#Dup'ing font libraries
59 messages in this thread
Dan:
What's interesting to me, as someone involved in DTP only in the
high-resolution area, if Altsys' Metamorphosis will be able to go down into
an Adobe PS interpreter and bring back a font in Fontographer format, which
can then be saved as a Royal font, why will anybody replace any PostScript
font that they can simply dupe themselves? Since I don't need the low-rez
hints anyway, I don't care if they come across in good shape or not.
Even more interesting, what's to stop me from taking $800 in Altsys
software (Metamorphisis and Fontographer) and duping the entire Lino
library, converting them to Royals and then selling them with new names
(Jon's Adobe Garamond, Dan's Caslon 540, Brad's Souvenir)?
Have we missed something–maybe the whole idea of the Royals is to give
font foundries a chance to protect their font outlines which are now in
serious jeopardy. In that case, in a couple of years when everyone can do
the same with Royal fonts, will we be forced to endure another font format?
It's all going to be very interesting.
–jon
Interesting idea, Jon, that Altsys's Metamorphosis might create a
"revolution" in font availability and pricing. The way I read the law, as
soon as the product's available, we should be able to "metamorphosize" the
entire Adobe (and other) library(s) and post in our DL's here both screen
_and_ printer fonts!
Can anybody knock a hole in that?
–Thom
Take it a step further:
Once the Type 1 spec is released, Fontographer will amost certainly gain
the ability to produce hinted, encrypted Type 1 fonts. At that point, we
could create our own Type 1 library.
Yeah, but _creating_ fonts can be a huge job! I'd rather just "clone"
them.
My understanding (from Earl) of the new/old copyright law and the
courts' interpretation of it is that you _cannot_ copyright a font – only
the name of it, and the code used to describe it. Which means we can easily
use Earl's new program Metamorphosis (which creates a "clone" of a font
from another, existing, font) to copy entire libraries of type into DTP
Forum versions!
For my purposes, Type 1 isn't so important. All our output is Lino, and
QuarkXPress will on-screen render non-Type 1 fonts. And if Metamorphosis
will clone Type 1 hints, that would be the icing on the cake!
Now, maybe I'm way out in left field on this (Earl?), but if not, we
should soon have some very interesting offerings in our Font DL… <hopeful
grin>
(And what do you think _this_ will do to the price of PS fonts? _I_
suspect it will drive them way down, just as competing with shareware games
has done to the computer game software products.)
–Thom
Can this be true? My mind is doing somersaults just thinking of the
ramifications. Is nothing sacred any more?
David:
It depends on who views what as sacred. As has been noted elsewhere, sacred
is in the mind of the sanctifyer.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
(who refers back to his answer to Thom for further clarification on the
nature of sacredness)
Thom:
Copyright law _does not_ (and probably will not ever) cover the outline
shapes of a typeface. It's just too difficult to determine where the shapes
came from and whether or not they are unique.
There is some contention over whether or not the _code_ required to create
the outlines can be copyrighted. Present word on the street is that even
the code is uncopyrightable, but I understand that the lawyers are working
on a way to get this to happen.
Fortunately, Metamorphosis does not deal with the code, it only deals with
outlines. That's why you have to have an Adobe PostScript RIP before
Metamorphosis will work.
Ethically, however, the situation is much different. Our Metamorphosis
manual states that no Metamorphosis output should be sold commercially,
since that is at least an ethical violation of the original font creator's
right to a reasonable return on his hard work.
Ethically you could convert fonts with Metamorphosis for your own use, but
selling those converted fonts or posting them here would be proof that you
have no ethics save that of the jungle: "eat or be eaten."
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
(who notes that the present lawyer-induced legalism of much of the behavior
of the citizens of the USA has caused us a lot of trouble in the past and
will continue to cause us much more trouble in the future: witness our
President's excuses for invading Panama. Until Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's
famous Harvard Commencement Address sinks in, we will continue to fall
behind cultures like the Japanese, where honor is held in more esteem than
the law. Solzhenitsyn, BTW, said, "There must be more attention paid to
human obligations and less attention paid to human rights." Not stealing
someone else's hard work is a kind of "paying attention to human
obligations," while rampantly copying fonts for sale or posting is merely
"paying attention to human rights," since it is legally within anybody's
"rights" to copy font outlines with impunity.)
