Since the question of two typefaces different in style, but designed to have the same metrics, has come up, I thought I might remind people of the IBM Selectric Composer, where faces designed to resemble Bembo, Times Roman, Optima, Century Schoolbook and Garamond, among others, all used exactly the same metrics.

Oh, and here's a link to a page from which you can download a book of the typestyles:

http://ibmcomposer.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=56

Richard Fink has been promoting the idea that fonts are not really subject to copyright.

While I'm personally view open to his ideas on that, my understanding of those who say copyright in the USA does apply to font data is that its based on the Adobe vs SSI case, in which the placement of bezier points was held to be a copyrightable expression, since different people will place the points differently around the same shape, when digitizing an existing design that is scanned into the computer as a bitmap and traced by hand with a bezier tool.

Following that logic, I can see how the metrics would not be subject to copyright, because anyone would copy the metrics of the original in the same way.

However, that court case is years later than the classic Bitstream/URW/ScanGraphic/etc clone fonts.

The Liberation fonts aren't a good example, because even before the buyout Ascender had a close relationship with Monotype. Is there any other fonts made in the last 5 years that are well known to have cloned metrics?

>Richard Fink has been promoting the idea that
>fonts are not really subject to copyright.

The word "promoting" is off the mark and incorrect. I have no interest in "promoting" the idea and have not done so. Discuss it on occasion? Yes. Research it? Yes. Promote it, no. I have no interest in creating bandwagons.

Dave, at ATypI Roger and Cyrus showed a number of display faces compatible with Impact. These were for Web use. Monotype itself has Albany, Thorndale and Cumberland. And you might be aware of Arimo, Tinos and Cousine. :-)

I for one would love to see an objective talk at TypeCon or ATypI that explores the history of "compatible" fonts (as distinct from straight clones) especially in an age of OpenType, class kerning and hinted widths. That talk could be followed by a more subjective panel discussion featuring say John Downer, Richard Fink and a high profile designer who has made compatible fonts.

... and two bodyguards.

hhp

Maybe, are you picturing a scene out of the Jerry Springer show? :-)

Si, you know damn well what he means ;-)

"...OK or is it not OK to copy metrics off of a font?"

Legally, morally, technically a non-issue, or less.

I think we found our third contestant!
So, counting the moderator, we'd need three bodyguards...

Seriously: Thank you David for putting forth your opinion.

--

See also: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/100369-forwarding

hhp

Oh, I just remembered:
What about that Adobe-Serif and Adobe-Sans
morphing-to-match stuff? Is that OK or not?

hhp

Hrant, that works the other way around. The purpose of it is to exactly match the original font metrics as a temporary workaround until the original font shows up again.

The glyphs themselves get expanded and compressed beyond recognition--but they are in this case less important than keeping the correct spacing and word count.

Adobe pulls off this trick by requiring that if a font is not allowed to be embedded, at least its metrics should.

Right, I do know it works like that.
Is everybody OK with it?

hhp

That was part of the original PDF technology which allowed for portable documents regardless of originating software and fonts. As Theunis said, it was purely a copyfitting process that used the then new Multiple Master technology.