Again, no money is being charged for the FC.o logo which seems to be the only thing using the font in question, but I don't think this is material. Also, the t-shirt's writing was hand drawn and so were the logos, no fonts were used (or harmed) while making them.
It seems to me that commercial distribution of the font is really the objectionable action in this case -- commercial use of an image with text rendered in said font is not illegal. This has the awkward implication that even if one illegally obtains a font one can still use it to create legal images. Fonts in and of themselves are not protected by US copyright law; despite their files being protected as computer programs. I'm not a lawyer, but my feeling is that the only precedent that would help the p22 owners would be Adobe winning a suit against a software company distributing 1k+ fonts on CDROM: http://www.typeright.org/suit_02.html This would indicate that it is not so much distribution nor commercial usage but commercial distribution (since you are distributing a font program which is subject to copyright) that is actionable. So if the owners of p22 are OK with us non-commercially distributing the font (that is, not charging for its distribution) it seems as if they can't object even if the distribution resulted in someone using the font commercially. Shades of gray, but I think its important to try to understand the law here because it can be quite counter-intuitive. Anyway, I agree with Rob that it might be better just to give them the scenario and ask if they consider it commercial, which I doubt they will -- IMHO its a stretch to argue that there is commercial usage of the font going on simply because t-shirts are being sold on the site that happens to use the font in its logo. F
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
