Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Font Maker Sues Universal Music Over 'Pirated' The Vamps Logo (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the without-consent dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Universal Music Group is being sued by HypeForType, which accuses the record label of using "pirated" copies of its fonts for the logo of The Vamps. The font is widely used for artwork, promotion material and merchandising of the popular British band, and the font creator is looking for a minimum of $1.25 million in damages. The font maker has filed a lawsuit accusing the major label of using its "Nanami Rounded" and "Ebisu Bold" fonts without permission. According to a complaint, filed in a New York federal court, Universal failed to obtain a proper license for its use, so they are essentially using pirated fonts.

142 comments

  1. Schadenfreude much? by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "But our piracy is different! We're a big corporation, we're allowed to do this!!!"

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, since they have this one act of piracy.. we should just assume their whole business model is piracy based. We should seize their domain and prevent them from doing business in the future.. you know, just like the RIAA/MPAA wants to do to anyone else.

    2. Re:Schadenfreude much? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      came here to say this. love seeing the shoe on the other foot for a change. serves them right.

    3. Re:Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, to say more in Universal's defense, it's also not like ASCAP would have sat on four years' worth of improperly-licensed public performances at an arena before filing suit. I can understand that the font owners may just be finding out about the infringement, but if you're not monitoring your non-commercial licensees for commercial use in a manner that would bring it to your attention more timely, I'm not sure I can see how a $1.2M claim is justifiable.

    4. Re: Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reasonable, by the RIAA standard. Is what, $25,000 per instance of infringement. So that's is at least once per CD, if not once per "e", once per YouTube view and a few hundred thousand per televised screening. Plus tons of jail time.

      $1.25M is a huge bargain for them, unless there is some sort of double standard being employed.

    5. Re:Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if you go to the HypeForType website and read their licensing agreement it's pretty clear that for a commercial use in promotional materials it requires an "upgrade license".

      Anyone in the business of producing commercial materials and using fonts is well aware of this type of licensing requirement. I can't believe a designer working for a major corporation would be blind to these simple facts of print, publishing, and promotion. In fact it's the music industry that really invented all these niche licensing requirements!

    6. Re: Schadenfreude much? by amxcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Was going to say similar...

      The font maker needs to use the same rules [as the media cartels] when figuring out infringement costs. The media companies love to use a "per infringement" claim. So each instance of each letter of the font that was used should be treated as a separate infringement, plus throw in some wild guest-imates of how many people purchased items containing the font, and how many eyeballs may have seen it in promotions and media since it's first illegal use...

      If someone shares a music album online, the RIAA/MPAA don't go for just 1 instance of piracy for the whole album, they treat EACH song as it's own instance. Therefore, using this same reasoning, a font is a collection of multiple pictographs (like an album is comprised of songs), so logically it seems safe to assume that each letter in a font is treated like a song on an album would be treated. Just because the creator packaged a group of pictographs together into a single 'font' (similar to how songs are packaged into a single album) does not change anything. It also appears that more than one font typeface was pirated, so this adds even more penalties to the mix, as it is like songs from 2 albums were pirated.

      Heck, going off the logic of another recent story, I'm sure this gives the NSA reason to start spying for years to come on the entire Universal media corporation like they have been with KDC over piracy!

    7. Re: Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no legal requirement to police copyright in this matter, unlike trademarks for example.

      Piracy is piracy, shutdown universal and make all their music public domain. It's only fair.

    8. Re:Schadenfreude much? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I can understand that the font owners may just be finding out about the infringement, but if you're not monitoring your non-commercial licensees for commercial use in a manner that would bring it to your attention more timely, I'm not sure I can see how a $1.2M claim is justifiable.

      The RIAA/MPAA are willing to sue regular people into bankruptcy from sharing a single album/movie because it's the "letter of the law", so they can pay the fines prescribed by law as well.

      If HypeForType is asking anything less than the statutory maximum, I am disappointed. Universal et al can reap what they've sown.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    9. Re: Schadenfreude much? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Way worse since this must have been cleared by their lawyers and not by their designers.

    10. Re: Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anon post is clearly trying to blame shift to the designer and dodge liability for their own infringement.

    11. Re:Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      use those laws they lobbied so hard for against them.... $250,000 fine per infraction. looks like they have at least 500,000 album sales, and probably similar numbers of digital downloads and singles, so be generous and call it a million.

      that will be $250,000,000,000, please.

      go fuck yourself on the way out.

    12. Re:Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand that the font owners may just be finding out about the infringement, but if you're not monitoring your non-commercial licensees for commercial use in a manner that would bring it to your attention more timely, I'm not sure I can see how a $1.2M claim is justifiable.

      Sure, but Universal want to be able to go after people who have been infringing for four years.

      $1.2M is nothing compared to having copyright as an unstoppable weapon.
      They can probably tell him that he won't see anything close to that amount in court and settle for $100,000 or something, but it might be worth it for them to take it to court and lose just to make copyright stronger.

    13. Re: Schadenfreude much? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      The font maker needs to use the same rules [as the media cartels] when figuring out infringement costs. The media companies love to use a "per infringement" claim. So each instance of each letter of the font that was used should be treated as a separate infringement, plus throw in some wild guest-imates of how many people purchased items containing the font, and how many eyeballs may have seen it in promotions and media since it's first illegal use...

