In the way of educating myself about the great and famous designs, I noticed that the Futura family includes some odd members, like Futura Black and Futura Display. What is the reason behind naming such drastically different fonts this way? Is it just because they were designed by Renner, or did he himself include them in the family? Are their proportions similar? Does this mean they are compatible and should be used alongside? Then I stumbled upon Futura Script, designed in 2004 by an entirely different person. This one is pretty obviously not based on anything near Futura. Can I use it as a fancy italic to go with the regular Futura⸮
How does it happen? Can I release a font I produce as Helvetica Ultracompressed, even if it is a relatively regular brush script face? How do I go about it? Do I need to pay someone to allow me to do that?
This is another thing I've been wondering about, how is it that a design done 90 years ago is sold today by 20 companies? I get it that the subject of the trade is the digitization, so that's fair. There's a great deal of extra work that can be done to make the outcome even more versatile, completing character sets, programming, hinting, etc. But what about the name? Am I free today to release Futura XYZ if I digitize it on my own? I noticed that some makers add a ® trademark sign to the name, so I guess they must have arranged it with some other entities to use that name? Who registered it in the first place?
Comments
I suspect that like Futura Black, Futura Script was a typeface branding decision made to try to cash in on the popularity of Futura. It is a design from the 1950s, not something completely new.
This sort of naming exercise has a long history in type marketing. Caslon Antique was originally named “Fifteenth Century,” and was re-branded in the mid-1920s to try to cash in on the popularity of Caslon. It is not a particularly related design.
Futura Black and Futura Script are at least compatible with Futura, I mean one could imagine seeing them paired with “real” Futura styles. I am not convinced that makes them part of some mega-extended family. I wonder if the Futura name was envisioned before/during the design, or only after the fact?
Futura and Futura Black are related beyond the name, but maybe more in their shared vanguard constructivist mindset than in specific letterforms or proportions. (Having said that, there are a few peculiar details that are maintained across the various members of the series, like the straight j.) Futura and Futura Black were advertised together, and used together. Neues Bauen in Berlin (1931) is a prime example. I wouldn’t say Futura Black looks out of place there, rather like a contrasting yet complementary counterpart.
Maybe it’s the “Black” name that sounds confusing today. It’s not to be understood as a weight name within a linear progression, of course (although it is indeed quite heavy). Chances are it would be named “Futura Display” today, but that name was used for another extension. From a marketing perspective, it would have been foolish not to cash in on the insane popularity of Futura in some way. By the way, it’s the only German face to be named “Black”, indicating that the name was chosen with the international market in mind.
I like the cut of your jib, Adamski.
I trust you’ve read Never Use Futura?
Long answer: you can do whatever you want, and there are several separate questions.
Note that Auriol is the trademark. A name that incorporates somebody else’s trademark can be considered infringing.
1) Would the trademark holder give you trouble, such that it would not be worth your while to do this? Suing, or threatening to sue, for example.
2) Could the trademark holder win a lawsuit against you in court, forcing you to change the name?
3) Would other people treat you differently, resulting in your fonts not being shared more, among other consequences? (For example, Google not being willing to put them in Google fonts? Although not sure if they would anyway, given that they are directly based on a commercial design with a clear provenance.)
I expect the answer to #1 is “yes.” I would imagine the answer to #2 is also “yes,” though I am not a trademark lawyer. And I also suspect the answer to #3 is “yes,” at least for some people.
So, I think it is wisest not to call them “George Auriol.”
But on the other hand I saw that even Uncial is a Monotype trademark, and for me putting a trademark to Uncial is a little bit like putting a trademark onto italic or any historical kind of typeface…
I don't have anything against trademarks or copyrights but sometimes they could be abusive.
@joeclark Regrettably, I haven't.
(Also: remember that an opponent does not have to *win* a lawsuit against you for it to be financially disastrous for you.)
Just curious, how far a new typeface’s name should be from the trademark, so it’s safe to use? Futur? Futra? Futtura?
What about those Libre fonts by Pablo Impallari, like Libre Caslon, Libre Clarendon etc? Did he buy the rights to use the name and the design?
In the past, similar names for knock-off fonts were common, even for major typesetting machine manufacturers such as Compugraphic and Alphatype. It successfully skirted around the trademark issue as far as I can tell. Some examples:
Helios ~ Helvetica
Mallard, Medalion ~ Melior
Palacio, Palladium, Patina ~ Palatino
Caledo, California ~ Caledonia
Versitile ~ Univers
One company (Star Graphics) called them Helvestar, Meliostar, Palastar, Caledonstar, and Unistar.
This kind of thing is rarely done today, if only because it would be such a blatant indication of a knock-off.
(Back then, fonts were not interchangeable between different manufacturers' equipment, so it kind of made more sense. You knew you weren't getting the real thing, and it made the original trademarked version all the more desirable. Frustrating if you didn't have the right equipment.)