Earl,
If it is legal, then what makes it immoral? And would our copying those
fonts and posting them here be any less moral than your producing and
selling (for profit) a program which makes possible (and therefore,
implicity, encourages) the copying of those fonts?
I don't want to get into arguments about the "rightness" of Adobe
selling a $.75 diskette and $1.50 worth of paper and packaging for $135
while many other companies are selling software with identical packaging
and distribution costs for as little as $10 per package…I think that
obscures the issue.
But on the issue of _morality_ and _human_obligation_, while I
understand that you could argue that copying fonts is "stealing" if you're
copying the code, how would it be "stealing" if the companys know and
understand that it is legal to copy "only the outline" and chose to operate
in an environment filled with that possibility, and the courts say it is
legal and not stealing, and your company is offering a commercial product
to make it possible and easy?
And, to take it a step further, was Adobe "stealing" when they picked a
large percentage of their faces from other, previous libraries and vendors?
(I seriously doubt they're paying any sort of royalty to the estate of
Hermann Zapf. And I know that they did buy many of their fonts from
Linotype, who did pay Herman, but many others of their fonts are not Linos,
aren't they?) Is Bitstream "stealing" with their clones of Times,
Helvetica, and nearly everything else? I don't understand the distinction.
It seems that this is something that these companies _theselves_ have been
doing for years!
–Thom (trying not to sound combative, but really struggling with the
issue of why it's ok for Adobe to copy other's fonts, but it's not ok for
me to…)
PS. I love your quote from Solzhenitsyn, but I doubt he was discussing
commercial issues; as I recall his tone was more like JFK's "Ask Not…"
quote and the spirit of the Peace Corps…
Thom:
Just because Adobe steals font designs is no justification for your doing
it. I am under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Adobe _licenses_
their font designs from ITC, Zapf, etc. and does not "steal" them. Some of
the newer Adobe releases (Stone, for instance) were designed in-house at
Adobe and are thus their own property.
Solzhenitsyn was not discussing commercial issues, he was speaking to the
heart of the philosophy by which we citizens of the USA conduct all our
"business," whether it be in an office or at home. Strict legalism will
always degenerate into cutthroat "eat or be eaten" behavior because it is
impossible to make enough laws to cover all possible situations. A person
who wishes to avoid this degeneration must always consider some higher
"obligation" or "honor" when making decisions about taking and using the
property and/or products of hardworking font designers.
As far as costs are concerned, is it right for Apple to sell for $4000.00 a
computer that costs maybe $800.00 to produce?
Would you like to live in Iraq or Ceylon or Indonesia, where you can't buy
a legitimate copy of a piece of software or a font because once one copy
goes into the country, everyone has it? Would you like to have the lack of
support that this implies?
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
Earl,
I agree absolutely that just because something's legally justifiable
that's not justification for doing it. But the notion of "honor" or a
"higher mission/calling" can be a bit dangerous. I lived for a year in a
small town in Germany, and one of our neighbors was a 73-year-old Nazi
former intelligence officer who used to come over for coffee and tell us
how back in 1940 he *really believed* that there was a Jewish conspiracy,
etc., and that Hitler was the "savior" of the world, who was just not
recognized in his time and made some logistical mistakes. It was
fascinating to listen to the sincerity in his voice, and *very*
*frightening.* The US Government also claimed a higher calling when they
exterminated 15 million American Indians, and Thomas Jefferson wrote
several long essays defending slavery as necessary to the republic, citing
the examples of ancient Rome and Greece to prove that a culture/society
without slaves was doomed.
All this is why we have laws – because your higher calling or ethical
conclusion might not be mine…and might even be a little dangerous to me!
I've been to Sri Lanka (spent time in both Colombo and Kandi), which I
assume you meant when you said Ceylon, and also have spent a lot of time on
many visits to various parts of southeast asia, including Taiwan (and even
wrote an article about the international computer market for InfoWorld back
in 1981, with pictures of computer stores I took in Europe.) The situation
there is that people still buy computer hardware and software from
reputable sources because they want reliability, quality, service, and
upgrades. Just like here!