      It doesn't work like that. In Apple vs. Psystar, the judge decided that MacOS X 10.5 was one work, and MacOS X 10.6 was a second work, and ordered Psystar to pay $30,000 for copying each of the two works. (Didn't make much difference since they had no money anyway). One font = one work.

    14. Re: Schadenfreude much? by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Just because the creator packaged a group of pictographs together into a single 'font' (similar to how songs are packaged into a single album) does not change anything.

      While it would be nice to see the penalties calculated on a per character basis, I think it won't work if only because the analogy is flawed: the labels also sell the songs individually, as singles or on online platforms so they can claim damages for each individual song. But I suspect the font designer does not sell characters individually and does not intend to. So he cannot claim damages for each individual character. Too bad :-(

    15. Re: Schadenfreude much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One series = one work. You can only penalize me for one if I put the entirety of Dragon Ball Z on the internet.

    16. Re:Schadenfreude much? by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      They should do what Microsoft did when it came out that some .wav files in c:\windows and c:\windows\system32 where made with a cracked version of cubase. They just said that it was made by a contractor.

  2. Re:THE EDF DEPLOYS by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Hmm.....now I have to go research and look up who "The Vamps" are.....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Poetic justice? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Live by the DMCA...die by the DMCA

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Poetic justice? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Live by the DMCA...die by the DMCA

      What DMCA? Has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Unless you know that the font was somehow protected through encryption and they illegally decrypted it.

      This is (allegedly) a case of copyright infringement.

    2. Re:Poetic justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right - why would the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have anything to do with copyright infringement?

  4. details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They bought a license, but not a "commercial scale" license.

    1. Re:details by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      What crazy-ass font license does not allow derivative works? I can understand if it's a web font or PDFs or something where you are distributing copies of the font itself - but t-shirts, logos, and images? That's ridiculous.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What crazy-ass font license does not allow derivative works?

      A sneaky one written to try to cash in on anyone using the font itself for "commercial purposes". It's likely written in such a way that when the font itself is "the work" you need some other more expensive license.

    3. Re:details by bradley13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What crazy-ass font license does not allow derivative works?

      I do some work that uses images in publications, not so much with fonts, but I expect that the license options are similar. Depending on the supplier, there can be all sorts of options. Internal use only. Public, but print-only, no Internet (then: how big is your print run?). Internet use, for a limited time. Internet use forever.

      The most expensive license option is usually the one that covers products destined for resale. If it's not just a marketing expense, but something you intend to make a profit on, they want more money.

      tl;dr: You absolutely must know how you intend to use something, so that you buy the appropriate license.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    4. Re:details by aevan · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're telling me Universal didn't read all 400 pages of the EULA before clicking 'okay' when using the font? It was clearly explained on P231.23.7. Doesn't matter, P435.1.2 explicitly surrendered their right to contest the matter.

    5. Re:details by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought this was settled in U.S. copyright law. You can't copyright a font, only the computer instructions for making the font. Therefore, you can't restrict how text set in the font is distributed, only the usage of the font files by the designers.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re: details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i buy a movie on a DVD, I can play it in public with a kick ass speaker and projector setup, right? No? Then suck it.

    7. Re:details by green1 · · Score: 1

      Which is perfect, because if you buy something from Universal you need a different license to play it for an audience instead of just for yourself too. Sounds to me like Universal are in trouble for doing the exact same things that they criticize others for doing.

      The major studios have been caught infringing on copyright many, many, many times before, but somehow they still think that it's ok for them, but not for anyone else.

    8. Re:details by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I thought this was settled in U.S. copyright law. You can't copyright a font, only the computer instructions for making the font. Therefore, you can't restrict how text set in the font is distributed, only the usage of the font files by the designers.

      You are correct, however as "software" it's licensed, and they can pretty do as they will there. There are plenty of software packages out there with separate non-commercial and commercial use licenses.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Universal never paid for the font files they used, that would make them pirates that can be sued.

    10. Re:details by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They paid for a license but used it in the wrong way.

      Exactly like buying a CD or DVD and selling copies of it or playing it in public. You bought a licence when you bought the DVD, but not the one you needed to do what you did with it.

    11. Re:details by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Somehow? How many people at those major studios have had their lives ruined by massive lawsuits or given jail time for their actions?
      None? Seems to be a pretty good precedent for thinking it doesn't apply to them.

    12. Re: details by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't need to tell you that we are talking about fonts and not movies.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:details by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but I expect that the license options are similar.

      Fonts are not, in of themselves, copyrightable. Only computer fonts can by protected with copyright, and that's only because technically they sort-of behave like code.

      So it's not really like images, but computer code. While it is very common for computer code to have separate commercial and private licenses, I would think that this would not be common for fonts. Fonts can be freely cloned, so you would expect the market to toss out the nasty licenses. I mean, if I want a completely free license to a font I can't imagine it would cost more than a few hundred dollars on a freelance site to get a decent clone. That's why I was surprised.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:details by omnichad · · Score: 1

      On using the software.

