File talk:Wingdings.png
Copyright vio
[edit]
Microsoft has several fonts that are public domain, and I think that wingdings is one of them. I don't have the time to investigate more, but go here for more on liscensing information: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/RedistributionFAQ.mspx--Esprit15d 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Did more research. They aren't public domain - they are only available through licensing through a third party vendor called Ascender, and the licensing costs. But, they do provide a PDF of the font for free (not the actual font file, just a pdf view of the character set). So, the juries still out. I would contact Ascender to find out what there terms of use are on "viewing" the font.--Esprit15d 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Computer font and typeface are two different things. The former is copyrightable, the latter is not copyrightable. The picture displays the typeface, not the font. So there are no copyright problems at all. The copyright violation would arise only if one uploads the TrueType font file as it is. — Monedula 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- But what if you're displaying so much of the typeface that the font can essentially be reconstructed almost mechanically without any creative input at all, like in this case? I'd argue that in this case you're still displaying the font. 82.139.86.121 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The license that goes with a legal copy of the font file includes the right to use it; otherwise there would be no point in having a font file. On the otherhand, a font file reverse engineered from a printout would be a copyright violation (just like an unauthorized copy of any work). —teb728 t c 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. This image is essentially a font file, as I described above. 82.139.86.190 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Except that the it would require the reverse engineering part that teb mentioned. 128.255.216.144 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. This image is essentially a font file, as I described above. 82.139.86.190 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- The license that goes with a legal copy of the font file includes the right to use it; otherwise there would be no point in having a font file. On the otherhand, a font file reverse engineered from a printout would be a copyright violation (just like an unauthorized copy of any work). —teb728 t c 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- But what if you're displaying so much of the typeface that the font can essentially be reconstructed almost mechanically without any creative input at all, like in this case? I'd argue that in this case you're still displaying the font. 82.139.86.121 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Computer font and typeface are two different things. The former is copyrightable, the latter is not copyrightable. The picture displays the typeface, not the font. So there are no copyright problems at all. The copyright violation would arise only if one uploads the TrueType font file as it is. — Monedula 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
