Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.

When this story ran the first time, I was curious to see what font it was. The closest I found was Handel Gothic Bold. Some of the characters are right on. Most are at least somewhat stretched. Some are lower-case made bigger for caps (N and M). The R has a new tail. The E has the upper left squared off. It became apparent to me that this was probably a custom font (though I'd be willing to bet the designer started with Handel—there are simply too many similarities).

Now we know that this is a unique font owned wholly by the U of O. I hope they look into this and pursue all available legal options. There's also an interesting question of how the Smith campaign got the font. Custom fonts like that don't tend to just float around the Internet...

Don't be surprised if someone with Smith's group of followers tell us that they got the font either through some serious 'reverse engineering' or from doing some crazy photoshop techniques.

They might try. In fact, I hope they do, because it's admitting responsibility. In addition, it's easy to refute. The anti-aliasing on the Smith ad is clearly set to a finer pitch than it is on the Oregon Ducks logo, at least in Kari's example. Yet even using MS Paint, it's easy to see how they match up perfectly.

This means the campaign's source for the font had to be something other than what's out there on the web, and yet clearly, was cribbed from the U. of O.. Which means some campaign insider or consultant had access to a much higher resolution version of these fonts.

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser.

Close italic. Ug.

TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes?

(Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.)

I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)

But I certainly don't see anything that looks like parody here from the Gordon Smith campaign.

According to Senate Guru "Apparently, Republican Gordon Smith's campaign spokesperson has "suddenly" left the campaign. Why? His new spokesperson says that the "suddenly" departed one left "on his own accord to find work in the private sector." He didn't have another job lined up, it seems, but we're assured he chose to leave. Seems odd. Wonder if anything will come of this. " This may be a bigger mystery than the Font!

"TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes? "

I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"

I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)

As if. You do realize this is EXACTLY the same rationale employed by the Bush administration to deflect concerns about them having lied us into a war...right?

Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).

Winning an election does not wipe the slate clean, much as you might hope. You stole your opponent's intellectual property, tried a terribly lame angle that you were somehow parodizing Novick's page--and then quietly changed it when it was clear that was a bogus excuse.

"And TJ, using someone's visual styling and branding in a criticism of them is at least plausibly debatable as parody and is done frequently. Just ripping off someone's logo for your own with no connection or relation isn't even arguable as parody."

Visual styling and branding, perhaps. But the full CSS code, verbatim? Perhaps if Kari had constructed something to look very similar to Novick's on his own, there'd be more latitude for discussion. But the CSS matched exactly.

Also, it has to be plausibly viewed as an attempt to lampoon true information with (usually absurdly false) information. Falwell talking about fucking his mom in the Dewar's ad is a good example; the ruling was that no one could believe what was said because it was so obviously unsubstantiated. What was at NiD.com was neither false nor implausibly so--if it were true, it would be neither funny nor implausible.

Finally, the imagery needs to be widely recognizable, such that few to none would mistake it for original work. A site that ripped off LO's look for a site in New Jersey wouldn't ring any bells out there. And even though Oregon voters might well have seen Novick's web page, the idea that it was recognizable to more than a tiny minority of them strains credulity.

To sum, if I had been caught doing something pretty obviously beneath contempt, I would avoid leaving myself open to legitimate criticism by railing against other examples of what I myself had been caught doing. We're finding out just how far a lack of shame will take you in politics, however.

"According to Senate Guru..."

Mistake!

Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).

Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently. I was personally less-than-impressed with some of the shit coming out of the Novick campaign (which I'm not going to re-hash, so forget that). But had Novick had won, I was ready to see the bigger picture--electing a progressive Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

Apparently not all of us have that mindset.

Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith.

Its pretty asshole-ishly childish, IMO. You obviously have the right to BE asshole-ishly childish...but it doesn't make it right.

I was pondering along the same lines as Phil. Hammond's sudden departure is probably just a coincidence. But... it's a very interesting coincidence if that's what it is.

James X, your observations are interesting, and it's helpful to understand better what might have happened...but it doesn't really prove anything.

Copyright law and trademark law are pretty complex -- and I'm certainly nothing like a lawyer. But when you're prohibited from copying something, that extends far beyond digitally copying it; for instance, if you were to use a font that's entirely in the public domain, and software thay you'd written yourself, to reconstruct something that resembles a trademarked logo, you'd still be in the wrong.

