5 ms·
>but I am kind of amazed that the market for digital fonts still exists, when in theory you can produce a perfectly legal copy and not pay a thing. There is a
by quitit 3y ago
>but I am kind of amazed that the market for digital fonts still exists, when in theory you can produce a perfectly legal copy and not pay a thing.
There is a growing trend for style guides to use typefaces from no-cost or open libraries. This isn't limited to small companies either, I can think of a handful of industry heavyweights in tech, food and medicine who each have taken up this approach. This forms the first reason not to dupe fonts, because there's plenty of good ones already available for no cost.
I've found that companies that do this have an easier time of staying on brand since it's so simple to obtain the necessary fonts.
As for seeking out deliberate copies of popular fonts, there's a few reasons why an agency wouldn't want to propose this:
1. It's easier to sell in a well loved font, with a proven character from a foundry with heritage. Imagine talking to a board of suits, they're often looking for the safe option.
2. It's kind of a dick move for an agency to be ripping off the foundries, especially small modern ones. Creatives do enjoy what typographers make and can see the love put into their craft.
3. Typographers are not faceless. Modern font designers are still alive and active on socials, you might personally know who you are ripping off.
4. There's a bit of hypocrisy in hating on frankenfonts such as Arial, while deliberately seeking out dupes.
5. It's trivial to open a font in a font editor and resave it with different specs, if a creative wants to be sneaky they can just do this themselves anyway.
6. Adobe have also thrown their hat into this ring by offering a range of popular fonts available for use for no extra cost with their creative cloud subscription. It's not needed to seek out a dupe-font, when the real thing is available with a few clicks.
- codedokode 3y ago> It's kind of a dick move for an agency to be ripping off the foundries, especially small modern ones. Creatives do enjoy what typographers make and can see the love put into their craft. But foundries sometimes do the same: they take samples of, say, 18th century font, and digitize it, and claim copyright. Do you think it is fair when someone copies Helvetica or 19th century Bookman [1] ? [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookman-old-style https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookm...
- sleepybrett 3y agoType from the 18th century or earlier (pre film/digital) is imperfect. Not every 12 pt 'm' slug in that font drawer is identical, and not every imprint from the same 'm' slug in that book is identical. It is a lot of work to create digital versions of these metal/wood typefaces.
- quitit 3y agoThis segues beautifully into a longer discussion about visual acuity testing charts. It's relevant because even today many VA charts still feature the historical numbering systems which are deeply inconsistent from eye chart to eye chart. (The reason why this fault is of no concern is because in modern use, they are only stated to infer a vague acuity.)
- cschmidt 3y agoHistorical revivals are hardly the same thing. They often end up far from the original, and require a ton of work. It isn't just a matter of digitization. And they "claim copyright" on their derived work, not the original. With fonts they really just copyright the name.
- jrockway 3y agoRequiring a ton of work doesn't really matter one way or the other for copyright. Mowing the lawn is a ton of work. Doing the work doesn't let you prevent other people from mowing their lawn to the same height as yours.
- hn_acker 3y agoAdditional information on this point: "Sweat of the brow" [1] is a doctrine which grants copyright on a work due to the time and effort the author put into making it. The US Supreme Court rejected this doctrine, meaning that only the creative aspects of a work are relevant to copyright. For that reason, in the US, a phone book is not copyrightable unless the arrangement of its contents is creative [2]. The EU narrowly rejects "sweat of the brow" copyright for recreations of public domain visual art [1]. I have no idea whether the same applies to font faces, public domain non-visual art, or phone books, but I'm assuming that it doesn't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....