Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Best Of

  • Re: Romanée – New Release?

    Has Holger asked his instructors from The Hague about this? After all, his revival was a student assignment there. I imagine that their answer could be helpful in how you all decided to come to your eventual conclusion.

    If you do release the design, I would very much hope that you pick a new name for the typeface, and not call it Romanée.

    You already know that there are individuals close to the original design (in terms of geography, history, tradition, family, not to mention who have relationships with the company that originally published the foundry-typeface) that would not welcome your use of the name.

    I personally would not dismiss their feelings on the matter, especially because they already made those clear to you. It is not worth the backlash online, and in the design press, that they could surely bring onto you, if they so desired.
  • Re: Calligraphic lettering critique

    First learn the style with a pen and paper, that will make the fakery more convincing.
  • Re: FontLab VI now shipping

    Also: we’ve been on an agile development path for FontLab VI for a long time now. We didn’t publish the Preview builds too often because there were periods when we’ve done some rewrites and refactoring. But mostly, it’s been bug fixing, which no doubt will continue, and we’ll be providing users with relatively frequent updates. Fortunately, with automatic update notifications, this is relatively easy — though people do notice it because we only have update notifications, not completely automatic updates. These days, on iOS, new versions of some apps are released every week, and even on desktop platforms, web browsers get quite frequent silent updates that you hardly ever notice. We’re working towards improving our system, so that people won’t be bothered with update notifications, while at the same time have access to the most recent code, and if they report a problem, they will get the corrected version within one or two days. 
  • Re: FontLab VI now shipping

    @Thomas Phinney : OK, I can't resist the pun:

    "FontLab VI, our ultra bold font editor"

    But what if I want to design other weights?

    ;-)

    Congratulations to everyone at FontLab on this important and exciting milestone!
  • FontLab VI now shipping

    FontLab VI is here! Unleash your type design creativity with FontLab VI, our ultra bold font editor. Design and edit glyphs more easily than ever, draw multi-color fonts, or make variable fonts. Type drawing, spacing, kerning, hinting, OpenType features and Python scripting — FontLab VI does it all, on both Mac and Windows.

    Get your free 30-day trial or buy FontLab VI at https://fontlab.com/VI

    FontLab VI is $689 (it includes both Mac and Windows versions). 

    If you bought FontLab Studio 5 between Nov 30, 2015 and Dec 6, 2017, the upgrade to VI is free, all other users of FontLab Studio 5 can upgrade for only $199, and Fontographer 4.7 & 5 users for $344.


  • Re: Special dash things: softhyphen, horizontalbar

    The soft-hyphen (U+00AD) is a control character which tells the application that this is possible hyphenation place (to supplement automatic hyphenation or supplement it), and is such it does not need a glyph at all or even be present in the font.

    Application that handle this “correctly” will use the soft-hyphen as a line breaking opportunity and if the line is broken there it will insert the glyph of hyphen (U+2010) or hyphen-minus (U+002D), so the glyph for soft-hyphen (U+00AD) will never be used.

    However there is no shortage of broken applications; some applications will not use soft-hyphen unless it has glyph in the font, and others will use its glyph when breaking the line at it. So I agree with @Kent Lew that the best approach is to double encoded it with hyphen (U+2010).
  • Re: Copy or what?

    Beyond being condensed sans serifs, there are almost no similarities between the two typefaces. 
  • Re: Font or Font Software

    Artem, 

    This is an excellent question. I've found it pitiful that most font vendors worldwide, including those from Europe or South America, have blindly drafted their EULAs purely around the limitations of U.S. copyright law. It's ridiculous that they seem to have completely abandoned the potential protection of their own domestic legal systems, and by doing so they have weakened the value of their intellectual property. 

    Why weakened? Because many countries don't have any specific exclusion of typeface protection as visual works, like the U.S. has. If a legal case emerges in some country, judges will most likely want to consult with experts in the field, and the experts will possibly look at what the consensus is in the creative community itself. 

    It looks like the typeface vendors have silently and passively accepted the "reality" that typeface designs aren't subject to copyright protection as visual works. Well, they may mention that this is only "in U.S. copyright" in some informal discussions — but this is not reflected in the legal reality they *project*. 

    And yes, that *projection* of legal values by a given community is what matters. Courts of law in the UK, France, Poland, Argentina or Thailand don't have magical knowledge of a variety of specific topics. When it comes to deciding what the manifestation of individuality, creativity and originality is in a given segment of the creative industry, courts will look at what position the authors themselves represent. 

    Typeface authors have for some reason, as a whole, abandoned ship.

    I haven't heard the phrase "typeface author" in a long time, there is very little mention of authorship.

    The EULAs practically never underline the claim (or ambition) that the digital fonts, while *also* claiming to be software programs (especially for the purpose of jurisdictions where that scheme is the only available protection scheme), also claim that they are copyrightable visual works. 

    So right now, if a judge sampled various EULAs from various foundries worldwide, that judge would most certainly be under the impression that the typeface authors themselves don't think their creations are copyrightable visual works — because they only talk about "font software". 

    "If the majority of these people doesn't want copyright protection, well, I won't be the one who'll try to change their minds," the judge would say. 

    This is pitiful for another reason: if a user accepts a EULA, the user accepts (at least to some extent) a certain legal reality that the EULA defines. If my EULA said my typeface is a work of art, then even if the general copyright (in the U.S.) does not agree, those who accepted the EULA would still be bound by such commitment.

    Just like the font EULA can prohibit you from doing various things that the general copyright permits, it could include phrases like acknowledgement that the font software is digital expression of a typeface which in itself is a visual work that is protected under copyright in many jurisdictions. 

    This would have the effect that those who agreed to the EULA might be in breach if they imitate the design, but it would also have educational effects, lobbying effects, and would actually strengthen protectio in many countries.

    But the majority of typeface authors seems not to see enough value in their rights so they would do something about it. They seem to passively acknowledge that whatever some person in the U.S. Copyright Office "ruled" some 40+ years ago (!) is true forever and valid globally. 

    I mean even when German foundries sell to German users, they use this American "font software only" template. Actually, in Germany the situation is slightly differrent because of the country's 1981 special law dedicated to typeface protection. But there are tons on protection schemes not available under U.S. law but available under EU law which European font makers seem to have been happily ignoring. The 1996 EU database directive, anyone? 

    The thing is — if type designers as authors send out such a strong signal that they themselves don't care much about the legal protection of their own work, why should others (users, courts) care? 

    So, thank you, Artem, for raising this issue. You should be using triple protection: typeface as visual work, font as database and font as software program. In case the software program scheme fails (and you're right to recognize that it's whacky), you still have the database scheme. 
  • Re: Are foundry initials an inherent part of a type family name?

    Grilli Type wanted to release GT Federal in 2016. The typeface that had this name since 2009. But also in 2009 a typeface with the name Federal was actually released.

    Like Jackson recommends, we contacted the designer of that typeface and at first he seemed okay with it. Then he changed his mind and we of course changed the name of the typeface before its release. That’s how it goes.

    We ended up naming it GT America and lived happily ever after (until 3 weeks after release, about a year ago...). But now the ACLU and other great organizations have embraced the typeface, which makes me happy about the name choice again.
  • Re: Freitag — toying around with a geometric display sans