is not the alphabet.

    > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    >
    > Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......
    >
    > Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
    > mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    > coloring....
    > ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    > A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.


    A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A font is a
    work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.

    Search for "font copyright" and you will find all sorts of information.
    However this is a good one:

    http://desktoppub.about.com/gi/dyna...pub&zu=http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html

    <quote>
    There are legal foundations to why there should be font copyright-in fact,
    cases from other fields, and the United States' obligations under
    international conventions, demand that copyright registration be allowed for
    type fonts. Most courts in the U.S. will not find any difficulty with these
    arguments.
    </quote>

    <quote>
    The US Copyright Office still officially refuses to accord protection for
    typeface designs. This is due to a misunderstanding of the field, which has
    resulted in the United States being the only country in the western world
    not to recognize the intellectual property in typeface designs.
    </quote>

    Good on you the U S of A, not.

    It gets better:

    <quote>
    The United States' obligations under the Berne Convention, now that she is a
    signatory, is to respect the copyright on fonts, if such copyright exists in
    the countries they were designed in. Fonts designed outside the United
    States become subject to protection as artistic works. There is little
    reason for domestically designed fonts to receive a different treatment (nor
    should they
    </quote>

    So, even if your stupid bloody county attemps to not recognise font
    copyright the rest of the world does.
    rf, Feb 24, 2009
    #11
  12. hoit

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >>richard wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    >>> item which can not be copyrighted?
    >>> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    >>> life there can be no license.

    >>
    >>You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works. Fonts
    >>can
    >>be and are subject to copyright.
    >>

    >
    > So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    > copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    > copyrightable.
    >
    > You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent it.
    > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    >
    > Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......
    >
    > Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
    > mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    > coloring....
    > ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    > A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.


    You *cannot* legally redistribute fonts if doing so breaches the license.

    The typeface may not be copyrightable, but the file containing the vector
    data for a font IS copyrightable. Note, I'm not talking about the software
    used to create it, but the resultant font file. This applies to scalable
    (vector) fonts but not to bitmapped fonts for some reason.

    The offshoot of this is that you can sit down and painstakingly re-create
    from scratch a font that looks exactly like my font, and do with it as you
    please, redistribute it, sell it, whatever. However, if I've trademarked
    the name of my font you can't call it the same thing. An example of this is
    Microsoft's Book Antiqua, which is a version of Palatino, a trademarked
    name.

    But, you *can't* redistribute my original font file without my permission,
    it is copyrighted. If you are granted a license to use it in some way you
    are bound to the terms of that license so long as these terms are legally
    watertight, but that's another matter.

    Note that some fonts, like Lucida, are actually covered by Design Patents,
    which protects them against the loophole outlined above. This is no longer
    a copyright issue though, but a patent one.

    Note that for the most part the above only applies to the US, in most
    countries typefaces are copyrightable, just like any other work of art.
    Also, IANAL.
    Nik Coughlin, Feb 25, 2009
    #12
  13. hoit

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:56:27 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    >>>> item which can not be copyrighted?
    >>>> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    >>>> life there can be no license.
    >>>
    >>> You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works.
    >>> Fonts can be and are subject to copyright.
    >>>

    >>
    >> So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    >> copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    >> copyrightable.

    >
    >So that you will understand better, the actual font IS copyrightable.
    >>
    >> You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent it.

    >
    >A font is not the alphabet.
    >
    >> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    >>
    >> Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......
    >>
    >> Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
    >> mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    >> coloring....
    >> ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    >> A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.

    >
    >A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A font is a
    >work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
    >
    >Search for "font copyright" and you will find all sorts of information.
    >However this is a good one:
    >
    >http://desktoppub.about.com/gi/dyna...pub&zu=http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html
    >
    ><quote>
    >There are legal foundations to why there should be font copyright-in fact,
    >cases from other fields, and the United States' obligations under
    >international conventions, demand that copyright registration be allowed for
    >type fonts. Most courts in the U.S. will not find any difficulty with these
    >arguments.
    ></quote>
    >


    Looks like you just shot yourself with your own quote.
    This says that there is currently no copyright available on fonts.


