Where do fonts come from? Monotype, mostly

2023-08-2715:54327168thehustle.co

Creators say they struggle to gain a foothold in a font market dominated by Monotype

Ten years ago, Cindy Thomason was walking down the stairs at home when she heard her phone ring. 

On the other end was an executive from Warner Bros. Entertainment, calling to let her know that a font she designed would be featured in the upcoming blockbuster adaptation of The Great Gatsby.

“I had to sit down,” Thomason says. “I’m just somebody who decided to design a font on a whim.”

A nurse in suburban Virginia, Thomason began tinkering with fonts in her free time using a software package she bought for $100. She’d listed the font, which she named Grandhappy, on an online marketplace called MyFonts

That’s where producers from Warner Bros. found it, and bought it to use as Jay Gatsby’s handwriting in the 2013 film.

It should have been a dream come true, a big break for a hobbyist font designer. But Thomason’s cut for her design’s feature-film cameo was a whopping $12 — not even enough to recoup what she paid for her design software. 

Alternate letters designed by Thomason for her Grandhappy font (Cindy Thomason)

Thomason’s story isn’t an anomaly: Fonts are a ubiquitous commodity. Every font you see — on your computer screen, a street sign, a T-shirt, or your car’s dashboard — has been crafted by a designer. With 4.5k independent artists selling on MyFonts today, many struggle to attract customers and to make a living in an oversaturated market.  

It’s only getting harder, as designers must compete with and abide by the terms of one company that’s approaching behemoth status: Monotype

The company owns not only many of the world’s most popular fonts but also exchanges like MyFonts where font designers bring their work to market. 

The industry is inching toward a monopoly, and it’s leaving independent designers with fewer places to go.

Written history

In 1440, when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in order to mass-produce Bibles, his books came with another innovation: the first font

For the next several centuries, countless foundries sprung up to mimic the characters forged on Gutenberg’s metal plates, experimenting with typefaces and new fonts (a typeface is the umbrella category for a uniquely designed set of letters, such as Times New Roman; a font is a specific variation of a typeface, such as Times New Roman in 16 point bold). 

Monotype arrived at the end of the 19th century. The company was founded in Philadelphia by Tolbert Lanston, whose monotype machine invention allowed for increased speed and efficiency when producing type. Over the next few decades, Monotype, by then with branches in the US and the UK, developed popular typefaces such as Gill Sans, Perpetua, and Times New Roman

A type-casting machine patent filed by Monotype founder Tolbert Lanston. (US Patent and Trademark Office)

In the last half of the 20th century, the font industry, always volatile and rife with mergers and acquisitions, went through rapid change. The mechanized process of Monotype’s signature machine faded out, replaced by phototypesetting and then digital typesetting, bringing fonts to screens. 

Monotype endured financial difficulties and restructurings, eventually being acquired by the Boston private equity firm TA Associates in 2004 and going public with stock-ticker name TYPE in 2007. The retooled Monotype saw its annual revenues climb from $107m in 2010 to $247m in 2018 and became a powerhouse:  

  • In 2006, it purchased Linotype, a major competitor since the 19th century, bringing Helvetica, Avenir, and ~6k other typefaces into its fold.
  • It bought Ascender Corporation, a digital typeface foundry, in 2010 and FontShop, which owned more than 2.5k typefaces, in 2014. 

In 2019, private equity firm HGGC bought Monotype for $825m, acquiring its roster of typefaces and setting it up for even more acquisitions. The company has since purchased URW Foundry and Hoefler & Co., a renowned independent foundry. 

According to Quartz, Monotype has claimed its purchases made life better for customers, who only have to navigate a licensing agreement from one company to access a bevy of fonts. But one font designer believed the acquisition of Hoefler & Co. felt like “a kraken eating up the industry.”

“A market with one very large player and a lot of smaller players is not a healthy market,” Gerry Leonidas, professor of typography at the University of Reading, told The Hustle. “It essentially stifles the competition and makes it difficult for alternative models to grow.”   