      The designer maybe created it as a work for hire - they can't control what Universal does afterward. What Universal did with the generated image is governed by copyright law. I really think these font makers have some impossible terms in their license.

      I'm sure it was already licensed for "commercial use" but font companies decide that there's something like "bigger commercial use" that this would have fallen under. Since Universal only used the generated images, I'm not sure how they're in any violation of the software license purchased by the designer.

    15. Re: details by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't a font by copyrightable just like any form of image?

    16. Re: details by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      Ok so I looked it up and yes fonts are not copyrightable in the US which is different from how it works over here in Europe.

    17. Re:details by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      On using the software.

      The designer maybe created it as a work for hire - they can't control what Universal does afterward. What Universal did with the generated image is governed by copyright law. I really think these font makers have some impossible terms in their license.

      I'm sure it was already licensed for "commercial use" but font companies decide that there's something like "bigger commercial use" that this would have fallen under. Since Universal only used the generated images, I'm not sure how they're in any violation of the software license purchased by the designer.

      It depends on the exact nature of their relationship with the designer. Without access to the contracts we have no way to know.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    18. Re: details by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ha, yeah, I made sure I checked to see what country the case was filed in first :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re: details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He shouldn't need to tell you that it is a copyrighted work, and what specific kind it was doesn't matter.

      Yes, I know, you think you're clever by conflating typefaces with the pirated computer code which was used to create them in this case, but you're wrong.

    20. Re: details by Megane · · Score: 1

      Under US copyright law, the "strike" (image) of a font can not be copyrighted. Computer outline fonts can be copyrighted because the outlines are considered a computer program, even more so when there is hinting. Note that this copyright is on the specific outlines of a font. If you make a clone that looks the same, it will likely at least have fractionally different coordinates, and even the curves are likely to be subtly different.

      On the other hand, font names are trademarked, so you can't just use the "usual" name of a font to sell a clone of it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    21. Re:details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this was settled in U.S. copyright law. You can't copyright a font, only the computer instructions for making the font. Therefore, you can't restrict how text set in the font is distributed, only the usage of the font files by the designers.

      The ignorant shits don't know the difference between font and typeface.

    22. Re:details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this was settled in U.S. copyright law. You can't copyright a font, only the computer instructions for making the font. Therefore, you can't restrict how text set in the font is distributed, only the usage of the font files by the designers.

      In the U.S.
      Once the work is released outside of the U.S. other laws might apply.

    23. Re: details by lgw · · Score: 2

      Fonts, scents, colors, the rules to games, there's a whole list of stuff you can't copyright. The rules were probably laid down during the "British copyright don't apply in America" stage, early on, to screw over particular English vendors.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re: details by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      and what specific kind it was doesn't matter.

      If you are a lawyer, you are pretty terrible. Of course the type matters.

      conflating typefaces with the pirated computer code which was used to create them in this case,

      I'm not "conflating" anything. In the US, fonts are not subject to copyright. Only the fact that they are computer fonts with some aspects of computer code lets them have any protection at all. It is completely legal to make a clone of any font you want. This is nothing like a DVD movie, and so that comment deserves ridicule.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:details by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      This lawsuit is asking the courts to apply that case law to this situation and determine if it applies, how it applies, and necessary reparations if any.

      I haven't read the full suit, but I expect it is more complex than the Slashdot summary.

  5. Not really? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    Please don't tempt them. Ever since it was shown that Google et al have survived thanks to safe harbor provisions, that's been a target. Anything to prompt them to lobby against it more than they currently are is a bad idea, imho.

    1. Re:Not really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so everyone is clear.. don't tempt them to do what? Accept that they are dirty dirty pirates and pay the $1.25 million? I'm not saying that's a bad thing to do, but nor am I saying it is a good thing. I simply am not clear on the message that you are saying.

  6. Same rules to estimate damage? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is he claiming each letter is one count of violation? Like RIAA typically does?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      No, he is just asking for all the profits made from its use.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Not just one count. They published a load of material with these letters illegaly, and this material has been seen by many people as a result. Fans have copied and republished these fonts. All these views count as subsequent "downloads" which are the result of the label's acts of piracy. So they are on the hook not just for a single font license but for hundreds of thousands of them, perhaps millions. So it would be fair to claim damages of, say, 5 times the GDP of the UK, but of course this is then settled for an amount that just falls short of actually ruining them.

      All this is standard practice in IP violation suits, which Universal should be abundantly familiar with,

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fans have copied and republished these fonts. All these views count as subsequent "downloads" which are the result of the label's acts of piracy.

      Ummm, no. I can draw any typeface I want and sell it all I want and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Now, if somebody has created a computer font to render that typeface, and I download that and use it in a way the licence forbids, I'm on the hook with whomever created that computer font.

      However, I can hand draw it, create my own computer font, distribute, sell, fold, spindle or mutilate it all I want, and at least in the US, there is no law preventing me from doing so.

    4. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I'm merely suggesting that turnabout is fair play: let's apply the same warped logic against those who came up with it in the first place. You however are bringing *reason* into an IP violation case. Which is insane if any of the previous cases are anything to go by.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, no. I can draw any typeface I want and sell it all I want and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

      Not if what you draw becomes similar to any logotype, then trademark laws apply.
      Or if the "typeface" you drew looks like some copyrighted work.