–Thom (with respect for your opinions and positions, and great
admiration for the accomplishments of Altsys)
Earl,
Well said re: rights versus obligations. Maybe we should get the lawyers to
talk about this this evening?
Dave
Dave–
Rather than getting the "lawyers to talk about this", perhaps we should
*shoot* all the lawyers for creating this artificial situation to begin
with. Then, perhaps, we could more reasonably address the issues of right
and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and not ethical.
If not–well, hell, let's shoot the lawyers anyway!
–Bill
Bill,
One of the things you may have picked up in recent days is that I am
shortly to be in need of a new job, being a "victim" of a corporate
restructuring. I put victim in quotes because this is probably the kick in
the ass I needed to get out in the world and really use talents and
experience.
Anyway, the point of this message is that the new corporate structure has
the Corporate Development and Business Planning department reporting to the
chief lawyer. I can see the new Image Brochure now… Want to bet it starts
with the word "Whereas"?
Dave
Lawyers don't like to talk about obligations vs law because if the idea got
too popular there would be much less need for lawyers. The USA has only
twice the population of Japan, but 15 times as many lawyers.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
Earl,
We're wandering way off topic, but this is a hot one in our household. It
seems today that accidents must be blamed on somebody. Crying over spilt
milk has become the thing to do. And now we even have lawyers advertising
their skill at squeezing a buck out of whomsoever you might wish to sue.
Maybe we should start a class action suit against lawyers who sue for
frivolous amounts. Let's sue their pants off!
Dave <grin>
You probably wouldn't have any trouble finding one to take the case,
either.
Ha! Lots of naked lawyers running around. Wouldn't be a pretty
sight…except I know some rather good looking female lawyers.
grin> <grin>
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
I'm highly confused about the ability to copyright font outlines … If
this cannot be done, why have so many foundries gone to great lengths to
make *minor* but detectable changes in fonts? Cg has had several versions
of Helvetica over the years. If only the name can be copyrighted, why does
anyone bother to re-cut the face? It would seem much easier just to copy
the outlines. And why, for that matter, has Adobe bothered to pay royalties
to ITC and others when they could copy the face and just change the name?
And if outlines *aren't* covered by copyright, then why can't I dupe all my
Adobe printer fonts, rename them and sell them at an enormous profit?
Adobe's fonts, after all, are merely outlines. I suspect something is amiss
here.
Actually, Tripp, I believe that a number of companies *have* simply knocked
off others fonts and brought them to market. The problem they've had is
one of distribution and credibility – would you buy Times from somebody
else if it was called "Acme Clockwork" and you knew nothing about the
company? Fonts are important enought that I think most people will stick
with a known entity.
The other problem for knockoff companies has been the *cost* of duplicating
fonts – prior to the introduction of Earl's Metamorphosis, I believe they'd
have to print a font large, scan it, trace it with Illustrator, and then
save that. And then they'd have to re-create from scratch the kerning
tables. Very time comsuming…
I can't help wondering how Earl and the folks at Altsys would react if I
were to write a program that reaches out into RAM, sucks out the code of
any application (Fontographer, perhaps?) and then writes to disk an
application with the same functionality that I could freely market as Dan's
Font-o-matic.
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of an artist's work (be he a writer,
an illustrator, a font designer, or a programmer) being fair game for
anyone who wants to rip it off.
It's an interesting exercise in ethics, but I don't think it's so
practical a discussion. Remember the essay that Mark Twain wrote about the
typewriter? He was the first writer in history to submit a mss for
publication that was "typed" and many of the writers of the day were in an
uproar, accusing him of being a "traitor" to the craft. I remember similar
dire (although far more muted) objections to the availability of word
processors in the early 70's – editorials in Writer's Digest and other
publications predicting the doom of literature because "anybody would be
able to crank out a manuscript in a few days…"
In fact, it's really a rather easy matter to produce most of the
products and concepts on the market. I could easily come out with a new
publishing magazine, for example. And there are many ways to build a car,
or a phone, or a computer…
The *problem* is in actually bringing the product to market, following
through in servicing customers, and maintaining quality production. I
might come out with the first issue of my publishing magazine, for example,
but it would take far more than just a Mac and a lino to actually be
successful at it!