A man uses a monotype machine in 1938. (Getty Images/Kurt Hutton)

While boutique foundries still exist and do work for big companies, Monotype owns most major fonts: Arial, Helvetica, Gotham, Times New Roman. Its main competitors are Adobe Fonts and Google Fonts, the latter of which gives away fonts for free. 

In addition to the giants, there are thousands of other designers, some hobbyists and some full-time font makers, who try to sell their typefaces. Most of them have to go through — you guessed it — Monotype.      

In 2012, Monotype made one of its most noteworthy acquisitions. It paid $50m for the parent company of MyFonts, the website where Cindy Thomason and other independent designers and foundries hope to sell their fonts to the likes of independent graphic designers, ad agencies shopping for client projects, or major brands.

  • The MyFonts marketplace features 4.5k foundries selling more than 250k typefaces. Other marketplaces like Creative Market and Etsy feature 82k and 5k+ fonts, respectively. 
  • Foundries set their own prices. The average font costs $29 and sells per use or in perpetuity, depending on licensing agreements. 

Monotype tells The Hustle that of the thousands of foundries selling on MyFonts, about 55% say their earnings provide passive income, while 45% report earning a living selling fonts. 

Much of their earnings go back to Monotype, which takes a 50% cut of every sale on its site. (Creative Market similarly takes a 50% commission fee, while Etsy charges 20 cents per listing and takes a 6.5% fee for every sale.) 

Although other marketplaces take smaller cuts, MyFonts is known in the industry for being the gold standard for audience reach. Ellen Luff, who runs Ellen Luff Type Foundry and whose Larken font (starting at $42) is a MyFonts bestseller, told The Hustle there’s little choice but to use the site.

“When you’re independent, you’ve got your freedom, which is great. But then you have to balance being overlooked, and trying to beat [MyFonts] because they are a monster,” she said. “They are huge.”

The power of Monotype and MyFonts isn’t the only obstacle for independents. Luff has spotted her fonts being used by corporations such as Apple and NASA, sometimes without her permission. 

Luff says half of her clients come from retrospective licensing agreements made after she’s found her designs being used illegally. But going up against large companies is no easy feat for independent designers who have no legal teams to support them in negotiations. 

A display of old type at Monotype’s offices in Woburn, Massachusetts. (Getty Images/Boston Globe)

For designers who partner with Monotype, though, the company puts its power into handling infringement issues. That’s why, for many designers, MyFonts pays off. 

Sam Parrett, typeface designer and owner of Set Sail Studios, has a bestseller on MyFonts, La Luxes, priced at $29 for a pack of two fonts. On average, Parrett makes $7k per month through MyFonts sales after the site’s 50% fee.

He says custom work made up just under 6% of his income in 2022, and he takes on about four custom projects per year while he focuses on creating fonts for marketplaces. 

And Parrett’s fonts, which he first draws by hand, pop up everywhere: 

  • Scrawled across actor Gillian Anderson’s naked body and plastered on a billboard for a Peta campaign.
  • On the covers of Diana Ross, Katy Perry, and Cardi B albums. 
  • As logos for multiple Netflix series. 

“I drive my wife mad because everywhere I go I’m like, ‘That’s my font!’” Parrett said. “It’s so crazy because it’s just me in my spare bedroom writing these letters.”

Designer Sam Parrett sketching fonts by hand (Sam Parrett)

Paulo Goode, who started out as a hobbyist type designer, says the MyFonts platform helped him launch his career. 

“I decided to go full time as an independent type designer less than 18 months after my first release at MyFonts,” he said. “I haven’t looked back since.” 

Goode eventually sold the majority of his font portfolio to Monotype.

This month, Monotype plans to introduce a new program that will shift the MyFonts marketplace toward a subscription model. 

Rather than coming to the site, finding a font, and figuring out which licensing to pay for, customers can instead opt to pay for a Monotype subscription where the licensing is pre-covered for a larger variety of fonts.