    ><quote>
    >The US Copyright Office still officially refuses to accord protection for
    >typeface designs. This is due to a misunderstanding of the field, which has
    >resulted in the United States being the only country in the western world
    >not to recognize the intellectual property in typeface designs.
    ></quote>
    >
    >Good on you the U S of A, not.
    >
    >It gets better:
    >
    ><quote>
    >The United States' obligations under the Berne Convention, now that she is a
    >signatory, is to respect the copyright on fonts, if such copyright exists in
    >the countries they were designed in. Fonts designed outside the United
    >States become subject to protection as artistic works. There is little
    >reason for domestically designed fonts to receive a different treatment (nor
    >should they
    ></quote>
    >
    >So, even if your stupid bloody county attemps to not recognise font
    >copyright the rest of the world does.
    >


    Mr. Matlock sir, fonts are not "art". They are
    "mere variations" of commonly used items, i.e., the alphabet.
    richard, Feb 25, 2009
    #13
  14. On 2009-02-25, richard wrote:
    > Mr. Matlock sir, fonts are not "art". They are
    > "mere variations" of commonly used items, i.e., the alphabet.


    As books are "mere variations" of the alphabet.

    If you read what was posted, you would have realized that the USA
    is (or has been) alone in not allowing the copyrighting of fonts;
    it is prevalent almost everywhere else.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Feb 25, 2009
    #14
  15. hoit

    dorayme Guest

    In article <iz_ol.23255$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > richard wrote:
    > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > > Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    > > item which can not be copyrighted?
    > > Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    > > life there can be no license.

    >
    > You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works. Fonts can
    > be and are subject to copyright.


    Richard is talking about ... letters and things that have been around a
    long time. Here is the story of them:

    <http://people.aapt.net.au/~miltonreid/letters/cover.html>

    On pages 9 and 10, the figures are enlargable by link and the popular
    and much loved pop up menu. They are of great beauty and are not subject
    to ordinary copyright.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 25, 2009
    #15
  16. hoit

    rf Guest

    richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:56:27 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> richard wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> richard wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on
    >>>>> an item which can not be copyrighted?
    >>>>> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every
    >>>>> day life there can be no license.
    >>>>
    >>>> You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works.
    >>>> Fonts can be and are subject to copyright.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    >>> copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    >>> copyrightable.

    >>
    >> So that you will understand better, the actual font IS copyrightable.
    >>>
    >>> You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> A font is not the alphabet.
    >>
    >>> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    >>>
    >>> Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......
    >>>
    >>> Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or
    >>> designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    >>> coloring....
    >>> ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    >>> A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.

    >>
    >> A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A
    >> font is a work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
    >>
    >> Search for "font copyright" and you will find all sorts of
    >> information. However this is a good one:
    >>
    >> http://desktoppub.about.com/gi/dyna...pub&zu=http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html
    >>
    >> <quote>
    >> There are legal foundations to why there should be font copyright-in
    >> fact, cases from other fields, and the United States' obligations
    >> under international conventions, demand that copyright registration
    >> be allowed for type fonts. Most courts in the U.S. will not find any
    >> difficulty with these arguments.
    >> </quote>
    >>

    >
    > Looks like you just shot yourself with your own quote.
    > This says that there is currently no copyright available on fonts.


    Did you not read any of the links you found when you googled for "font
    copyright"? Did you not even read this post?

    Here it is again:

    >> <quote>
    >> the United States being the only
    >> country in the western world not to recognize the intellectual
    >> property in typeface designs.

    </quote>

    The other 97% of the world DOES recognise the intellectual property in
    typeface designs.

    > Mr. Matlock sir, fonts are not "art". They are
    > "mere variations" of commonly used items, i.e., the alphabet.


    Fonts are "works of art".

    Why do you think Windows does not have an helvetica font (although Ariel
    looks amost the same). Windows does not have an helvetica font because
    somebody else holds the copyright on that font.

    Who is Mr Matlock?
    rf, Feb 25, 2009
    #16
  17. hoit

    asdf Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:LO%ol.23282$...
    > richard wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:17 -0000, "+mrcakey"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Oh please. Will you stop belly aching about a frickin license on an
    >>>> item which can not be copyrighted?
    >>>> Unless the "font" does not use standard characters used in every day
    >>>> life there can be no license.
    >>>
    >>> You obviously have absolutely zero idea about how copyright works.
    >>> Fonts can be and are subject to copyright.
    >>>

    >>
    >> So that you will understand better. The actual font is NOT
    >> copyrightable. It is the software that is used to create it that is
    >> copyrightable.

    >
    > So that you will understand better, the actual font IS copyrightable.
    >>
    >> You can not copyright the alphabet regardless of how you represent it.

