On Wednesday 14 April 2004 10:26 pm, Doug Way wrote:
Probably true about the trademark. I wonder if that means it's okay to give them a different name, if the bitmap fonts themselves are not copyrightable?
In most countries other than the US, fonts *are* copyrightable.
To summarize, we had two (bitmap) comic StrikeFonts, called ComicPlain and ComicBold... these were removed. Then we also had the antialiased TrueType font called ComicSansMS, which is still in the image.
EToys formerly used the ComicPlain/ComicBold StrikeFonts, until they were removed. We could either add some comic-ish StrikeFonts back in for EToys, or have them use a comic-ish TrueType font. I'd guess either would be fine... a TTFont might be okay as long as the font sizes used aren't too small. (starts to get a bit fuzzy)
Sounds like we're not following their rules here.
Yeah, it looks like we're definitely violatin>
- Dougg the third bullet
point... we should probably remove ComicSansMS.
Andreas' comment about the "installable embedding" flag could be relevant here, though (if we view them as being embedded rather than distributed separately, which they're not).
Perhaps we should look at one of the free comicsans replacements that John Pfersich just mentioned. Or maybe just bring back the bitmap comic fonts with a different name (if that's legit).
I don't know. Any IP attorneys out there want to take a swing at this?