And that's precisely why I don't think programs like Earl's are such a
risk for companies like Adobe…even if we were to post a clone of their
fonts. There are always people who want "the original." Look at any
market – toys, games, computers, cars, dishes, jewelery (how many
variations on Tupperware are there? How many companies make class rings?),
and on and on…and you'll see that there are always imitators who grab
part of the market, and the "original, quality" products who also hold part
of the market. The main function that the imitators play is to stabilize
standards of pricing and service in the marketplace. "Originals" define the
standards of service; "Imitators" define the standards of price.
So, while Earl's product may drive down the price of fonts, I'd have a
hard time being upset about that. If the many software companies which
market $10 and $20 products can make a living selling $.50 diskettes for
that…then so can Adobe!
/ex
Sorry. Passing off someone else's work as your own is wrong. Pure and
simple.
Dan,
I agree totally. Shall we boycott Bitstream?
–Thom
Dan: I had to laugh out loud (images of a parastic alien monster grabbing
Metamorphisis, sucking out it guts and regurgitating them in a different
form leapt to mind) at your comment, but it was right to the
"ethical/moral" point. I'm an artist, and if what I am hearing about font
code being copyrightable but not the outlines were applied to other
artistic endeavours, it sounds akin to copyrighting the words but not the
novel, or copyrighting the pen and ink but not the illustration. Something
sounds very seriously amiss here. I'm kind of sorry I missed Tuesday's CO.
Did this stuff come up?
Actually, David (at the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon), your comment
about "copyrighting the words but not the novel" is right on the money with
regard to the copyright law, which states that the *expression* of an idea
(the words, in the case of the novel) is covered, but the idea itself
cannot be copyrighted. Just look at any of the genre's of fiction, and
you'll see this in play – all the romances, or detective novels, or SF
novels, that are really just re-writes of old stories in a new way.
In the CO, one of the attorneys made the point that while you could
copyright a picture of, for example, the skyline of Atlanta, you couldn't
copyright the skyline itself. Nor could you prevent another person from
selling an identically framed photo taken standing in the same spot, with
an identical camera and film, on an identical day with identical sky
conditions at the same time of day.
I yanked an interesting note out of ENS last night (wish I had saved it)
wherein the Copyright Office has granted a copyright to Adobe Systems for
their ITC Garamond software.
Since I didn't keep a copy of the article (which appeared in a couple of
forms in Reuters and OTC), the basic thrust of the courts action was to
state that while Adobe's particular implementation, i.e. the PostScript
code which represented the Garamond family, they did not own the rights to
the underlying artwork.
Oddly enough (or maybe not), one of Adobe's silent partners in the action
was Bitstream.
–Bill
RE: the hypothetical "Dan's Font-o-matic" which would suck Fontographer out
of the ROM, and also perhaps slices, dices, etc…
I am going to attempt to quell any uneasiness about Metamorphosis as some
kind of evil pirate program.
First off, what does Meta do? It allows a font owner to convert his
PostScript fonts to other interesting formats, like Fontographer native
format, and EPS suitable for editing.
As far as I can tell, people on this forum are worried about the
morality/legality of people "ripping off" fonts after they have been
Metamorphosized. I don't understand how this is different from ripping off
fonts which _haven't_ been Metamorphosized. Armed with a computer, people
have always had the opportunity to copy and distribute software illegally.
I could take an Adobe font disk, change the names, remove copyright
notices, and sell it very nicely _without_ Metamorphosis. Meta doesn't seem
to add any ability in this area. Nor does Meta make this any easier.
But as to equipment which allows the user to transfer information from one
form to another: hasn't that controversy been settled years ago with the
advent of the photocopier, the VCR, the optical scanner, and the
tape-recorder?? All those do essentially the same thing (in their
respective mediums) that Metamorphosis does. Meta should therefore be no
more controversial than computers with more than one disk drive.
