From everything I have read about Van Krimpen, I think that he is the 20th Century type designer who would have been the most appalled by the idea of a typeface he created for one typesetting medium being converted into another medium, without him being about to control the details himself. What I mean is that, the best way to respect Van Krimpen’s legacy might actually be to not convert his typefaces into new media. Does that mean that, eventually, his typefaces will be forgotten? Probably. But that might actually have been how he would have wanted it, all things being equal.
Hrant’s message may be: “the opinions of the dead don’t matter, it is the culture of the living that matters.” In the end, you will have to decide for yourselves what you want to do. I don’t think you are likely to get a community consensus in one direction or the other. Either here, or on a German-language website.
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.
Absolutely! The collaboration of Czech and East German type designers in the 1950s and 1960s also seems to me like it is a continuation of pre-war practice. Menhart’s first typefaces were published in the early 1930s by the Bauer typefoundry in Frankfurt, who also published many of Schneidler’s typefaces (and Schneidler was Kapr’s teacher, etc.). I think it is a safe bet that Kapr was already familiar with Menhart’s work during his time as a student in Stuttgart. Perhaps Schneidler may have also shown him work designed by Preissig or other Czech designers.
+1 for Nameoffont_Nameofclient (with a space or underscore, etc.).
I’ve been told by a lawyer for a company I used to work woth that, if Nameoffont is a registered trademark, then putting anything new before Nameoffont weakens the trademark holder’s claim to that trademark, however slightly. So, a client might want Nameofclient_Nameoffont, but that was not something this lawyer could sign off on.
(Of course, I should add here that I am not a lawyer, and this post should not be misconstrued as actual advice, since I do not have an understanding of how laws surrounding trademarks in any jurisdiction are specifically applied.)