  • Royalties will be calculated by taking into account a foundry’s percentage of all ecommerce revenue as well as how often its fonts are used by customers in prototyping and production stages, potentially compensating foundries for use cases that previously went unpaid. 
  • Those metrics are then multiplied by the amount Monotype bills all its customers for the quarter, and lastly by a foundry’s royalty rate. Foundries have the option to opt into the Monotype Fonts subscription program in addition to normal licensing. 

Mary Catherine Pflug, Monotype’s director of partner product and operations, says she believes the plan will help designers earn more by offering payments every time a font is used rather than just for a final product. Plus, she says foundries will have access to more immediate data on their fonts, allowing them to make informed business and design decisions. 

Leonidas, the typography professor, says the issue is that Monotype itself owns many of the most popularly licensed fonts and will disproportionately benefit from a subscription structure. 

“These things work very well if you are Helvetica — you’ll get quite a lot of money from this. If you have a very good typeface that is used for music publishing or poetry, you might get nothing,” he said. “They’re putting money back in their own pockets.”

Some font designers told The Hustle they fear the move will force them to put more trust into Monotype, surrendering the control that comes with clear payments for each sale and instead relying on the company’s internal calculations.

A wall of Monotype logos. (Getty Images/Boston Globe)

“[Monotype] keeps saying, ‘We are going to simplify it for the customers and get you more business,’ but you’re not getting us more business,” Luff said. “It’s a way of them cutting the pie differently but not necessarily in anyone else’s favor.”

Pflug is resolute that the program will bring positive change.

“The biggest struggle facing indie foundries today is getting their work discovered by and into the hands of creatives, and in handling the challenging nuances of font licensing. We are not competing with foundries — we’re a channel for foundries to reach more customers.”

To add to the complexities, artificial intelligence may put pressure on the already crowded industry. For now, Parrett feels his job is safe from AI. 

“There are people saying it’s going to happen at some point, that it’s just a matter of when,” he said. “But it’s a handcrafted artisan industry — AI can’t get the precision right.”

A green sign featuring Monotype’s old stock ticker symbol at its offices in Woburn, Massachusetts. (Getty Images/Boston Globe).

That optimism, however, will likely be tested as Monotype begins dabbling with AI. The company already owns WhatTheFont, an app that uses deep learning to identify fonts from photographs, and it’s added an AI-powered font-pairing feature

Monotype says it plans to use machine learning and AI to improve how users discover new fonts on its platform — an innovation that will undoubtedly affect foundries, though it remains to be seen exactly how. 

Even amid Monotype’s takeover, an influx of free fonts, and the growing threat of AI, there will always be a need for font makers with an appreciation for the craft. 

“I think half of what makes art is the story and meaning behind it,” Luff said. “Although AI will be able to make beautiful curves and replicate trends, it won’t have the story. People are looking for the human relation to the words.”

Business and tech news in 5 minutes or less​


Read the original article

Comments

  • By hannob 2023-08-2718:003 reply

    I find this misleading.

    Today, most fonts in practical use are open source fonts. When someone chooses a font for a web project, they typically pick something from Google fonts, which are all open source licensed. Android, the most common OS, uses open source fonts like Roboto by default which are also open source.

    The article does not mention open source at all, it has one mention of Google Fonts which is kinda misleading ("the latter of which gives away fonts for free" - well, not really, many of these fonts are not from google and were already free, google is just providing a font hosting service).

    An accurate statement would be one company dominates the proprietary font market, which is however only a small share of overall font use.

    • By omnimus 2023-08-2718:202 reply

      This is not true. We would have to define "practical use" but if you are looking at most used typefaces - things people see in around them the most it is dominated by commercial typefaces. It will be Helveticas, Arials, Times New Romans of the world. What people use in Word and Windows - all proprietary typefaces. Anything Apple - proprietary. Anything branded - brands usually typeface and that typeface is going to be proprietary - even on web.