Bravo to you, Dan, for your concerns about artist's work being fair game
for anyone who wants to rip it off. We share similar concerns. In fact, our
software has ALWAYS been fair game for illegal copying; the only protection
we have is laws, and good people.
In summary, Metamorphosis poses the same sorts of problems as photocopiers,
tape recorders, and even Finder Copy. No more, and no less. Use it as you
would these.
Pete Mason, ALTSYS Corp (not Earl Allen, as it says above)
Pete,
Does Metamorphosis also carry into the "new" font the kerning tables
from the old font?
–Thom
Thom:
(replying for Pete)
Yes, Metamorphosis preserves a font's kerning tables. That was one feature
I insisted _had_ to be implemented and the implementors finally agreed that
it was an important addition.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
Thanks, Pete. I think you've put the issue into the proper context. For
individual users, Metamorphasis will be a great product. At the same time,
I hope that anyone who uses it illegally gets exactly what's coming to
them.
I posted a message on the lawyers' forum asking for more information on
copyrights, etc with regard to font designs. The responses so far have not
been particularly enlightening (but since when do lawyers come up with "yes
or no" answers…). I'm still at a loss to explain why Cg created Helios (a
very bad cut of Helvetica) when they could have just copied the original
and renamed it. From the sound of one of the lawyer's responses, it seems
that individual letter forms can be protected under a design patent.
Perhaps that's the *real* protection under US law that prevents wholesale
copying of font libraries. I'll keep you posted on whatever else the legal
eagles come up with.
Thanks, Tom. I was tempted to leave a question in the Adobe Forum, asking
if anybody knew how many Adobe and Bitstream (or other) fonts were original
to the company, were licensed by the company, or were "copied" from other
company's font libraries and re-named.
I didn't leave the question, though, because I'm the WizOp here and I
thought it might appear that I was "fishing for business" in their forum to
be bringing up the subject. But if you know the answers to any of those
questions, I'd be very interested to know… (as an academic exercise,
purely, of course…)
–Thom
Tripp,
'scuse my calling you Tom. Sorry… <cussed Tandy's small scren; it's
hard to keep track of what I'm sayin{g{ to whom>.z>
Tripp:
Neither you nor Adobe have done this because it would not be good to be
publicly known as someone who rips off the hard work of others as general
business practice.
I am told that Bitstream has a "take it or leave it" royalty payment
policy, and if the designer or owner of the font doesn't take their
royalty, they go ahead and make the font anyway, since the designer can't
get them for copyright infringement if they use a different name. Thus the
Bitstream "Swiss" for Helvetica, etc.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
(who notes that Metamorphosis is more like a disassembler than it is like a
copy machine)
I seriously doubt if being publicly known as a "bad guy" is the real reason
why font libraries are not copied. See the thread I uploaded from the legal
forum for their opinions on the subject. I just have a gut level feeling
that if I dup'd all of Adobe's fonts and starting selling them as "Tripp's
Typefaces" that a whole platoon of lawyers would be knocking on my door!
(and me without a shotgun…<grin>)
If that's the case, Tripp, then why aren't they knocking on Bitstream or
Image Studio or any of the other company's doors? In the days of
phototypesetters, there were any number of disks from various suppliers for
the same faces, and now it's happening with digital fonts. I believe that
Metamorphosis will just speed up the process…
I don't know of *any* cases of outright font copying with photo or digital
type. Cg's Helios and Triumverate are definitely *not* the same cut as the
original Helvetica. Same goes for Swiss. Bitstream's Times is not the same
as Adobe's Times… Paladium is not exactly the same as Palatino, etc. etc.
If you can show me one font that hasn't been licensed that is an *exact*
duplicate of another vendor's I'd be very surprised. In all cases that I
know of, there have been slight, almost unnoticable changes made to the
cuts of the fonts before issuing them under a new name.
Do the slight changes, then, mean that "somebody else's work" has _not_
been "stolen?"
