[JustSomeNobody]

Yeah, the author needs to either remove that or clarify that point. That being said, I think the author means that all of these new type faces are very similar and so they may be infringing. Or that the companies want a familiar type face but don't want to pay for it, so they commission a look-a-like. But, that's just a very large grasp on my part from reading the article.

[amyjess]

It may be different in other countries, but in the US font design cannot be copyrighted. The TTF/OTF files can, and so can the hinting algorithms, but the actual design of the font is legally guaranteed to be copyrightable by anyone.

Why? Because a long time ago, the US government was worried that somebody would exploit a loophole and try to copyright the alphabet. So they set up protections to absolutely make sure nobody can do this.

Interestingly, this means that text-only logos like the Coca-Cola logo can't be copyrighted; they're only protected by trademark.

[Vanderson]

He may be bringing up the issue that it's perfectly legal to copy another font visually as long as you don't copy the font's data. (maybe something the author doesn't understand?)

[gowld]

How is that true? Can I copy a book or a painting visually as long as I don't copy its "data"?

[true_religion]

No, but typefaces are specifically excluded from copyright. An alphabet is considered to be utilitarian, not art.

[Vanderson]

Fonts and typefaces have unique copyright laws that are different from other forms of art/communication. I made a more detailed comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18541934

[bryanrasmussen]

perhaps it's just me but I always take illegal to mean criminally liable, if they meant civil liabilities I guess maybe eh, but it still needs some clarification.