    6. Re:Same rules to estimate damage? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Not just one count. They published a load of material with these letters illegaly, and this material has been seen by many people as a result. Fans have copied and republished these fonts. All these views count as subsequent "downloads" which are the result of the label's acts of piracy. So they are on the hook not just for a single font license but for hundreds of thousands of them, perhaps millions.

      Nonsense. One font = one work = $30,000 or proven damages, whichever is higher. For statutory damages, the number of illegal copies and the value of the work doesn't count.

  7. The Label will never pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically the label will just take the money from the artists proceeds. Done and done.

  8. Hypocrisy thy name is the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha... ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!... ha.

  9. I very much doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Universal designed the logo. Some graphic design firm did, and they may or may not have had a suitable licence, (my guess is not, but basically "prove it.")

    While I'm all for rooting for the little guy, the idea of maintaining some "chain of custody" for every typeface used in a piece of work, which may incorporate material and logos from dozens of different brands is beyond impractical. Especially when for the most part fonts "just work" for nearly all people, nearly all of the time unless they've got the no-embed bit set.

    1. Re:I very much doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work at a design firm (not affiliated with this at all) and we have a group that just deals with licensing so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

    2. Re: I very much doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. If I download movies with bit torrent, i shouldn't need to know which IP which piece came from. I should be able to burn them to disks and sell them out the back of my trunk. We are both on equally solid legal ground.

    3. Re:I very much doubt by green1 · · Score: 2

      Then maybe we should just drop the whole "intellectual property" facade and let everyone copy everything perfectly legally?
      If you think it's too onerous to follow the rules that you spent millions of dollars lobbying for, then I don't think you'll find much sympathy.

    4. Re:I very much doubt by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      RTFA

    5. Re:I very much doubt by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I do a little graphics design for indie bands and most of the time they bring me hand drawn logos or album covers. I create vector fonts for those as close to the hand drawn as I can for them because often times they will want something else later in the same font.

  10. Will be hard to prove by caseih · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since font shapes cannot be copyrighted, they will have a tough time proving that their own ttf file (which can be copyrighted) was used unlawfully. If universal claimed the font was not the font maker's font, I suppose they could demand to see the ttf file, and probably a judge would go along with it. And who's to say that universal couldn't have asked a third party to make the logo who had access to the font ttf file.

    1. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking from experience of being in this situation, UMG definitely has a third party they attempt to shift blame to. However, whoever is to blame, if the font artist can get an injunction against the album art and cover and ask for all sales to be halted until corrected that will help them find a settlement from Universal though it certainly won't be anywhere near 1.25M.

    2. Re:Will be hard to prove by sremick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since font shapes cannot be copyrighted, they will have a tough time proving that their own ttf file (which can be copyrighted) was used unlawfully. .

      I know that RTFA isn't popular on /. but come on. It says right there that the designer did pay for a license for the font, but it wasn't one that permitted commercial usage.

    3. Re:Will be hard to prove by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Their fonts are software which is licensed and protected by copyright law.

      Nothing to do with tiff files

    4. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's typefaces that aren't subject to copyright protection in the US- fonts, as "software" totally are. And that's to say nothing of how they're also subject to protection in the UK and elsewhere.

    5. Re:Will be hard to prove by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Since font shapes cannot be copyrighted, they will have a tough time proving that their own ttf file (which can be copyrighted) was used unlawfully.

      And proving it was used unlawfully will be all but impossible if it was ever sold to the public. Even if Universal doesn't have a license for the font files (ttf, otf, or whatever) they may have contracted a designer who does have such a license. And even if the designer was using the font without a license, it is the designer they could sue, not Universal, unless Universal had knowledge in which case they could be liable for contributory infringement.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lesson learned for that designer, don't use anything that isn't copyleft, because the owners are always trying to find a way to steal all your profits.

    7. Re:Will be hard to prove by green1 · · Score: 1

      Do you think Universal will let you take some of their "Intellectual property" that was licensed only for home use and play it commercially without complaint? They've certainly gone after enough people for exactly that in the past. Hard to feel sorry for them when they're on the other end of the exact same situation.

    8. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to do with tiff files

      Now there's a post where I can't distinguish whether cluelessness or desire to troll prompted it.

    9. Re:Will be hard to prove by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Since font shapes cannot be copyrighted, they will have a tough time proving that their own ttf file (which can be copyrighted) was used unlawfully.

      And proving it was used unlawfully will be all but impossible if it was ever sold to the public. Even if Universal doesn't have a license for the font files (ttf, otf, or whatever) they may have contracted a designer who does have such a license. And even if the designer was using the font without a license, it is the designer they could sue, not Universal, unless Universal had knowledge in which case they could be liable for contributory infringement.

      Proving it is easy since the designer bought a license for the font for the project. Universal distributed the work, and probably holds copyright on it as a work-for-hire, so yea, they sue Universal, then it's up to Universal to go after the 3rd party designer. If the contracts for this type of work are anything like they are for a screen play, the designer is up shit's creek here as they should have know they used the wrong license.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such bullshit, wtf to people think fonts will be used for when they pay for them?

