That is artwork inspired by the letter “E”, representing the letter E plus additional elements. It’s not correct to say that it is the letter E.
Now open a word processor, choose a font, hold your Shift key and tap the E key. What you’ll see on your screen is not “inspired by” the letter E nor does it represent the letter E. It IS the letter E. Therein lies the difference.
I chose a very extreme example, but it’s still just a stylized E, used for text. My word processor also has lots of different E’s to choose from, all stylized differently.
nor does it represent the letter E. It IS the letter E.
I have E’s that have serifs. The concept of letter E doesn’t say anything about that, but some fonts have them and others don’t.
Where do you draw the line? Serifs? Embossing? Floral motifs?
I designed a stylized E. Which side of the line does it belong?
Just because a category is fuzzy doesn’t make it invalid. That’s whynwe have laws to force standardized definitions of various concepts. You arguing against whatever definition I proposed would indict only that definition, and not the broader concept that there is an important line to begin with.
So, as far as I can tell, your arguments are that that a normal font is nothing more than the alphabet, therefore there’s no art in it, and therefore the creator shouldn’t have any claim to it.
My argument is that every detail is an artistic choice, and that simply making it look aesthetically pleasing or distinctive is art. If fonts weren’t art, why would people even bother with different looking fonts?
But regardless of the art question, if the creator can’t license their fonts, it would mean that they get no compensation for when some company uses their work.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
That is artwork inspired by the letter “E”, representing the letter E plus additional elements. It’s not correct to say that it is the letter E.
Now open a word processor, choose a font, hold your Shift key and tap the E key. What you’ll see on your screen is not “inspired by” the letter E nor does it represent the letter E. It IS the letter E. Therein lies the difference.
I chose a very extreme example, but it’s still just a stylized E, used for text. My word processor also has lots of different E’s to choose from, all stylized differently.
I have E’s that have serifs. The concept of letter E doesn’t say anything about that, but some fonts have them and others don’t.
Where do you draw the line? Serifs? Embossing? Floral motifs?
I designed a stylized E. Which side of the line does it belong?
Actually, you could totally have demand for that font set.
Just because a category is fuzzy doesn’t make it invalid. That’s whynwe have laws to force standardized definitions of various concepts. You arguing against whatever definition I proposed would indict only that definition, and not the broader concept that there is an important line to begin with.
So, as far as I can tell, your arguments are that that a normal font is nothing more than the alphabet, therefore there’s no art in it, and therefore the creator shouldn’t have any claim to it.
My argument is that every detail is an artistic choice, and that simply making it look aesthetically pleasing or distinctive is art. If fonts weren’t art, why would people even bother with different looking fonts?
But regardless of the art question, if the creator can’t license their fonts, it would mean that they get no compensation for when some company uses their work.
You understood my arguments correctly. But I have since had my mind changed by [email protected] so please forgive my ignorance.