So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?

At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future.

"Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently."

Whether warranted or not, apparently. There's no perspective on documented lies and thefts. Facts are simply facts. We know Merkley lied about Novick's position on the war, even after being told he was incorrect. We know the campaign stole intellectual property from the Novick campaign. We know his media consultant lied about a conversation with the Exec Director of PDA. These are not opinions; they are all verifiable and of course have been verified.

And...

"Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith."

How sad that you continue to see winning elections as more important than ethics or truth. Is it really worth it? You seem to think so. THAT is what's counterproductive. You're asking for a pass on misdeeds so we can get rid of a crappy Senator. That's just same old politics, which makes claims of "change" ring hollow.

And if you don't want picking on the scab, tell Jeff's media consultant not to shove the already-bloody scab in everyone's faces.

You reap what you sow, Carla.

"CSS is styling. It's not content,"

CSS creates styling, and utilizing that styling is where the infringement occurs.

"So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?

At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future."

I'm not the one who keeps avoiding issues while attacking the messenger. Ad hominem is so tired.

I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The petty grievances you've been bitching about for 9 months have LONG AGO ceased to interest me, and I tuned you out. But man, the race is done. What kind of restitution do you want and how long can we look forward to the snide, off-topic asides before you grow tired of it or feel restituted?

Okay, I'll admit that that read way harsher than I intended. Could have been the two IPAs dulled my sense of humor ... and my judgment. Sorry, TJ.

For amateurs in the IP field like most of you obviously are here

Why does an informative (and appreciated) explanation have to be prefaced with an unneccessary insult? What exactly is the point of that?

...and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that

Sorry, TJ, I guess I wasn't clear. By "all that stuff went away" I was talking about the website I built. I'm highly aware that your criticisms haven't gone away.

I'm choosing not to participate in re-arguing old arguments. You're certainly welcome to make the other choice.

We know his media consultant...

For the record (and I've said this way too many times), I am not a media consultant - Jeff Merkley's or anybody else's. The "media consultant" produces TV spots. I am an "internet strategist" or "website developer".

Big picture time folks. Let's just all calm down, everybody send Merkley's campaign ten bucks or more, and we'll kick Slick Gordy's "moderate" pea-picking ass back to Pendleton.

Actually, I appreciated Bobo's intro -- I acknowledged in my own post that I'm an amateur when it comes to IP law, it struck me as a mere statement of fact. (And the "you losers" thing, for that matter, is way too general to be offensive.)

But I'm confused by the content of the post. Bobo, you say I'm wrong, but then you respond as though I made reference to copyright law in my example. I didn't -- I explicitly referenced trademark law. It's entirely possible I was wrong about something there too, and if so I hope you'll point it out.

But I didn't make the mistake you claim I made.

Besides being insulting, Bobo is flat out wrong in at least one major statement: "In the case of fonts, one can only copyright the exact image of each letter."

That is false. Not only does copyright cover the work of art itself, it also covers what are called "derivative works". If the U of O created that font, or obtained sole right to use it, then no amount of scaling, warping, recoloring, or other derivative process employed by the Smith campaign would render the copyright invalid.

Nor does Gordon Smith have any leeway at all to claim fair use, as Kari did in the case of the Novick campaign. Smith is using the work for his own purpose, not to make political critiques of the U of O.

Bobo is correct in at least one regard: it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to actually enforce their copyrights. And certainly most Universities don't have the money to do so (though I'm not sure about football programs). But at most, all that would happen at the worst is for a letter to be written, and the Smith campaign quietly changing their materials.

Still, we can make fun of it - as we'd do with anything else, like, say, finding out some high Republican poobah has a collection of downloaded pirate music on their PC. (Which I'm sure more than a few do.)

like, say, finding out some high Republican poobah has a collection of downloaded pirate music...

Bingo.

George Bush: Music Pirate? George Bush vs. The RIAA? Bush's iPod filled with infringing goodness

(cleaning beer spittle off my monitor)

OK, time to log off BlueO for the night. Thanks Andy!