–Thom
That's interesting, BTW, and news to me. (I remember talking with a
Bitstream dealer some months ago, who was pushing the fonts as "identical,"
and also heard the same song from our local Quark rep when their on-screen
rendering first came out, with the Bitstream fonts. But it makes sense and
I'm sure you're right. Thanks for the clarification.
–Thom
Dan:
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
(who reminds everyone of Adobe's promise to release the Type 1 specs on
March 31, 1990)
Jon –
Does Brad realize yet that he's been insulted? <big G>
…mm
Yes, Brad realizes it. Jon will find out just how much I realize it when I
see him at next week's NYPPUG meeting! <grin>
<BW>
Jonathan:
Well, there you have it. Metamorphosis does appear to be one solution to
your problem. We hope many people see Metamorphosis as a way around the
cost of duplicating font libraries in both Adobe and Royal systems.
I might point out that no presently available Altsys product produces
Royal, but that will certainly change as soon as Royal is widely available.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
Earl:
Your comments on the morality of duplicating fonts for commercial use with
Metamorphosis were interesting. I'm of several minds on this issue. First,
as a typehouse employee, it's going to hurt. One of the reasons people come
to big typehouses in the first place is our font library. Now, if you can
go to any BBS and pull down whatever face you need because BBS members have
uploaded their various fonts, it's going to detract from the need to go to
a typehouse to get a face.
Secondly, a Monotype or a Linotype, who hold — a great cost — the
original artwork to thousands of typefaces is going to have to think twice
before releasing a time-honored classic that can be easily duped and
legally distributed. Things might already be too late (most font companies,
understandably, have rushed out their best and exclusive faces first).
As a user, however, the whole idea of Metamorphosis is delightful. Please
tell me the MINUTE it's ready to ship so in case someone like ITC or URW
slaps you with an injunction, I'll at least have my copy.
–jon
Jon:
The free market triumphs over the Gulag? <g>
–Thom
Thom:
Every time!
–jon
Thom –
As a moral (as opposed to legal) issue, I think that it IS immoral to
merely extract some other designers outline, rename and distribute it — as
wrong as making K-Mart knock-offs of Designer original dresses. I would
hope that this forum would refuse to post such knock-offs.
I don't, however, think that ANY use of Metamorphisis (or any program like
it) is immoral. If I were creating a logo using a typoeface, and needed an
"R" with one of the legs ended in a tennis raquet (for instance), that
IMHO, is an appropriate use of such a product. It is the electronic
equivalent of a practice which has been acceptalbe for years.
When it comes to using such a product to create a font of fractions, swash
characters, or small caps, which the creator (or licence holder) has chosen
not to market, I am less clear — I lean, however, toward acceptance of
this.
— don
Don,
Overall I agree with you on the ethics of "stealing" typefaces, although
I think the distinction between art and commercial, marketable "ideas" is
one that is often overlooked, particularly when the "idea" or "product" is
one that some people would consider art. As a writer, I'm sensitive to
people stealing my (or others') work, but I'm much less concerned about
buying Tupperware knock-offs at K-Mart…that's not art! IMHO, typefaces
are not art, either – they're big-bucks, commercial products. But the
"beauty" of them (no sarcasm meant – there are some faces I _love_), and
the work that can go into creating them, blinds many people to the
commercial aspect of it all, in my opinion. Nontheless, it's not a debate
that will be soon resolved, and I'm very uncomfortable (as the copyright
holder of some 300 published articles & short stories) being on the side of
defending theft.
Your example of the R, though, is, I believe (and I may be _very_
wrong), off the mark. The use you suggested would be great for Illustrator
or Freehand, but Metamorphosis, from my read of it (correct me if I'm
wrong, Earl), is a product not designed to just modify one letter of a
face, but to duplicate, intact, an entire font, in one fell swoop.