      Only platform that uses open-source typeface is Android with roboto/noto. If you are looking at webapps not marketing sites then yes you might get lot of Inter but trend is moving towards using system-ui font stack which is proprietary (except linux/android).

      So no open-source typefaces are definitely not most used in practical use. Btw majority of the super popular ones are owned by Monotype the company this article is about.

      • By barbariangrunge 2023-08-281:151 reply

        The graphic designers I know all own a personal library of expensive fonts they’ve purchased over the years. Fonts being good matters a lot more than them being free

        • By whatisyour 2023-08-288:542 reply

          In era of reproducible science, fonts being reproducible by people matters a lot more. And free fonts can be very good as well.

          • By fanf2 2023-08-2814:32

            The ACM revamped their article templates in 2017 and adopted open source fonts.

          • By walt74 2023-08-2816:40

            Really good free fonts are as rare as unicorns. One can spot good fonts by looking at the kerning, and most if not all free fonts suck at kerning, including Google Fonts.

      • By Terr_ 2023-08-2719:271 reply

        > things people see in around them the most it is dominated by commercial typefaces

        I agree, but I think that says more about how the market for OS-software evolved (with the assumption that the OS should provide core fonts "for free") as opposed to an indication of monopoly or lock-in.

        The average person probably doesn't notice (nor care) about the subtle differences between those major (OS-company supplied) fonts versus open-source equivalents or their competitors' proprietary ones.

        • By bitwize 2023-08-2721:355 reply

          Do you know anyone who works in design?

          I do.

          And quite franky, all of them would laugh in your face if you told them that fonts are something that ought to be provided "for free". Fonts come from designers, designers work hard and should be paid for their work. Accordingly, real professional designers pay for fonts -- by the hundreds or thousands, sometimes, so many fonts their computers slow down if they don't use special software to manage them all.

          This is also why the strongest, healthiest software ecosystem exists on macOS. Because macOS still has that cultural creative core of its user base, a culture which believes that people who create things should be paid for their efforts. Accordingly, you can still release a commercial proprietary program on macOS and expect to make significant money -- even from a small user base. That's certainly not true on Linux and it increasingly isn't true on Windows -- except, maybe, for gaming.

          As for the average person, we're not even talking about the digital world. Everything in print, everything written on television, uses fonts. And if they employ professional designers, those are going to be commercial fonts. The real deal, the ones that were first set in hot type by Swiss or Austrian guys a hundred years ago or more. Open source substitutes are no substitute at all.

          • By Terr_ 2023-08-2722:52

            > [designers] would laugh in your face if you told them that fonts are something that ought to be provided "for free"

            That's a big *whoosh* or else you just felt like attacking a strawman.

            Like I already said, I'm referring to how all major operating systems (including desktop Linux distros) bundle dozens of fonts to cover common needs. No average consumer is expected to spend additional money gaining the ability to see Greek math symbols or pseudo-handwriting or whatever.

            It isn't the 1990s where you might see a retail-display box for Microsoft Windows 3.x adjacent to Microsoft TrueType Font Pack for Windows and Adobe Type Basics.

            Similarly, disk-defragmentation tools are now in there "for free", and a TCP/IP stack is there "for free", etc.

          • By creata 2023-08-2722:14

            > This is also why the strongest, healthiest software ecosystem exists on macOS.

            What do you mean by "strongest" and "healthiest"?

            In my experience, most software is very cross-platform these days, and most platform-exclusive software is Windows-only.

          • By whatisyour 2023-08-288:55

            Well yes, but in era of reproducible science, we need fonts which can be reproduced by the people who recompile the scientific data and regenerate the reports. Proprietary fonts are kind of a bottleneck in that respect.

          • By fijiaarone 2023-08-2722:42

            Internet trolls work hard and they deserve to be paid for their work.