James X., I don't know what distinctions count enough to make for a different letterform, but here's what I see that makes me wonder if Peter Bray isn't right:

1) When I type Gordon Smith into the Handel Gothic text box at the link you provided, it comes out looking substantially different in all the letters with rounded interior spaces, essentially circular & not lozenge shape, with no differences in line thickness. Likewise on other letters, what would be the down strokes in calligraphy are thicker than the cross strokes which is not true in Handel Gothic. All of the variant examples on the Handel Gothic page also appear to preserve the same proportions between height and width in individual characters, which are much narrower relative to height than either of the Oregon examples.

The contrast to the Handel Gothic examples provided do make the Smith ad & the U. of O. font look more similar, though.

2) Even so, there also seem to be differences between the two Oregon fonts. Although it is a bit hard to tell because of the smaller size on the U. of O. logo, the letter O, which is perhaps particularly significant, seems to have a different outside line (more slanted as it declines, which a slight squaring at the vertical point, compared to a rounder line on the Smith ad) and a quite different interior line producing a different lozenge shape, with considerably less white area inside the Smith version, due to generally greater line thickness but more particularly greater horizontal line thickness. Similar comments apply to the D and the R and to a lesser extent the G.

It is hard to say more without seeing more letters, but if Times and Times New Roman count as different fonts, or Arial and Helvetica, I'm unsure whether or why the differences I see here would not distinguish these fonts.

Clearly they are quite similar, as the more marked contrast to Handel Gothic shows, even in terms of the smoothing out of places where curved and straight lines meet and certain sharp corners that they all share.

Can someone who knows explain what characteristics determine different fonts as opposed to variants within a font family that are "essentially the same font" as has been argued? What is it about the difference between say Arial and Helvetica that makes them different fonts, that would not apply to the differences here?

Thanks.

Fun fact about the capital O letterform in the Ducks' font: the outer perimeter is in the shape of Autzen Stadium, and the inner perimeter is in the shape of Hayward Field.

Fun fact about the capital O letterform in the Ducks' font: the outer perimeter is in the shape of Autzen Stadium, and the inner perimeter is in the shape of Hayward Field.

Stephanie, are you sure that's true for the capitol O in the font? I know it's true for the giant O in the logo (which is partially cropped in my graphic above), but is it also true for the O in the type?

I know this is getting into areas related to your employer, so feel free to opt out of the conversation.

Wow...hardcore font nerds.

"Okay ... TJ's still pissed about the primary outcome."

Not at all. I'm pissed about the behavior and character of the Merkley campaign and its associates, both then AND now. I've moved on from the result, and I'm pretty confident Steve will get another chance eventually. That doesn't change the shameful way a Democratic candidate conducted itself, and it would have been true no matter who won (although if it had been Novick, the problem of Merkley continuing his toxic approach would have been solved, and in this scenario it is not).

"TJ, "we" don't know those things."

Sure we do. Would you like the documentation?

"For the record (and I've said this way too many times), I am not a media consultant - Jeff Merkley's or anybody else's. The "media consultant" produces TV spots. I am an "internet strategist" or "website developer"."

Web is a medium. You are a media consultant.

So is clay. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to call a sculptor a "media consultant".

I can appreciate that I consult on a particular form of media, so I suppose that you're technically correct in applying that adjective to that noun - but "Media Consultant" is a term of art, especially in the world of politics. It has a particular meaning: the guy who makes TV spots.

Thanks bobo, yes it's clear, and helpful in making sense of all this.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled juvenile mudslinging!

By the way, to the powers that be...I would suggest a temporary (say 2-3 weeks) block on TJ. Not as punishment or anything like that, but to allow discussion of issues to thrive, without getting directed back to personal gripes. Also for his own health -- I doubt he'll believe that I mean that sincerely, but I do.

I second the motion to temporarily rusticate TJ. He's already ruined Loaded Orygun, and he is doing his best to repeat that "success" here.

All in favor of putting TJ in time-out? AYE

"So is clay. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to call a sculptor a "media consultant"."

Not really aware of the vast involvement of claymation in politics these days, but maybe you've got an inside view. On the other hand, web pages seem slightly more utilized.

You're obviously free to label yourself however you like. But I don't think it's inaccurate to refer to you as a media consultant.