      Do you honestly think somebody is going to pay $100 for a font license to change the default font on their computer's operating system? Gtfo.

    11. Re:Will be hard to prove by ewibble · · Score: 1

      So if I buy a DVD, I should be able to have a public screening of it right? I did pay for a license didn't I, just not the right one.

      I personally think most copyright is just ridiculous, and this was probably just using the font in a reasonable manner, and $1.25 million is insane. But when the same people doing it, sue people for more for doing less, it hard not to get joy out of it, hope they lose, learn there lesson and the laws change. The last two are not very likely though.

    12. Re:Will be hard to prove by omnichad · · Score: 2

      So let's say I use a pirate copy of Photoshop to design an image for Universal. Universal then can be sued by Adobe for stealing of Photoshop? No.

      A font file is a program. Any images that it creates are still owned by the user - typefaces are not copyrightable.

      Designing a logo that's converted to outlines is a single violation - of a software license agreement (the font program). All future uses of that logo have nothing to do with the font company and are not damages. I don't care what the terms of the EULA say. I hope that Universal wins this rather than settling.

    13. Re:Will be hard to prove by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      ttf, not tiff.

      Maybe you need a clearer font!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    14. Re:Will be hard to prove by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Such bullshit, wtf to people think fonts will be used for when they pay for them?

      Do you honestly think somebody is going to pay $100 for a font license to change the default font on their computer's operating system? Gtfo.

      Your argument is irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is the licensing agreement, the cost doesn't affect the agreement. If I convince you to pay me $1M for a desktop background picture and the license says "not for commercial use" and you use it on your companies promotional material, you better bet your ass you're going to get sued.

      Maybe a better argument would be computer software. There are countless tools out there that are "free for non-commercial use" but require you to purchase a license to use in a business setting. What do you expect to happen if the BSA comes in (assuming you are in the US) and finds those programs on your work computer?

    15. Re:Will be hard to prove by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Actually, in some cases yes, they can be sued by Adobe. It depends on the relationship they have with the designer. If the designer is working for them as a contract employee it's entirely possible for the company to go after them as the employer. Since most companies like Universal like to exploit the US laws that allow for works-for-hire to give them (as opposed to the creator) copyright ownership, the relationship with the people who create works for them can get a little tangled up.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    16. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you used cracked photoshop and gave copies to Universal in contract, they are liable to the crime of their copies. Then Universal can sue you if they have evidence you have misled them.

      If you used photoshop to copy someone else's copyrighted work as Universal's contractor, again they are liable for their use of the illegal work and they can sue you for putting them in that situation.

    17. Re:Will be hard to prove by caseih · · Score: 1

      Actually it has everything to do with the ttf files and the use thereof. Like I said, the font's actual, rendered shape cannot be copyrighted. The ttf file, being a computer program, can and is copyrighted, as you say. But can this copyright extend to the final rendering? No it can't. However the font company can still claim the use of the ttf file for this logo breached their contract with the user of the font.

      So this is at best a licensing/contract dispute, not a copyright issue. At least in a perfect world.

    18. Re:Will be hard to prove by Altrag · · Score: 1

      No, that's the point.

      The fact that the designer purchased a license pretty much derails the argument that it was done by coincidence (though I'm not sure such an argument would hold up.. but hard to say since I imagine two people independently coming up with an identical creative work of any substance is unlikely enough that its probably never been tried.)

      Then the fact that they purchased the wrong license means that the license purchase itself is not a defense. So they can't claim coincidence nor can they claim that the lawsuit is invalid. They're stuck fighting it.

      As for $1.25m being "insane".. we're talking about an organization that happily asks for multi-billion dollar judgements from 12 year olds. If anything, only asking for $1.25m is way underselling their case in the current copyright climate, especially given the history of the people they're filing against.

      But of course they've also got to face up to the fact that they (probably) can't afford an extended court battle even if they're likely to win whereas UMG can, so they probably want to just get a summary judgement or a settlement for a few hundred thousand and call it a win rather than asking for $zillions and gambling on getting awarded $20 or 30m before they go bankrupt and can't continue the suit (and thus being awarded $squat.)

    19. Re:Will be hard to prove by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If you use cracked Photoshop and only gave copies of created artwork to Universal, this is what I'm talking about - not distributing the software. A font is software, but if you're distributing pictures of letterforms created by the font they are not the software. I don't know where you're pulling your made up scenarios from.

    20. Re: Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but if they can blame a graphic artist, surely I can hire a DJ for my internet radio station and custom cd burning and blame them for any "accidental" infringement, right? Right?

    21. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally think most copyright is just ridiculous, and this was probably just using the font in a reasonable manner, and $1.25 million is insane.

      You only think it ridiculous because you don't want to pay for expensive IP, just like UMG in this case. Copyrighted items are priced based on use. A case of two people watching a movie is different from 200 people watching it. How are the content producers supposed to recoup their costs (tens to hundreds of millions) without differential pricing?

    22. Re:Will be hard to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The designer used the font. Then probably exported an SVG with UMG then used to promote the band. You want to sue someone, sue the designer.