    • By somsak2 2023-08-2720:131 reply

      I think your comment is misleading. Most fonts in use on the web today are actually proprietary and not open source. https://jichu4n.com/posts/the-most-popular-fonts-on-the-web-... -- Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, Georgia, Helvetica are all proprietary.

      • By jay_kyburz 2023-08-2722:55

        Proprietary, but also free because they are bundled with our OS.

        The topic at hand is fonts you have to buy a license to use from Monotype, and fonts you can use freely.

    • By nwallin 2023-08-2723:281 reply

      > Today, most fonts in practical use are open source fonts. When someone chooses a font for a web project,

      I think you've got your HN blinders on. There are two types of projects: Projects where the font doesn't matter, and projects where the font is proprietary. Proprietary fonts utterly dominate the market whenever there's a paid graphic designer involved.

      • By ncruces 2023-08-2723:48

        You seem to think all open-source fonts' graphic designers worked for free, which is as laughable as saying there is no money in open-source software development.

        Most fonts in wide use are likely contract work, whatever license ends up being used for their distribution.

  • By strogonoff 2023-08-2716:238 reply

    In the industry of big near-monopolies, let’s support small indie type designers. I personally can’t recommend enough Matthew Butterick’s work, for example. The price is not prohibitive, the license is easy to understand, while fonts are very well made and receive occasional free updates.

    • By sph 2023-08-2717:253 reply

      My experience with commercial fonts is not great: I have had PragmataPro in my wishlist for a decade. I then bought it, to discover, for some reason, KDE doesn't render it correctly and it's twice as bold as it should be. In GTK4 apps it is decent, but everywhere else it is not the same look of the official screenshots.

      Same with Berkeley Mono, which I got the free trial version and it is a little blurry in Emacs, that kind of peculiar blurriness of fonts that have never been tested on other OSes. Most fonts are perfect on Linux, so those commercial ones might require some tweaks to be compatible with other engines, and I don't see any font designer taking the time to test on Linux.

      So while I would want to support indie font designers, because of my "weird" environment, I should probably stick to the free ones that I can just swap out if they don't render correctly.

      It sucks to have spent €150 for a font that doesn't render well. I don't want to ask for a refund because it might one day work on my system and ages ago I used the pirated version, which incidentally worked just fine on Linux at the time.

      (Before anyone mentions my font stack is broken, I assure you it ain't, and it the closest to macOS': hidpi monitor, 2x scaling, grayscale aa, no hinting. Everything looks gorgeous, except those two commercial fonts)

      • By CharlesW 2023-08-2717:59

        > I have had PragmataPro in my wishlist for a decade. […] KDE doesn't render it correctly and it's twice as bold as it should be. In GTK4 apps it is decent, but everywhere else it is not the same look of the official screenshots.

        The typeface designer can't fix broken/inconsistent OS rendering. Still, I would've asked for a refund so the creator is aware and could avoid other potential customers.

      • By vertebrate 2023-08-2818:08

        Your rendering issue sounds like the one described here: https://blog.vladzahorodnii.com/2021/12/31/more-consistent-f...

      • By folmar 2023-08-2723:28

        Many font sellers give a small subset as a sample in the same format as the full download so that users can test.

        But I would still contact the designer/seller even if only to just let them know.

    • By cschmidt 2023-08-2720:01

      Yes. If you ever find yourself buying a webfont for your latest website or logo, always see if you can buy it direct from the designer. Monotype takes a huge (like >50%) cut if I remember correctly.

      For example, my last project I used MD System from Mass Driver for the web fonts (https://mass-driver.com/typefaces/md-system) and Denton from Peregrin Studio (https://peregrinstudio.com/work/denton) for my logo.

    • By kstrauser 2023-08-2717:162 reply

      I bought Berkeley Mono largely for that reason. First, it's a great font that I love using. Second, it's a passion project from a small shop that cares a whole awful lot for the work and doing it right.

