Important question regarding ethics

[Curioustype]

Wow, henry, you're really committed to questioning almost everything about me, from my memory to the veracity of my statements. The most recent example included calling my claims "groundless" and "extremely doubious ..."

Clearly it's time to break out the analogies here since they're always the best chance to successfully explain something to a tire iron. I realize you're taking a strictly scientific approach here, one that says a person with no knowledge of a subject couldn't possibly make comparisons to it, or form opinions on it. However, scientists also routinely admit the least understood aspect of the human condition is the brain, and the memory even moreso. But I digress ...

Let's say you have some recall of going to a movie once with a friend perhaps 15-20 years ago, but can't remember its name, the theater, or anything other than it wasn't an action/thriller since those are your favorite. Then yesterday when talking to this friend's sister about seeing "The Dark Night" last week, she complains how you never take her to the movies. While trying to conjure a defense, you bring up the irony in even seeing one with her punk brother but not her fine self. Then for whatever reason she asks "was it a good one, or one of those 'guy' movies like the Batman thing?"

And despite your memory gap, you feel 100 percent secure in saying, "nah, they weren't even close." Which you base on a.) knowing it wasn't your favorite kind and b.) no general sense of having an especially good or bad experience. Here your memories are based not on visuals, pure instinct mixed with inner emotions and/or sense. I promise, it happens all the time ... except at the Traditionalist Scientists Club meetings in Tuscon every year.

Listen: first of all, I know the two are different because the original was NOT a sans because I don't tinker with those. Ever. That immediately means the original wasn't the same classification - an immediate difference. Also, I do understand the notion of "contrast," which means though I can't recollect the original, I am certain I made big changes in that area to make it more sans-appropriate. Oh look, another significant difference.

Finally, and for like the third time, I know they couldn't possibly be similar because I have vivid memories of the amount of time spent on it and the volume of alterations over several months. In a sense it's like having no recollection of how a house looked before you spent a year remodeling it but can still be sure it's completely different now because you can remember tearing up the place, the several coats of paint applied, putting in wood floors to replace the whatever crap the owners had there before, etc.

Thus, I leave you with the following: I can't remember the original at all but know for certain the current one is NOTHING LIKE IT AT ALL. Question or doubt me all you like ... now don't you have a boiling beaker somewhere that's about to start leaking over the edge?

[henrypijames]

I'm sorry, but "can’t remember (the movie's) name, the theater, or anything other than it wasn’t an action/thriller" is simply unimaginable: I would certainly be able to remember a number of other things, like that it wasn't porn (as I've never watched porn in a movie theater), the main language wasn't Arabic (never watched any Arabic movie), the visual mode wasn't 3D (I clearly remember each single 3D movie I've ever seen), and so on. If I really don't remember anything about a movie, I cannot possibly know that it wasn't an action-thriller (which coincidentally is indeed one of my favorite genres).

[Curioustype]

and one more thing, henry ... i can very easily have no recollection whatsoever of the original font, but vividly remember sitting there one night thinking to myself, man I have just brutalized this font before taking like 10 minutes trying to remember what the original was - and afterward saying to myself, "dang, I can't believe how completely different it is." I also can remember the acute feeling of surprise at how I had created a totally different font without even realizing it as I did it.

You know, it's not your suspicions or the questioning of my integrity/sincerity I find so offensive - it's the total, unmitigated haste in which you vocalized it, twice. Talk about being groundless. It's times like these when I am convinced some people just enjoy being cynical or questioning others so much, the thought of actually supporting such conduct with any real substance is a brain function of which they cannot conceive and/or no longer possess. And I'm sorry, but my brain cannot conceive of being anything but knocked out of kilter by such people. So we're both screwed.

[James Arboghast]

...now don’t you have a boiling beaker somewhere that’s about to start leaking over the edge?

Not exactly, but I'm not holding my breath for this thread, nor am I reading two thirds of the blather making up your posts.

...the current one is NOTHING LIKE IT AT ALL.

Then you shouldn't have a problem posting samples of this thing you insist is so different from the font you started modifying so long ago.

Wow, henry, you’re really committed to questioning almost everything about me, from my memory to the veracity of my statements. The most recent example included calling my claims “groundless” and “extremely doubious ...”

Clearly it’s time to break out the analogies here since they’re always the best chance to successfully explain something to a tire iron.

No, please stop posting the analogies. They only take up a lot of space and do little to enhance your position or your arguments.

