Lawsuit Claims TNT Stole Font Used for "Falling Skies"

[Illiterati]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/falling-skies-lawsuit-tnt-font-285103

 

[Graybrew1]

You can own rights to a FONT now?
That just seems so wrong. What is next? How about accents? Can you own the rights to those too?

 

[Illiterati]

Courts have ruled that they cannot copyright fonts, but that SOFTWARE can be copyrighted.

At least that's what I took from the article.

 

[Graybrew1]

Courts have ruled that they cannot copyright fonts, but that SOFTWARE can be copyrighted.

At least that's what I took from the article.

Don't you think that is stupid?
It is just a style of writing????

 

[Gatefan1976]

Crikey Cobber, how's about you folks move further south than the Canetoads and come down to the great southern land where Wowsers get thier chains yanked to give us battlers a fair dinkum run at having a go of it??

(Copyright by me)

FFS

 

[Backstep]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/b...n-be-copyrighted-anew-justices-rule.html?_r=1

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a federal law that restored copyright protection to works that had entered the public domain. By a 6-to-2 vote, the justices rejected arguments based on the First Amendment and the Constitution’s copyright clause, saying that the public domain was not “a category of constitutional significance” and that copyright protections might be expanded even if they did not create incentives for new works to be created.

 

[OMNI]

Don't you think that is stupid?
It is just a style of writing????

NO it isnt stupid it is design/style and if you made said style you should be payed for it if you so choose.

 

[Bluce Ree]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/b...n-be-copyrighted-anew-justices-rule.html?_r=1

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a federal law that restored copyright protection to works that had entered the public domain. By a 6-to-2 vote, the justices rejected arguments based on the First Amendment and the Constitution’s copyright clause, saying that the public domain was not “a category of constitutional significance” and that copyright protections might be expanded even if they did not create incentives for new works to be created.

Isn't that awesome that the Supreme Court can decide what parts of the Constitution are nothing more than toilet paper? Just awesome! I guess Constitutional Amendments are an exercise in futility since the document itself is just an arbitrary collection of ramblings from crazy people who existed a long time ago.

 

[Backstep]

Isn't that awesome that the Supreme Court can decide what parts of the Constitution are nothing more than toilet paper? Just awesome! I guess Constitutional Amendments are an exercise in futility since the document itself is just an arbitrary collection of ramblings from crazy people who existed a long time ago.

Which begs the question, when will someone try to copyright Benjamin Franklin's inventions

 

[Illiterati]

Well, as I write under a pseudonym, I have some of the shortest copyright protection available.

Apparently, I don't count.

Meh.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Which begs the question, when will someone try to copyright Benjamin Franklin's inventions

Well, since the copyright system is flawed I might as well get on that myself before people catch on they can write their own lottery tickets. Thanks for the idea!

 

[Rac80]

Which begs the question, when will someone try to copyright Benjamin Franklin's inventions

If you read the suit and the comments by the justices you would see this only applies to a specific set of works:

The case, Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, considered a 1994 law enacted to carry out an international convention. The law applied mainly to works first published abroad from 1923 to 1989 that had earlier not been eligible for copyright protection under American law, including films by Alfred Hitchcock, books by C. S. Lewis and Virginia Woolf, symphonies by Prokofiev and Stravinsky and paintings by Picasso.
The precise number of affected works is unknown but “probably number in the millions,” Marybeth Peters, the United States register of copyrights, said in 1996.
The law was challenged by orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists who said they had relied for years on the free availability of such works.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the law had merely put “foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts.”
“Assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously,” she wrote.

it's to make our copyright laws in sync with other nations. Oy vey people...read before you type!

 

[Graybrew1]

If I was Falling Skies peeps, I would be researching through old movies and tv shows other fonts, I bet they could come up with another one similar to them both. This reminds me of the same thing with music "riffs" lawsuits. There are only so many different ways you can put notes together,they are bound to sound similar at times, likewise with fonts.

 

[Graybrew1]

NO it isnt stupid it is design/style and if you made said style you should be payed for it if you so choose.

OMNI, a FONT, is a far cry from what you create. It is simply a style of writing. There are only so many ways you can write something. This is way overboard. How about the Horror movies that all have "Scratched" words to appear as if they were written in blood? Is that a font too?

 

[Illiterati]

The interesting thing about this whole case is that the same attorney seems to be involved in most of the lawsuits that have been filed in regard to font "copyright".

Perhaps the Court (and/or the American Bar Association) should be looking into HIS motives in all of this.

 

[Backstep]

If you read the suit and the comments by the justices you would see this only applies to a specific set of works:

it's to make our copyright laws in sync with other nations. Oy vey people...read before you type!

The decision did not set a legal precedent?

“Does the clause empower Congress to enact a statute that withdraws works from the public domain, brings about higher prices and costs, and in doing so seriously restricts dissemination, particularly to those who need it for scholarly, educational, or cultural purposes — all without providing any additional incentive for the production of new material?”

 

[OMNI]

OMNI, a FONT, is a far cry from what you create. It is simply a style of writing. There are only so many ways you can write something. This is way overboard. How about the Horror movies that all have "Scratched" words to appear as if they were written in blood? Is that a font too?

as a former graffiti/text artist i find your attitude towards this INSULTING!.

and yes they are a design.

 

[Graybrew1]

as a former graffiti/text artist i find your attitude towards this INSULTING!.

and yes they are a design.

Well, I respectfully disagree.

 

[OMNI]

Well, I respectfully disagree.

i dont understand why you think that just because its styled text it doesnt apply as "DESIGN"?

is a company logo/logos in general a thing people should do for free then? since most logos include text..
if someone makes a design whatever it may be dont you think they should get paid for it if they so choose?

ill say this if i were to find one of my font/text designs used somewhere in say like a huge tv series production and i hadnt been paid for it id be damn sure to sue the F out of them if i could afford to.

 

[Graybrew1]

Because they are nuances in already existing fonts that have been around forever. Much like the music industry steals from the great composers of the past all the time.