1. 53

  2. 7

    Seems like Monotype have just discovered the Streisand effect. I would never have heard about the Smelvetica takedown if this post hadn’t percolated onto the homepage, and I would never have thought about editing one of their fonts in FontForge had that not happened.

    1. 3

      They did make their takedown request very nicely, for what it’s worth.

      1. 3

        It still was misguided, though. I have no idea if there were actual legal grounds for this, but this was obviously a harmless prank, even if it formally contradicted the letter of the law.

        1. 4

          They have legal grounds: The new font was derived from a copyrighted font file and distributed without license or permission, and Monotype holds the copyright. They also (apparently) hold trademark to the name Helvetica, and would be within their rights under law to defend that (and in fact would risk losing the trademark if they did not defend it.)

          (The shape of the font cannot be copyrighted, interestingly. If you made another font file that had the same shapes, without just copying the numbers over, you could distribute that under a different name. I don’t recall if design patents apply in this space, though!)

          This is all besides the point of whether any or all of there intellectual property mechanisms are good for society, of course.

          1. 1

            (and in fact would risk losing the trademark if they did not defend it.)

            I remember reading somewhere that this was actually a common myth about trademark law that a holder must send formal cease-and-desist request, lest they lose the trademark. I don’t remember where exactly though :-(

            1. 1

              They don’t have to proactively seek out offenders, and they aren’t required to defend against every unauthorized usage, but courts will weigh a pattern of laxness against the trademark holder if it comes to a lawsuit.

    2. 5

      Cool idea and cool essay. Having said that, it’s nothing but Comic Sans for my lemonade stands. Sorry about that. :)

      1. 4

        thank you kindly, and that’s quite understandable

      2. 2

        Not a lawyer–why does this not fall under a fair use exemption? This seems to be clearly a parody of “the grand dame of fonts”?

        1. 3

          A parody has to be a new work (to be protected). You can’t just re-cut a song and call it a parody, you have to re-record something that sounds similar.