Etiquette on using a historic source that's already been used

Michael Wallner

I was working on a typeface based on lettering from the 1930's, but I found a foundry that had already made it. I can tell we are using different sources of the lettering, but there are only a few letters that truly stand out as different. Most of the letters would be nearly identical. Theirs' only has one weight and I was planning on multiple weights and several stylistic sets that would definitely separate the two typefaces.

So what are my options? Has that foundry now claimed the design as it's own and no one else can use it? Or since it's based on a historic source is it still open to other interpretations?

John Butler

A revival is a revival. Making one does not magically transfer ownership of the original. You are no more obliged to a previous revival than the next revival is obliged to you. Keep that in mind when estimating potential revenue.

James Puckett

They don’t own the original. Do what you want to with it. But also consider the possibility that you’re wasting your time by rehashing the same old thing.

Michael Wallner

Thanks John and James. I have thought about whether it is worth my time to continue with it and, for now, I feel that the extra features I would add to the typeface might be worth my time. I have to think about it a little more, but it's good to know the etiquette.

Dave Crossland

I was surprised to see https://www.daltonmaag.com/font-library/lubalin-recast-sans.html and https://www.daltonmaag.com/font-library/haas-recast.html the other day  

Matthew Smith

I agree with John’s comment above. I would also add, that I personally find it strange when designers/foundries don’t recognize their peers’ work. We love to tout historical reference but never contemporary influence. Most people will likely claim they do this to avoid “legal issues” but I think that is often an effort to maintain this facade of originality.

I really appreciate that Kyle Benson and Jeremy Mickel both cite each others fonts (Nudge & Owners) in their process posts because they both derive from the same reference material but each bring something unique to the table.

I know David Jonathan Ross has also made mention of contemporary influences and similar fonts in his write ups for Font of the Month club, but frankly I don’t feel like digging for an example right now 🙈

Nick Shinn

As you came upon the source independently, and had already started work on fontifying, it’s not like you copied someone else’s idea.
Polygenesis happens, just ask Newton and Leibniz.

Ignore that other foundry’s work, and not even look at it, and draw your glyphs from scratch (not scans), referring to an original printed document, not online photos/scans. 
Making a typeface from lettering, rather than “reviving” an old typeface, should provide sufficient leeway for you to exert your own unique personality upon the project. 
Spacing and contextuality are two areas where interpretation comes to the fore.

Michael Wallner

Thanks for the links Dave. I don't know why I never made the connection to this being a revival. I guess I think of a revival more as preserving a typeface to its' historic source with limited alterations, and that wasn't the initial intension with mine.

Thanks for your advice Nick. I have been looking at their version a lot trying to figure out how I can make mine different. I like the idea of ignoring what they did and making decisions based on what I see in my sources. The only problem is I don't have any original prints of the lettering, everything I am working from are images I found online. Maybe the best thing to do is put it aside and give myself time to forget what they did and hopefully figure out a way to get access to some printed sources.