      • By strogonoff 2023-08-284:14

        Berkeley Mono looks good and fairly priced (for personal development), and I like that they offer both ligature and ligature-free versions. Might add to my collection.

      • By toastal 2023-08-282:39

        I really wanted to pick it up, but it lacks a lot of Unicode symbols which for some is a bit of a joke since they come in ‘ligature’ form.

    • By glogla 2023-08-2716:47

      MB is not just a knowledgeable about typography and fonts, he also published his online book using his own software he built in Racket. Definitely a true hacker!

    • By caesil 2023-08-2716:561 reply

      MyFonts is a very convenient marketplace. Perhaps the indie designers should band together and create something like that of their own.

    • By t-vi 2023-08-2812:32

      My former neighbors run https://justanotherfoundry.com/ and I like their work and bought some.

    • By isanjay 2023-08-2716:295 reply

      Can you list out the fonts you like ?

    • By mistrial9 2023-08-2716:29

      this is a great and virtuous cycle, to name and do business with small publishers and artisans (!)

      reality check - do not expect to survive financially yourself in the tornado of modernity without a small niche to fit somewhere and security from elsewhere

  • By gorgoiler 2023-08-2717:106 reply

    How come these old typefaces like Helvetica and Gill Sans not in the public domain? The article mentions Helvetica being rolled in with one of Monotype’s purchases yet Helvetica is from the 1940s?

    Hard copies of Shakespeare have individual copyright because of their unique prefaces. Are these typefaces in copyright still because of the individual numerical descriptions being the work under protection, rather than the actual shape?

    Is it something similar to How X’s recording of Bach’s Y concerto with The Z Ensemble is in copyright, but the musical score itself is in the public domain?

    • By calgarymicro 2023-08-2717:181 reply

      It looks like[0] as of the start of this year, only works made in 1927 or earlier are in the public domain. Copyright terms have regularly been extended by Congress and they are astoundingly long now.

      [0]https://copyrightlately.com/public-domain-day-2023/

      • By arrosenberg 2023-08-2717:232 reply

        Also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

        Thanks to Disney, this aspect of our economy and culture is completely broken.

        • By secabeen 2023-08-280:332 reply

          > Copyright terms have regularly been extended by Congress and they are astoundingly long now.

          There has been no appetite for extending terms in recent years, and things are entering the public domain again, including _Steamboat Willie_. I think there is an understanding that the CTEA will end up as the final extension and that further extensions are unlikely.

          • By kibibu 2023-08-2814:25

            I have a suspicion that this is why steamboat willy has been in the Disney intro for the last few years - so it can be a trademark (which don't have expiry dates)

          • By Vt71fcAqt7 2023-08-2813:14

            They extended it to be in line with the Berne Convention of Europe. It won't happen as easily again because there is no precedent for longer terms.

        • By HideousKojima 2023-08-2718:201 reply

          Cher gets a good chunk of the blame too

          • By fsckboy 2023-08-2718:44

            Sonny gets blame for the copyright extension act, but Cher's royalties lawsuit is not unreasonable or copying rights related... or did I misunderstand or miss something?

    • By asmor 2023-08-2717:24

      Because you're not buying Helvetica, but a digital variant of it. It's like a performance of classical music. Also Helvetica specifically is from 1957, so it may not in the public domain yet (depending on location).

      There are actually several variants all named Helvetica, which is why it's a really bad font to put into your CSS font stack if you're not delivering it yourself. Newer variants tend to use other names (e.g. Neue Haas Grotesk).

    • By tptacek 2023-08-2717:192 reply

      The font files themselves are copyrighted. The underlying typeface --- the shapes of the letters themselves --- are not, so you could I suppose draw your own Helvetica. But you wouldn't be able to call it "Helvetica", because that's a trademark.

      • By crazygringo 2023-08-2721:414 reply

        I've still never entirely understood why nobody's written a program to rasterize paid fonts at 10000 dpi and then run the bitmap through an automatic vectorization tool to create a legally free and redistributable version that is visually indistinguishable from the original (literally off by rounding errors).