  11. Re:Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put a sock in it. You are not a Christian.

  12. Re: Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to forgot that Jesus main message is :
    1-Do to others as you would have them do to you
    2-the new testament replace the old

  13. Unintended Consequences by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    So now, the music labels will find a loophole that allows them to use other people's IP without permission or payment.

    Then, inevitably, someone else will use this same strategy against them,

    And that whole house of cards, built on a sandbar, could come tumbling down.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Only corporations with money can use the loopholes. YOU don't matter, nor do you have enough money to exploit the loopholes.

  14. $1,250,000? Get over yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't make the monetary demand any less absurd because it is not the RIAA/MPAA filing the suit. Used without proper licensing? Yes, give reasonable damages. Not 100X more than what it would cost to hire and buy a font outright from an experienced typographer.

    1. Re:$1,250,000? Get over yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to more than just $0.99 per song infringement?

    2. Re:$1,250,000? Get over yourself by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

      Still is no different than RIAA/MPAA suing for $150,000 for each MP3 which would cost $0.99 to purchase.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    3. Re:$1,250,000? Get over yourself by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      If a punishment is not significantly worse than doing the right thing, it's pointless.

    4. Re:$1,250,000? Get over yourself by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make the monetary demand any less absurd because it is not the RIAA/MPAA filing the suit.

      It's a member of the MPAA being sued. As far as I see if you pay for a crazy law to be passed to make yourself richer you deserve to suffer under it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by mark-t · · Score: 1, Informative

    While fonts themselves can be copyrighted, the typeface itself that is rendered by a font cannot be. So it is, in fact, entirely possible to create a lookalike font to a copyrighted font without infringing on the copyright on the latter as long as the lookalike font itself was not actually copied from the the copyrighted font.

    In general (but not always), this means that the lookalike font was created from samples of text that use the original font, specifically text that only a utilizes a subset of the font, and a font designer would apply the patterns used in the characters within that sample to extrapolate the design of the remaining characters. Often, the end result can be virtually indistinguishable to almost anyone visually unless one knows exactly what to look for, and in exactly which glyphs. An excellent example of just how similar typefaces can be without infringing on copyright is to compare the typefaces Helvetica, Grotesque, and Arial.

    In the case of something like a logo, the number of character samples can be often small enough that no differences will be detectable to the human eye at all.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend is a graphic designer, and if he's doing a logo, like what The Vamps use as their title, he doesn't use a font, he does the logo from scratch in Illustrator. He may base the Illustrator drawing on an existing font, but to get the kerning, weight and spacing just right, it's easier to do it from scratch. If the designer that Universal hired was decent, that's probably what he did.

    2. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If I was Universal and I was feeling vindictive, I'd pay someone to clone every single one of the fonts on that site and then release them Creative Commons.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but they self-incriminated by previously acquiring a license to the font in question, only that license was for non-commercial use. If the logo happens to be a pixel-perfect rendering of the font as-is and not an obvious imitation done by hand in Illustrator, then they should be infringing.

    4. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I agree. This also means that the damages should be limited to the one infringing use of the font program (ttf) to create the logo. Derivatives of the output are not the same as derivatives from the code, so using that logo everywhere does not constitute a derivative work.

      Font licensing is a huge racket. Output from a non-commercial use of the font could later be monetized and it would only violate the EULA post-hoc. Tell me how any other software program can get away with licensing like that?

    5. Re: Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, fish tits!

    6. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but they self-incriminated by previously acquiring a license to the font in question, only that license was for non-commercial use. If the logo happens to be a pixel-perfect rendering of the font as-is and not an obvious imitation done by hand in Illustrator, then they should be infringing.

      Nope. Read above. Typeface (the result) is not copyrightable, but the process/code (font) is. You can make your own font that produces typeface 100% identical to what the other font produces and not infringe. If this were not the case, then every program that returns 0 on success could be found to be in violation of some idiot's copyright if he copyrighted "a program that returns 0". All those 0's are identical, but they are all created through different means.

    7. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on, that is exactly how Microsoft came up with "Arial" when they did not want to spring a few bucks to "properly license" Helvetica.
      I find very often businesses will have a design made, like logo and business cards, and the designer uses expensive proprietary fonts. Whn said business wants something new made, the job starts with finding the most similar fonts that are free (and I try to check as far as possible).

    8. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all software programs "get away with that." If I download a program under a "free for private use" license, and then 6 months later I start a business well guess what -- I can't (legally) use that software for my business unless I turn around and purchase a commercial license.

      Similar for the font case. If you use a font with a non-commercial license for a non-commercial product and then you commercialize it later.. go buy yourself a commercial license. The fact that whatever you designed with that font was done 6 months ago rather than today doesn't really matter at that point.

    9. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by omnichad · · Score: 1

      can't (legally) use that software for my business unless I turn around and purchase a commercial license.

      Right, but this is more like you create a Word document (using Home edition Office) and never open Word again. Then sell that Word document to someone else later. Without opening Word again.

      The actual artwork doesn't necessarily contain the font program (embedded ttf). If it just contains an image of the letterform or a drawing of it, you're no longer actually using the font program when you reuse the output.