Also please stop making ad hominem personal attacks on other typophilers here. Comparing Henry to "a tire iron" is insulting and an example of an ad hominem "argument against the man". Ad homimen is a logical fallacy. In other words it has no validity in the context of this discussion / debate. Please read the General Posting Guidelines and note that Typophile's users are asked to refrain from making personal attacks. Whether you realize it or not, you have made numerous ad hominem personal attacks on this thread. "Tire iron" has unpleasant conotations associated with violence and grievous bodily harm. Leave that shit out please.

I have no idea whatsoever how the original looked, except that it has no similarity to the current form

As Henry points out, this statement is another logical fallacy. Since you can't admit this basic problem with your logic I won't waste any more of my time trying to talk sense to you.

You are in denial and everybody else reading this can see that. You are also in breach of civility guidelines. Consider that an official warning.

Advise turning Typophile off and not returning here for a full week. You sound like you have some serious personal issues that need dealing with. Please get that sorted out because the state you are in is not fit for participating in polite, rational discussions here at typophile.

Your postings are quite irrational and do not make sense.

j a m e s

[Curioustype]

"You are also in breach of civility guidelines. Consider that an official warning."

Warning of what, exactly? You know, the first time I came here and engaged in various discussions for a few months, I got so tired of the snottiness and elitism here - not to mention the misplaced vanity - I didn't come back for like six months.

This thread began with a legitimate question about ethics. And let me remind you of one important fact - the vitriol here began when henry said "In any case, it appears you haven’t tried very hard to track down the original font (how many hours have you spent trying?), and I don’t think there’s any excuse for that."

In that sentence, he calls my actions inexcusable because I didn't do something HE thinks I should've done - even those of us burdened by "personal issues" can see that. If refusing to bow down to that kind of condescencion is what you'd consider "anti-social" and worthy of issuing "warnings," believe me I'd much rather be seen as someone with "personal issues" than with your soundness of mind. Not to mention as I went on to explain, he's been wrong the entire time - especially when questioning the validity of my claim that the current font is nothing like the original, because, according to him, I can't even remember the original.

It's amazing how you've concluded I'm the lightning rod here and consider it perfectly "polite" and "rational" to question someone's truthfulness and the veracity of his statements. As for the "tire iron" reference, replace that with "lowest common denominator." It's a regional statement of generalization and not a personal insult (regional meaning, used a lot where I'm from). But you're right, because you didn't know that or bother to look, I'm really the jerk here who needs to do a complete personality review. I'll get right on that.

[Curioustype]

Also, and again, my original goal was not to verify whether or not the current font is distributable, or trying to find out what it was. It was solely to stimulate others' view of this particular ethical dilemma. Which means in the end, I could've been talking about fonts and events that never happened. So why would I bother posting the original when it was irrelevant? You'll have to forgive me for a.) not understanding anything you've said, and b.) pointing a loaded gun at your head and forcing you to read one sentence of this thread. And if somehow you're a moderator or own this site and ARE forced to read this thread and really cannot see what's taken place here, then trust me I will gladly never come back to this site because it's clearly clique-based and not exactly "open."

[Curioustype]

" Intolerance is an ugly thing ... of all people involved with type, designers and typographers can least afford to be intolerant."

- James Arboghast

[henrypijames]

Actually, I haven't questioned your sincerity -- as I usually don't speculate on the intention of people I hardly know -- and I do believe you're acting in good faith -- which is somewhat self-evident by the fact that you've started this discussion. But as I stated before, whether or not you're acting in faith doesn't change the dubious nature of various statements you've made. One doesn't have to be lying in order to say something false.

That's all I'm gonna say regarding the issue of your character -- which you erroneously thought I was questioning. It's off-topic and doesn't belong in a public forum discussion anyway.

[Curioustype]

Fair enough. I think the more confounding thing about all this is I probably should have just used a hypothetical situation since in the end it never mattered where I got the original font or what I did or didn't remember about it. And when asking questions of those who responded, I wasn't attempting to defend one position (which people might have thought was mine), nor was I defending any potential actions I wanted to take in regards to the font - I was simply attempting to promote a wider variety of opinions. Sometimes the line is too indistinguishable between what should be called a "forum," and what should be called a "debate." I never intended to be antagonistic, nor did I begin the thread with a firm position I then felt a need to defend.

[dezcom]

I give up.

ChrisL

[pattyfab]

Chris, you just NOW give up on this guy? I can't believe I bothered to read this thread.

[Curioustype]

feel the love

[nithrandur]

Hello Curioustype.

