Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On 06/07/2012 12:32 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
So, a company would be taking a small risk by grabbing it.  If they grab enough then statistics 
work in their favour.  I'm not a copyright legal expert but i wonder if applying a copyleft 
agreement would create enough uncertainty as to prevent the rights being subverted by some profit 
hungry company?  
Regards from
Tom :)
The owner of the copyright can sue for infringement so if a company or
anyone else tried to squat on the copyright. To do anything legally with
any work you need permission from the copyright owner. The permission
should by in writing either via a publicly posted Creative Commons type
license from the owner or a contract granting permission by the owner to
the user. If one claims an invalid ownership of the copyright I am not
sure of all the legal consequences other than I do not want to find out.
This is why many FOSS projects ask the creators to release their work
under the appropriate software license or Creative Commons license to
avoid these problems later and to clearly establish the end user rights
upfront. IMHO a common misconception is that Creative Commons
invalidates the copyright when it actually grants specific, blanket
usage rights to any user while reserving all other rights to the owner.

The problem with abandonware is that the copyright is possibly owned by
defunct company. depending on the origin of the work and any relevant
contracts; the copyright may have reverted to someone else (most likely
the original creator) or is still owned by the defunct company. The
problem is finding these records to determine who owns the copyright.
Even if one is diligent one could easily miss the relevant records and
then be sued by the actual owner of the abandonware copyright. Also,
abandonware is often covered by the traditional "all rights reserved"
copyright notice and not a Creative Commons type license. If the
copyright is actually still owned by the defunct company you have the
problem of who has legal authority to grant you permission.

I keep up with copyright issues because I know several professional
photographers and am advanced amateur photographer. Having a working
knowledge of the copyright law is important for me both to protect my
interests and avoid infringement.


--- On Thu, 7/6/12, Andy Theuninck <gohanman@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Andy Theuninck <gohanman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Font Problems on OS X
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Thursday, 7 June, 2012, 16:48

I'm certainly not a lawyer or anything, but I don't think abandonware
automatically enters public domain. The copyright remains valid even
if the company holding it has no assets. That's pretty well
established with software. I doubt it would be different with fonts.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi :)
Quick!  Re-licence the legacy fonts under Creative Coomons copyleft to prevent some other 
company being far less honest than you are being.  I take it a company could easily and safely 
copyright those fonts and then charge people for using them?  Some companies put quite a lot of 
effort into profiting off other people's work in this way.
Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Thu, 7/6/12, Andy Theuninck <gohanman@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Andy Theuninck <gohanman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Font Problems on OS X
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Thursday, 7 June, 2012, 15:19

Is there any advantage to using Type-1 fonts over the other two formats,
with OSX?

It there a way to replace the "problem" Type-1 fonts with TTF or OTF, or use
a 99.9% similar font as a replacement font?
There's no advantage. The main catch is the company I licensed the
fonts from no longer exist, and my license agreement doesn't permit
converting them. Obviously the odds of getting sued are pretty much
zero, but in principle I try to abide by agreements.

I can use NeoOffice for anything that needs that font; it's just kind
of a pain since LO is a better program otherwise.

--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



-- 
Jay Lozier
jslozier@gmail.com


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.