    10. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then with that thought you destroyed the font industry try-out fonts. Because that way of thinking makes it irrelevant if they take your not-for-commercial use font and use it all over their branding and every day for years their graphic designers produce contents without being authorized to do so, because, you know... Typefaces the product of illegally using a copyrightable item, are not copyrightable.

      Or maybe, those generated typefaces although not copyrightable themselves, should be tagged as illegally obtained typefaces; generated with the self-incriminating act of 'stealing' the plans for rendering them.

    11. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh your example is so wrong... If Universal were found to have in possesion a program that returns 0 but that program happened to be a non-for-commercial use program (because, you know digital fonts are a type of program for the law, they are software), they would also be in legal trouble. So they ilegally used this 'software' which produced its outcome (returned 0... sorry, rendered a specific font) and although this 0, sorry this typeface, is not special, they infringed the terms of use and the damages may be similar to the number of times the program returned 0.

    12. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Sort of.. but sort of not. In the Word example, the person you're selling it to would have to have a licensed copy of Word. So you're more kind of shifting the licensing question rather than removing it (we'll exclude the fact that they can use OpenOffice or whatever and avoid the whole issue -- you could have done that as well.)

      Obviously that kind of shifting wouldn't work for fonts (companies haven't found a way to license our own eyeballs back to us yet) but I think the parallels can still be drawn even under your scenario.

    13. Re:Copyright on fonts is a tricky subject by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In the Word example, the person you're selling it to would have to have a licensed copy of Word

      Or the free Word viewer. Or you create a PDF file from Word.

  16. YEah, only 1.2m is hard to justify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Jammie Thomas got no profit and only infringed 21 titles and was found guilty for 2.2m in damages, this really is far far too small to be justified. It should be 1.2m ABOVE the total revenue from the movies.

    1. Re:YEah, only 1.2m is hard to justify by trabby · · Score: 2

      It is a font, of course it can be justified. It could also be aligned left, center or right.

  17. You need new spectacles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ttf files, not tiff. Maybe you are rendering in a font that makes this disambiguation difficult?

    1. Re:You need new spectacles by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, the statement was not factually incorrect, just completely misleading. Maybe naughtynaughty is the login of one DJT?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  18. Re:Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who read this shit (every word, all the way through in a Sheldonesque I've-started-so-I-must-finish-no-matter-how-much it-sucks way) wins an entire internet. And a billion 'Bitcoin Cash'.

  19. So avoid commercial fonts then by steveha · · Score: 2

    This seems to me like a compelling argument for never licensing a commercial font, and just using the large and growing pool of free fonts.

    Much as my personal policy for software is that if there is FOSS that can solve my problem, I try to use that even if there is something better that costs money. I don't even want to have to keep track of how many copies I have installed, how many backups I have made, etc.

    That "Vamps" logo is pretty straightforward, and I'll bet it wouldn't be that hard to find some free font that would look about as nice.

    Another good option: pay a free-lance artist (or even an art-college student) to design the logo, with a clear contract saying there will be no royalties.

    As others have noted, the music labels are in the business of charging royalties and it's stupid for one to step on a licensing landmine like this.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by xlsior · · Score: 3, Informative

      One minefield with 'free' fonts is that there are countless Fonts on 'free' websites that aren't really free, but merely have the copyright info stripped from the headers and been republished countless of times on 'free font' cd collections over the past 25 years, shrouding their true origins in many cases. The font website owner may think they are free, but that doesn't necessarily make it so...

    2. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by steveha · · Score: 2

      there are countless Fonts on 'free' websites that aren't really free, but merely have the copyright info stripped from the headers and been republished countless of times on 'free font' cd collections over the past 25 years, shrouding their true origins

      That's extremely interesting and a problem. Now it make more sense to me why someone would license a commercial font.

      It seems that someone should make a project similar to Project Gutenberg but for fonts: provide a central clearing-house of free fonts, but have staff that actually traces the origins of the fonts to establish the actual free status of the fonts.

      A company could also charge for a collection of vetted fonts that are free for all uses, but it might be hard to charge money in a cluttered field with so many free font sources (of dubious provenance, but how many font users are careful about that?), so it would likely be better to have a Project Gutenberg sort of thing that just runs on contributions.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    3. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually several similar projects, for example, fonts.google.com.

    4. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One minefield with 'free' fonts is that there are countless Fonts on 'free' websites that aren't really free, but merely have the copyright info stripped from the headers

      Not having a license/copyright notice is a clear giveaway that there is a prohibitive license in place.
      For any free font there will be a permissive license.
      Sure, someone might strip the original copyright info and add a permissive license, but if the source isn't something like fr33f0n7z.ru and everything appears legit then you are acting in good faith.
      You might still need to correct the issue if you later on is made aware that you weren't allowed to use the font, but you won't be liable for past usage.

      Just do a reasonable check to see if the font is free to use first, and don't ignore obvious signs that something is sketchy and you should be in the clear.

    5. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that follows.. they failed to get a commercial license and are now being sued for it so your solution is to.. not use the font at all? Rather than paying the $100 license fee? I can almost guarantee you that any freelance font designer will be charging more than $100 for their time. Even a college student will likely cost you more than $100.