Very true - I don't consider myself a media consultant, either. Traditionally the meaning of the phrase is someone who consults on things like tv commercials and such. The person doing the web site work is an internet strategist, internet consultant, web strategist, etc.

"By the way, to the powers that be...I would suggest a temporary (say 2-3 weeks) block on TJ. Not as punishment or anything like that, but to allow discussion of issues to thrive, without getting directed back to personal gripes. Also for his own health -- I doubt he'll believe that I mean that sincerely, but I do."

Wow, and people call ME condescending. I don't exactly see the typography discussion failing to thrive, so let's dispense with that excuse. Dismissing issues with the Merkley campaign--that many others have also elcuidated--as something "personal" rather than a public concern is similarly insulting. You just don't like someone bringing up ugly details the Merkley campaign hoped people would forget. Think about the precedent you're asking to be set--pretty spurious conditions for squelching speech.

And yeah, your concern for my health doesn't look so sincere when wrapped in your intimation that what I write is the result of derangement. I'm fine, have been. I was over Novick's loss by Friday the 23rd. But Merkley's primary campaign would be relevant no matter who he ran against, assuming he would have employed the same tactics.

(although if it had been Novick, the problem of Merkley continuing his toxic approach would have been solved, and in this scenario it is not).

Again with the irony?

I'd say that there's a fairly high degree of unanimity about the toxicity of YOUR approach both during and since the Primary. But you continue to confuse opposition to your own tactics with some sort of opposition to Novick. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"But you continue to confuse opposition to your own tactics with some sort of opposition to Novick."

Uh? Where does opposition to Novick come into play at all? It has nothing to do with how the Merkley campaign conducted itself.

"The person doing the web site work is an internet strategist, internet consultant, web strategist, etc."

You can see where those distinctions are fast becoming irrelevant though, right? When you start engineering things like text broadcasting and other wireless content, you may or may not be utilizing the internet or the web.

"TJ...If you really feel the Merkley people did any one any real harm to you or anyone else, why don't you take it to the ultimate step of your inane and insane diatribes and have a judge, in a court of law, decide if it was (whatever it is) right or wrong. Otherwise, it's time to stop your shoveling and dig somewhere else."

Harm to me? What the heck? I wasn't running. But certainly the harm was done to all of us, who were deprived of an honest and ethical Senate primary. If you know of an ethical or moral court that exists, direct me to it. With the exception of the theft of the Novick CSS, no one's ever suggested criminal wrongdoing that I know of. And even if there were any point to litigating that, it wasn't me who was stolen from.

Sheesh! Does every topic have to come to this?

Hunh. Seems like a long post on typographic copyright I posted before noon seems not to have made it through the filters. Maybe I've been preemptively rusticated.

But the fact of the matter is you can't copyright a font design. You can copyright the digital program that describes a font, and it is illegal to use software to extract the point and curve data that defines a font's outline and resell a modified version of that font. But courts ruled in the 1980s -- as digital typography was getting off the ground -- that the image of a font was not copyrightable.

In any case, if the Bellotti Bold font the UofO uses is derived from Handel (i.e. it's a modified version of a Handel font rather than a completely re-drawn font that looks like Handel) it's the one that would be violating copyright, if it were to be sold commercially. And I think the thing the designers of the Smith campaign materials would be guilty of -- if they acquired a copy of that font without permission -- would be theft of software. If they made text that looked like the Ducks' without recourse to anything but pixels on the screen, then no harm, no fowl.

From Handel to Gordon Smith font in five simple steps:

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=1054

You know, Mr. Bray, I must say, you certainly do have an appropriate name.

Chisholm was wrong on this one.

Peter, I'm confused. Can you quote back to me the sentence that I wrote that was wrong or inaccurate?

I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks, though. They're just silly. If I was just in it for the money, I'd be doing something else for a living. There are many easier ways to make a buck.

Aha. I see. You assert that it's not the same font. I assert that it is. That's a difference of opinion, not a provable fact.

But whatever.

TJ,

You are quite wrong, you have disrupted this thread and any number of others, by continually finding the most tenuous connection to your interpretation of the Senate primary and injecting it.

