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.
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 mindbleach@sh.itjust.works so please forgive my ignorance.