It really is up to you whether you consider your transformations of the cannot-be-found typeface as inspired (because it really is) or immediately derived (because it really is). Inspired works are also derived: one derives something from a work, and transforms it, improves upon it, mutates it according to one's own deviant taste, making it one's own. Then it becomes a question of whether you consider direct contact with and transformation of the original source unethical. To many, it is, because you are directly manipulating someone's original (even if digital typefaces may be distributed, each original a perfect replica of the original), and, in a sense, you are "stealing their points and curves." On the other hand, you can also argue that you could've made your current typeface without even altering the cannot-be-found typeface, which is also probable, one way or another, perhaps a time in the uncertain future. This, however, is not the case: you have admitted to having directly manipulated the original. In a sense, what little remains of the original in your new typeface is simply the original, stretched, compressed, recurved, straightened, remolded; as long as it is not reduced to nothing: that what you have now, reduced to its essence that you claimed, is the original. That you have put effort into making a new typeface is admirable, but as the base material is not yours, and as you have had no permission to directly derive from it, then I'm afraid, in good faith, that you should not release the typeface as it is now, nor claim it as your own.

It is best to print out what you have now, and retrace them by eye in a font-creation software near your monitor. That way, the inspiration is your derived work, and you yourself put up the base material from the ground up, with all the clicking and dragging and key-pressing. And then call it inspired. :)

I hope that helps.

[Curioustype]

It helps very much and was just as appreciated for its thoughtfulness. I already had decided not to release the font in any way ... in fact I'll never even use it for my own personal work/enjoyment. As I mentioned in earlier posts and was pointed out to me by others, I kinda already knew my position on the ethics of this issue before beginning the thread. I was just interested in hearing the positions of the designers here.

Apparently (before your post) some responders missed the part where I said the identity of the original font was unimportant both to me and the spirit of my inquiry since I sought only the views on the process itself and not advice on what I should do with the font; that's why I tried to use phrases such as what I "could" have done with the finished product. Ultimately I should've just posed the question as a hypothetical, asking what would others think if I did "this," and "that," to a font before releasing it. Instead I confused everyone by including actual events and describing the obstacle of having a bad memory which in this context was irrelevant.

I also found interesting your discussion about the stealing of points and curves. Earlier I'd asked someone if they would've felt victimized if I had taken one of their fonts and created something completely different - to where he could never have even recognized it. When presented in that way, it would be hard for anyone to specifically identify exactly WHAT had been "stolen." Certainly not the concept or visuals of the font ... and when all's said and done, a font's appearance is everything a font is.

Despite that, however, there would be quite a bit of stealing - not the least of which being the original designer's time he or she spent creating the foundation of the font ... i.e., program settings, metrics settings, etc. All those things must be done at the outset, and they take valuable time. So even if the new font is 100 percent different, you've taken - without asking - the results of the time they spent doing those things. Also just as improper about this is, aside from what I just mentioned, this I'm sure would be a violation of a license or an "agreement" between you and the designer, in which you state you will not alter any part of the font file itself (meaning the .vfb).

[Curioustype]

"I can’t believe I bothered to read this thread."

Come on now, PattyFab, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. I mean really, it's not like you had any choice considering the gun being held to your head the whole time. Of course I wasn't actually there and thus never saw the gun, but it absolutely must have existed ... of that I am convinced. Because if it didn't, one might conclude you were determined to go out of your way to drag down the ones you consider responsible for your terrible decision-making.

One would then have to conclude the crappiness of your decision never dawned on you until you were completely finished reading, since from the first word you were completely free to simply stop "bothering" to read at any time. I for one refuse to believe you first could be that dim-witted, or would follow it with having the audacity to establish just how much above all this you really were. Believing you were capable of such conduct would be almost as tasteless as the conduct itself.

[Tell]

Really Christopher, it's impressive that you've gone to all this effort, but if you really want a soap box that badly, just ask. It is Christmas after all.

[nithrandur]

So even if the new font is 100 percent different, you’ve taken - without asking - the results of the time they spent doing those things.

Well-said. Perhaps it's not a matter of property of the curves and points, but rather, the pride and joy of pouring one's effort onto a delicate piece.

[pattyfab]

Tell: I think Furioustype is being paid by the word. I knew he wouldn't be able to lay off.

[aluminum]

I think this thread has gone beyond a discussion of professional ethics and now calls for some psychoanalysis.

[DrDoc]

I actually think that this thread started as an interesting discussion of legality versus ethics, and where each one comes into play here. I think that this community does represent an extremist view in terms of intellectual property protection as it relates to type, and that is very understandable.