So, are you gonna buy it? <g>
–Thom
Thom –
Re: <Your example of the R, though, is, I believe (and I may be _very_
wrong),
off the mark. The use you suggested would be great for Illustrator or
Freehand,
but Metamorphosis, from my read of it (correct me if I'm wrong, Earl), is a
product not designed to just modify one letter of a face, but to duplicate,
intact, an entire font, in one fell swoop.>
Maybe I missed something — I thought that Metamorphisis allowed you to
capture outlines in several formats, eps, pict, & fontographer. I was
looking forward to this product, specifically to generate characters for
use in such illustrators applications like masking, blending, and thing
like the previous example, which you cannot now do with fonts.
<So, are you gonna buy it? <g>> — depends what, exactly, it does and
how well it works.
— don
What would be really nice is if you could condense or expand a font with
XPress, send a bit of it to the printer, and then suck it back with
Metamorphosis, creating a new "Times 21% condensed" face for yourself. (Is
this possible, Earl?)
I believe you're right about the various formats, and I guess I'd missed
that in your comment. My point was that since the program will dupe an
entire font (all the characters) *and* the kerning tables all in one fell
swoop, it's more appropriate for creating typeface clones than for creating
the outline of one single character. But, then, it's all speculation right
now…
–Thm
oops –Thom
The need to create one or two letters of an alphabet was a steady complaint
against Fontsizer. You could create a screen font suitcase with any size
you wanted (as long as you had a PS printer), but folks just wanted to
create a suitcase with the character that they needed for a drop cap (or
whatever). Now ATM hogs up RAM with an entire font's worth of info when you
may only need a few characters. As I see it, folks have a lot of
legitimate, artistic reasons to use these tools. (BTW, even w/o Meta, you
can use Smart Art and a PS printer to image a letter and then drop it into
Illustrator for distorting, but it's a pain.)
Although a discussion on the possible misuses of software is always
healthy, I've always found that, here on CompuServe, it's safer to assume
that your audience will endeavor to find legitimate uses, being surrounded
as we are by the authors of these great programs, and thus sensitized to
the unfairness of software piracy. (In fact, I've always thought it
ludicrous that CIS won't try harder to find a way that members' could send
their shareware fees to authors electronically. I'd bet that the amount of
shareware dollars paid would go up dramatically!)
<BW>
I agree totally with your last point about payment for shareware. We've
actually sent in cash for Add/Strip and other programs, but I know we're in
a very, very small minority.
I'm also amazed that there hasn't been more discussion about all the
ripped-off photos, scans and artwork that's littered around CIS and other
bbs's…
–Thom
Thom –
Fontographer will already allow you to create a font condensed in that
manner. The problem with mechanically condensing type is that it distorts
the balance between the verticle and horizontal strokes.
Hopefully, Metamorphisis will allow you to capture the outline, condense
it, then correct the strokes — that would be really useful. I also would
not put this use in the same category as merely duping a face.
— don
Don,
Amen! <g>
–Thom
Don,
Also, it's important to notice that (unlike some other forums) I don't
run the DTP Forum as some sort of "king." Several of our sysops feel
strongly that we should not post knocked-off fonts, and I'm inclined in
that direction myself…and will go along with whatever Brad, Dan,
Kathleen, Dianne, Mike, Skye and Mike agree on or feel strongly about.
For now, we are not posting knocked-off fonts.
–Thom
(But would you want them here if they were available in other forums, and
being advertised in dozens of "public domain $3 software" ads? And how is
this different from the zillions of copyrighted images that are _now_
available in other CIS forums? <We've already taken the position that we
will _not_ accept scans of copyrighted material…which has seriously
limited our libraries.>)
Thom –
I don't run the DTP Forum as some sort of "king."> — that's good, wizards
are much more powerful than mere kings! 🙂
I wouldn't want them here, even if they were available everywhere else.
— don
Amen! (And, believe me, they are *abundant* elsewhere…) <g>
jon:
Metamorphosis is a disassembler, not a copying machine. It is a tool, not
the use to which it is put.
How could ITC or URW slap us with an injunction, when Apple allows MacNosy
and other disassemblers which could be used to duplicate the Mac ROMs? If
someone duplicates the Mac ROMs, you slap an injunction on that person, not
the person who created the tool that allowed them to do it.
Earl Allen, Altsys Technical Support
Earl,
<<It is a tool, not the use to which it is put.>>
An excellent, point!