NBC Sued For Over $2 Million... For Infringing On A Font
from the yes,-a-font dept
NBC Universal is one of the more hard core supporters of stronger copyright law, with regular statements from execs that border on ridiculous -- such as the time its General Counsel, Rick Cotton, tried to convince the world that file sharing was harming corn farmers, because people ate less popcorn while watching pirated movies (seriously...). However, apparently even the "copyright maximalist" lawyers and lobbyists over at NBC Unversal slip up once in a while. The company is being sued for over $2 million for infringing on a font (yes, a font). Of course, I think it's ridiculous that any font company thinks it's owed $2 million for such things (yes, font developers, I know you have strong feelings on this, but we've discussed them in the past). For all I care, NBC Universal should be able to do whatever it wants with the fonts it has. But, for a company that seems to tilt so far towards the copyright maximalist position, it seems worth noting when it faces a lawsuit for violating copyrights.Now, in an ideal world, it would be a teachable moment, where those lobbyists and lawyers might finally realize that in a modern digital world, perhaps copyright maximalism doesn't make much sense (as if it ever did)... but that seems unlikely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, font
Companies: nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Law and Order?
...These are their stories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Order?
News at 11, imagination getting sued for copyright infringement and/or possible trademark disputes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Awesome..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$1400.
For one font on one computer. Still a lovely font.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Law and Order?
Who the shit is DM? My name is Dark HELMET, so it's abbreviated as DH (which blows, because I HATE the American League).
Perhaps you were addressing my mother, Dark Mammaries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Just One Font
Not exactly. A single font from the Antenna family is only ~$40/workstation
The entire family with 56 weights is $1050 from MyFonts
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/fontbureau/antenna/
A license for 5 users is $2100 for all 56 fonts in the family.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How in the frick does the government granting a monopoly on an expressed letter of the alphabet make any fricken sense?! It makes no sense.
An A is merely a letter and should not be monopolized by anyone. If you want to spend your time making an A look pretty, that's fine. But I don't see why the government should grant you a monopoly for your time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Just One Font
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
Anger/outrage is my standard fallback option...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Order?
..."SCHUUUUUNGGGGG"
(I'm sucker for iconic sound effects...)
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is more of a licensing dispute/piracy issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
DM
Dark Mantle
Dark Matter
Dark Man
Dark Monster
Dark Mommy
Dark Mammer-Jammer
Dark Mofo
Dark Mother
Dark Maniac
Dark Marketing
Dark ?
Yeah, Dark Mammaries is funniest. I see your Swartz is bigger than mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
Did she get those from not cleaning them off after anal sex?
Don't even ask me how it's possible. I don't make the rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://cityfile.com/dailyfile/7508
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Law and Order?
Well, I'm going to say you got it wrong, my friend. I'm going to say it would more accurately be represented as:
"Dung Dung!"
Which, ironically, is what most of the parties involved appear to be full of anyway....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is a font software?
Fonts are software? Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds A bit like
The California way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fonts Aren't Free
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
...please tell me that includes the physical personage of one Jay Leno. I think America has made it clear that we've had enough of that jackass...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
I was mistaking it for another show's sound.
Inside Edition?
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copyright law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
Gossip Girl?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: copyright law
Indeed. No one denies that. We just think it's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Law and Order?
Well, I'm going to say you got it wrong, my friend. I'm going to say it would more accurately be represented as:
"Dung Dung!"
However appropriate this might be as commentary on the issue, the proper onomatopoeia is "Doink Doink".
I have asked numerous literary professionals and they all agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ironic?
Or just stupidity that they don't already know that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awesome..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Awesome..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
Everyone knows that DM is Danger Mouse, who along with his trusty sidekick Penfold continually saves the world from the evil clutches of Baron Silas Greenback.
Cue copyright infringement as I hum the Danger Mouse theme song loud enough for my wife & son to hear it; that must be good for a few million at least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law and Order?
By they way - whiskey tango foxtrot sir.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: copyright law
Nice website by the way. I hope you have paid license fees to the designers of Cambria Bold and Georgia Serif.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is karma, pure and simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A merger with CMCS.A is going to have too many regulatory hurdles. It will be a CMCS.A and DIS all over again! If NBC is on the block, Zucker needs to look outside. After all, Roberts' shareholders will come with pitchforks- His shareholders wanted a dividend, not a buying spree.
The trap is set from so many angles. I hope he can see it and not step into it. If capital is needed, do an IPO. Why do you need CMCS.A approval? Malon knows this game, but Denny Berma is a tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fonts are Software
If you purchased one copy of Microsoft Office, would you expect to be able to install it on ALL of the computers in your office? Of course not.
Just because font software isn't typically shackled with restrictive serial numbers and other piracy prevention measures does not mean that people can copy fonts from machine to machine at will.
Quality fonts take a lot of time and effort to develop, and the people should respect that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A font isn't a letter
A FONT is not equal to a letter. When someone creates a font, he or she is, in essence, creating a work of art, to stylize a particular alphabet, numbers, and symbols. Yes, a font is copyrightable. In olden days, a font would be created by actually carving blocks of wood or casting bits of metal. Today, it's done through computer programs. So, what's your problem? If a person can hold a copyright for painting a picture or writing a computer program, then why not for a font?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irony
But perhaps this means I should sue Starbucks which recently used my Buccaneer font without properly licensing it (see story here: http://www.fontcraft.com/fontcraft/?p=1474
What I find problematic with this suit is the amount of the damages. I don't see how they can sue for much more than the cost of the unpaid licenses plus some reasonable penalty, because the prominent use of the font actually benefits the foundry by raising public awareness of the font and effectively acting like free advertising.
Dave
http://www.fontcraft.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fonts and copyright
First, I'd like to add that trademark and copyright are not the same thing.
In North America fonts are not protected by copyright (they are in the UK). The only protection they can have is the trademark registration or possibly patent and copyright protection of the software itself (the actual instructions that tell a scalable font what to do, not the glyphs or letterforms themselves), but since most font designers use existing software, that's rarely an option.
The only exception might be if the glyphs are particularly ornate or unique.
These things are not protected: Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients
or contents..."
You can find this on page 3 of the PDF download of the copyright site: copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Read Eltra Corp. v. Ringer:
opengavel.com/opinions/1978/F/004/1978-F004-06140001.html
“The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in seciton 101.”
Please also read Adobe System v. Southern Software, which did change things somewhat from the Eltra Corp. Case:
lw.bna.com/lw/19980303/9520710.htm
(you'll have to add the prefixes for the sites, this system won't allow it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]