      The only tricky part in this whole shebang is that there's a third party involved -- the designer -- and UMG wasn't paying enough attention to the licenses the designer was (inappropriately) using. Likely they just assumed the designer wasn't an idiot and kind of shot themselves in the foot for that. You're absolutely right it was stupid of them, but I think your suggestions for a solution are somewhat overkill compared to just paying the very small (for them at least) license fee.

    6. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they failed to get a commercial license and are now being sued for it so your solution is to.. not use the font at all? Rather than paying the $100 license fee?

      Since they used the proprietary font they are obligated to pay the license for it. But if they had used some freely licensed font, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble in the first place. Is that so hard to understand?

      I think [parent post] suggestions for a solution are somewhat overkill compared to just paying the very small (for them at least) license fee.

      Paying the fee and complying with the license. If using a free font, it's easy to comply with the license, but if using a commercial font they have to be careful what they do with the font, and buy different levels of license for different uses. Since freely licensed fonts only have one level (free), it's easier to stay out of trouble.

    7. Re:So avoid commercial fonts then by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Is that so hard to understand?

      Apparently, since I was replying to the part about them hiring a designer, not the part about picking a freely licensed font and you seem to have skipped right over the whole "reading my comment" bit and jumped straight to ZOMGFOSS zealotry.

      But if you want to talk about freely licensed fonts well then.. great.. sure they could have done that. But again, since this was through a third party the problem wasn't the license itself.. UMG didn't tell the designer what font to use. The designer could just as easily have paid the $100 as he could have picked a $0 one. He did neither, so claiming that he could have done something else is.. well kind of the problem -- he DIDN'T do something else. He did something stupid.

  20. Font vs. Typeface by xlsior · · Score: 1

    Iirc, while a font (the .TTF file with the instructions for the computer on how to draw the font) can be copyrighted, a typeface (the visual representation of the font) cannot... So unless they were including the TTF files as part of digital downloads, they may be in the clear?

    1. Re:Font vs. Typeface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      incorrect. If they used the output of the font they made a derived work without license to do so, which is a copyright offence. If they had taken a photograph of the font rendered by someone else for noncommercial use, they could use the photograph. That however could be a violation of the copyright of the photograph, and by default would be.

      For example, a screener is not a legit copy to sell because you didn't use their film to make it. Neither would your scenario be free of infringement. And fanfic and other noncopying "derived works" are also shut down by the bigcompanies successfully arguing that this is an infringement in their property.

      Hell, YT has had many cases of LPers being sued for using their program to make the vids, despite none of the elements necessary for copyright to be triggered, this being merely a public performance of the game, not a copy of it.

      So, yeah, well wrong there.

    2. Re:Font vs. Typeface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      incorrect. If they used the output of the font they made a derived work without license to do so, which is a copyright offence. If they had taken a photograph of the font rendered by someone else for noncommercial use, they could use the photograph. That however could be a violation of the copyright of the photograph, and by default would be.

      Everything in that paragraph is wrong. God, this place gets stupider by the day.

    3. Re:Font vs. Typeface by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      no. Typefaces are not copyrightable so they can not be derivative works. End of discussion.

    4. Re:Font vs. Typeface by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      The method used is not pertinent to copyright. information is information how it is obtained doesnt matter.

    5. Re:Font vs. Typeface by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I think the question is when it stops being a "font" and starts being a "typeface." For example if I download a font, create a .psd with it that I don't plan on selling, and then export that .psd to a .png (still using the font) and then finally send the .png to a printer in order to create a bunch of posters that I do intend to sell. By your logic, I'm clear of copyright since the .png no longer contains the font data, only the rasterized typeface.

      Obviously I'd still be considered infringing in that case -- otherwise, the whole idea of copyrighting fonts is irrelevant (at least when used in print.) And that's sort of what we have here (or maybe even less steps away since its unlikely anyone would print from a .png when they've got the source .psd available.)

    6. Re:Font vs. Typeface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The output is not copyrightable. Because the output is not another TTF file.

      The output was illegally obtained through a license violation. The license was violated. The times the license was violated was at least the times a work was created with commercial end. A single work is not its copies, is its master copy. So they made a CD design, a poster design and a website design by violating a license they agreed to.

      Time to enforce the license: one license infringement per each work created which saw commercial use.

  21. Like this...? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    https://torrentfreak.com/tvadd...

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  22. The logo is neither of those typefaces. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went and had a look at the two typefaces on HypeForType, typed in "VAMPS" and compared that to the logo. They are noticably different in several ways:
    * The logo's "V" inside the M doesnt touch the baseline
    * The crossbar on the "A" in the logo is higher than either of the contested typefaces.
    * The curve on the "P" has a similar radius, but the X/Y Aspect is different.

    So... yeah... I don't know why this lawsuit is even a thing.

  23. Re: Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do i post my address to received my btcc

  24. stupid by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    They have no case. Fonts are not copyrightable. Only font files.

  25. How About? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Instead of using people's tax dollars for courts, can't they just settle on a shared profit percentage??

  26. Re:Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!!! by lucm · · Score: 1

    it's not shit, it's coded instructions for a sleeper cell.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  27. Re: Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matthew 5:18

    "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

  28. Re: Sodom Would Have Repented ...But Not America!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never have i seen such a long shitpost...