I think an interesting question to mull over would be how something like this would be treated before we had digital type. What if you took copies of the original drawings for, say, Gill Sans, and started drawing over the curves, and then redrew them, and then redrew them, until you wound up with something more closely resembling Caslon than Gill? Is that still unethical, as we seem to have decided that the OP's actions were? I apologize; I know we've had more than our fair share of analogies here, but consider this less of an analogy and more of a standalone question.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that legality and ethics are two separate things, and that it's very easy to say "check the EULA" instead of questioning whether an EULA is too restrictive. Creating one font from another in which every single node is different may be less legal than creating a virtually identical font, using the original only as a visual aid; but which is less ethical?

I just ask that at this point we take this discussion away from the OP; that particular discussion has moved beyond rationality and relevance. We do have the makings of a rather interesting discourse on our hands, however; let us not waste it.

[Curioustype]

That would be Mr. Furioustype to you, PattyFab. Wait ... you're still here?

Everyone, please meet PattyFab. You know her - she's the one who spends her last day of a week-long vacation belittling the hotel staff and blaming them for how lousy their country is and the horrible time she had - only to return to the exact same hotel year after year after year and do the very same thing . "Hey smellman, take my bags out to the limo and go take a shower ... everytime I press my nose against your neck, the smell of Irish Spring gags me ..." as she walks off giggling to herself "tee hee, I called him 'smellman.' I'm so clever!"

For such a ridiculous thread, Ms. Fab, you seem to spend an inordinate amount both reading and commenting on it. Perhaps you should consider describing your experiences with observing ethical standards while designing your typefaces. Please, share those with us - I know I'd love to hear them. At least about the one(s) you created after 1972.

As for psychoanalysis, this entire site needs it, not just this thread.

[Curioustype]

Pardon, P-Fab, while we drooling peasants continue our pathetic, mindless drivelings:

"I think an interesting question to mull over would be how something like this would be treated before we had digital type." Now that IS an excellent question I never considered. But in a sense echoes an earlier question I pondered in regards to the "separabality" of a font's appearance and the tangible file itself. I think in the years of metal type, and certainly P-Fab could help us here, the absence of technology was a unknown burden but certainly made other things easier. With technology came the burden of figuring out how to regulate it.

I do not think changing every single node in an existing font is less ethical than legal in the big picture. I do however believe there is something distasteful in avoiding the necessity of actually clicking the mouse once for each of the two or three thousand nodes first placed in the original. There is a certain theft of labor in such an act.

With all the debates over piracy going on, it seems protecting to appearance of a typeface should be easier to police. I can't imagine how I could be considered more criminal or unethical than those who created "Futuris," or "Futility," et. al. On the surface, I feel like the "Futuris" people are more poisonous to the industry, but it's also not good to benefit from the "labor" of others even if it is just the insertion of a few thousand nodes. I suppose if someone was hell-bent on avoiding such labor, they could simply start with an open-source font perhaps though I don't know the technicalities of that.

[pattyfab]

It is an interesting topic. My apologies to the good people of Typophile for sidetracking it. I should have known better than to provoke.

I'll steer clear of Curioustype's threads in the future.

[DrDoc]

I think the core issue here is how much of type design is technical versus how much of it is artistic. If it is the former, then creating a font identical to Futura from scratch is more acceptable than creating a completely different font from the original nodes. The problem is that type design is neither 100% technical nor 100% artistic, so we're forced to say that both are unacceptable. I don't think something like this is as black-and-white as we're making it.

[Curioustype]

"I’ll steer clear of Curioustype’s threads in the future."

Thank you God. You're still The Man.

"I think the core issue here is how much of type design is technical versus how much of it is artistic."

Agreed. It also could be that black and white, but becomes "black and white and black and white" when you consider each is its own unique concept and therefore black and white in and of itself. If you really wanted to throw a screwball toward this plate, how would the typographic "authorities" respond if someone took an open-source file with no restrictions at all and then created "Futuris," which I guess would be the exact opposite of the scenario I originally presented. Unfortunately since PattyFab has left the building we'll just have to hope another "authority" manages to make their way to this thread. Darn.

Not to mention, in addition to the technical vs. visual aspect, there's the ethical vs. legal one as well. Which also makes it choice vs. mandate. I can only offer my view: if someone took a typeface I made and completely altered and then sold it, I'd probably be annoyed but not ready to spit legal nails or anything. However, if someone took an empty vfb and created a visual replica of my work, I'd threaten to have PattyFab show up at their doorstep with a summons and four or five hours to kill.