I don't buy your argument about it, because you don't propose any kind of possible resolution, or define any point at which the discussion could possibly stop or any reason why it might. The tenuousness of your hooks (perceived ironies due to the persons of commenters or far-fetched analogies that make the stretching of Handel by U of O / Smith look almost invisible) suggests that the only thing that would satisfy you would be for Jeff Merkley to resign his candidacy, Kari to sell all his computers and Kevin to go live in northern Greenland, to take just a few examples.

Jeff and/or his people did some things in the campaign I didn't particularly like. So did Steve and/or his people. None of them remotely approached serious unethicality that falls outside the political pale.

You have said what you have to say over and over and over again. The parts that are persuasive have persuaded people, the parts that aren't haven't, and aren't going to do so because you keep repeating them.

Just because you think you know something doesn't mean it's true ipso facto, or that others really "know" it too and just won't admit it. It is possible to honestly disagree with your opinions, which are no more than that, and that possibility frequently occurs in reality.

<hr/>

Although I've just violated what I'm about to say, I won't in the future. When TJ brings up the Senate primary in this way, we need to "leave him severely alone" and just not respond. This isn't partisan trolling, but it is trolling and baiting, and needs to be treated as such.

you absolutely can prove whether or not a particular font is the same as another.

Yes, that's true. But you haven't done that here.

In any case, this was all just some silly Friday fun -- and it's been a week now (with coverage even in the Oregonian sports section! ...not that you would have deigned to read such meaningless trifle...) -- so I'm done.

Peter, I'm confused. Can you quote back to me the sentence that I wrote that was wrong or inaccurate?

Well, you were passing along bad information about the image of a typeface being copyrightable. I don't know if that counts as "wrong" in the sense that the New York Times passing along Bush administration scams about Iraqi WMD's was "wrong", but it was a bit naive.

darrelplant: Well, you were passing along bad information about the image of a typeface being copyrightable.

Normally darrel, I refrain from responding to you. But Kari has only talked about fonts, not typefaces. While the whole thing was trifling to start with, because the source was Handel, it was a legitimate question to bring up, because people don't go copying typefaces, and all the standard programs don't use bitmaps of typefaces.

They use scalable fonts. Which are copyrightable.

I don't buy your argument about it, because you don't propose any kind of possible resolution, or define any point at which the discussion could possibly stop or any reason why it might. The tenuousness of your hooks (perceived ironies due to the persons of commenters or far-fetched analogies that make the stretching of Handel by U of O / Smith look almost invisible) suggests that the only thing that would satisfy you would be for Jeff Merkley to resign his candidacy, Kari to sell all his computers and Kevin to go live in northern Greenland, to take just a few examples.

One can't resolve things that have already happened, but amends are possible. Admissions of poor conduct and sincere correction are possible, but more importantly a change of approach is one way to "resolve" the ethical problems the Merkley campaign suffers from.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by a tenuousness of hooks. I certainly wasn't the only one, not even in this thread, to see the irony of Kari bashing Smith for the alleged theft of intellectual property, just weeks after having done so himself. (And if they were confident it wasn't, why hastily add "parody" to it, and subsequently change the look of the page anyway?) That isn't plucking something out of a comment and stretching it as far as possible to make a point about Merkley; it's responding directly to the theme and subject of the posted article. That seems awfully reasonable to me.

Jeff and/or his people did some things in the campaign I didn't particularly like. So did Steve and/or his people. None of them remotely approached serious unethicality that falls outside the political pale.

When one Democrat lies about another Democrat in a primary, that's beyond the pale to me. When one Democrat steals from another Democrat, that's beyond the pale. Let it pass, call it history and say it's just not worth it--that sounds an awful lot like the rationales to avoid impeachment hearings. But all that does is give a pass and encourage the next candidate to do the same, because they know they can get away with it.

This website was cited repeatedly by members of the journalism (cf WW) AND political class (cf 3 SoS candidates) during the primary for questionable judgement, so we're not talking about fringe concerns. (I'm not saying they were making the same attacks regarding the Merkley campaign; my point is that they'd like to see BlueO held accountable for their performance as well.)

I don't think it's baiting at all; it's not letting the attempts to divert discussion to the messenger cloud the issues.