    >
    > A font is not the alphabet.
    >
    >> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    >>
    >> Excerpt from "What is NOT copyrightable".......
    >>
    >> Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
    >> mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
    >> coloring....
    >> ding ding ding hello. What then is a font?
    >> A font is a variation of typographc ornamentation.

    >
    > A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A font is a
    > work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
    >


    Oh goody... can we start arguing about what constitutes art now? :)

    For me a font (no matter how fancy) is NOT art, in the same way that a piece
    of stationery is NOT art. Let's be frank- a computer font is just portable
    and configurable stationery.

    I do lots and lots of graphic design jobs - including fonts, but not for one
    second would I describe them as art. Jobs like this are not *intended* to be
    art. If I wanted to create art, I would produce one, eloquent image that
    communicates on it's own terms, not something that can (nay NEEDS to) be
    broken up, reordered and resized before it has any intrinsic or extrinsic
    communicative value. One might as well try to 'copyright' the bricks that
    make up your house.

    As far as I am concerned the client, once they've paid for a graphic design
    job can do what they damn well like with it- color it in with crayon, screw
    it up, roll it flat again, fold it seven times and make paper soldiers out
    of it. I wouldn't care. I got paid for the job- they own it, not me.

    If I had created a piece of *art* however, I would would prefer that it be
    placed in a prominent, publically accessible position for all the world to
    see, and that I be paid a suitable sum for its conception and creation, but
    I certainly wouldn't be expecting to collect a royalty for every photograph
    that was taken of it.

    IMO the idea of collecting royalties for a font is simply ridiculous. If you
    want to collect royalties, create an image or other artwork that actually
    communicates something worth perceiving. ...and that's my OPINION. No
    correspondence etc.

    A better argument is that a font *might* be somebody's *intellectual (cough)
    property*, in the same way that works of art tend to be (usually) somebody's
    intellectual property. Though if I were building a house using copyright
    bricks, I would probably just live in a tent instead. Arguing that fonts are
    art is nonsense, since art is 'in the eye of the beholder'.

    [snip]
    asdf, Feb 25, 2009
    #17
  18. hoit

    rf Guest

    asdf wrote:
    > "rf" <> wrote in message
    > news:LO%ol.23282$...
    >> richard wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    >> A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A
    >> font is a work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
    >>

    >
    > Oh goody... can we start arguing about what constitutes art now? :)
    >
    > For me a font (no matter how fancy) is NOT art, in the same way that
    > a piece of stationery is NOT art. Let's be frank- a computer font is
    > just portable and configurable stationery.


    "Work of art" is what the copyright law states. It is not my idea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_art

    Whether you think it is "art" or not is immaterial.
    rf, Feb 25, 2009
    #18
  19. hoit

    asdf Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:zM2pl.23324$...
    > asdf wrote:
    >> "rf" <> wrote in message
    >> news:LO%ol.23282$...
    >>> richard wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:42 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >>> A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A
    >>> font is a work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Oh goody... can we start arguing about what constitutes art now? :)
    >>
    >> For me a font (no matter how fancy) is NOT art, in the same way that
    >> a piece of stationery is NOT art. Let's be frank- a computer font is
    >> just portable and configurable stationery.

    >
    > "Work of art" is what the copyright law states. It is not my idea.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_art
    >
    > Whether you think it is "art" or not is immaterial.
    >


    From that article to which you refer:
    "A work of art (or artwork or work) is a creation, such as an art object,
    design, architectural piece, musical work, literary composition,
    performance, film, conceptual art piece, or even computer program that is
    made and or valued primarily for an "artistic" rather than practical
    function."

    A font's primary purpose for those that use it is functional, therefore by
    those terms (not mine) is NOT art.
    asdf, Feb 25, 2009
    #19
  20. hoit

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <49a4c70a$0$19155$>,
    "asdf" <> wrote:

    > "rf"
    > > asdf
    > >> "rf"
    > >>> richard


    Gentlemen, gentlemen!

    <http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 25, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andreas N

    Regexp to enclose text with P-tag

    Andreas N, May 18, 2004, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    Jürgen Exner
    May 18, 2004
  2. Cram TeXeD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    Cram TeXeD
    Apr 6, 2004
  3. Dead RAM
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,088
    John Harrison
    Jul 14, 2004
  4. SubZane

    Regexp to enclose text with P-tag

    SubZane, May 18, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    276
    Heiko Wundram
    May 18, 2004
  5. mttc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,364
    Roedy Green
    Jul 3, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page