        The only thing missing would be hinting, but on retina displays and modern laser printers that's much less important than it used to be -- and you can always implement automatic hinting. And it's easy to extract kerning pairs as well.

        I'm not saying this would be good for font creators or society. I'm just wondering why it hasn't become a common thing, when it doesn't seem like it's actually illegal.

        • By tptacek 2023-08-2722:001 reply

          Just a guess here:

          (1) It's a lot of work.

          (2) You'd get sued anyways and then have to explain to a jury the distinction between your vectorized raster and the original vectors --- I agree that a graphical interpretation of, effectively, a photograph of a curve is not the same thing as that curve, but it's a subtle point.

          (3) Most importantly: it just doesn't matter enough. Universally "important" fonts (Helvetica, say) have widely-used liberally-licensed alternatives, but if you want Hoefler Whitney, you want the real Hoefler Whitney, for the same non-pragmatic reason that you'd want a real pair of D&G Daymasters.

        • By pessimizer 2023-08-281:151 reply

          Optifonts was doing something similar to that in the 90s. The results were generally mediocre to bad, but they were going for volume. I've used them in print for headlines and decorative fonts because you can adjust them manually until it looks pretty good. Both the backstory and the fonts are pretty interesting:

          http://abfonts.freehostia.com/opti/

          http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-27506.html

          • By crazygringo 2023-08-2815:32

            Thanks! That's exactly what I thought someone would have started a business to do. Glad to know it was actually tried.

            If the results were bad then, I can't help but think they'd be far better now. I have to assume automatic vectorization is now much improved since the 90's.

        • By giraffe_lady 2023-08-280:541 reply

          Font's aren't quite just a collection of images. Though they almost are which makes it hard to see the boundaries.

          But a computer font (as opposed to the typeface it represents) is a specialized program, ie it has logic as well as data. Specifically, kerning tables and the conditions under which to use ligatures would be lost by the approach you're proposing. But I'm not a typographer or font expert and I suspect other things also. Anyway that doesn't make it completely untenable, just not a complete & automatic process.

          It is similar in concept to how recipes are handled by intellectual property law. A list of ingredients isn't protected, nor is a specific result. But a list plus instructions is. You can copy a recipe by applying a different set of instructions to the same list of ingredients, resulting in an identical dish. In this the type characters are the ingredients, but you still need to provide a set of instructions to combine them into a font. You can provide ones that create an identical result, but you can't simply copy them from the original font.

          • By crazygringo 2023-08-2815:39

            I agree that you're not going to use this approach to make a clone of Zapfino, for example.

            But for 99% of fonts it's going to work fine. Kerning tables should be easy to recreate simply by rendering all pairs of characters and measuring the resulting width. And there are only a handful of common ligatures (ff, fi, etc.).

            But absolutely, there's a small percentage of fonts with more advanced features that would be harder/prohibitive to reproduce this way.

        • By Silhouette 2023-08-280:441 reply

          Excluding font designs from copyright protection is a USA-specific thing. What you describe might be restricted by IP laws in other jurisdictions so doing it commercially could be dicey.

          • By crazygringo 2023-08-2815:40

            Sure, but doing it commercially in the USA would be the point. Although IP laws are awfully aligned internationally by this point -- I wonder if there are differences in protections for typefaces?

      • By harles 2023-08-2717:47

        IANAL, but this is what design patents are for. They’re much shorter though - 15 years it looks like for fonts [0].

        [0]: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/my-word-design-patents-on-...

    • By sgc 2023-08-2720:06

      To specify about your Shakespeare example, the hard copies are most definitely not under copyright as a whole. At least in the US, only the new, copyrightable material in them can be copyrighted. If it is not novel enough to be copyrightable on its own (like page numbers, titles, etc), it can't be copyrighted.

      Frankly there are a lot of things that people and companies claim copyright on, and other people pay them for, that are not legally under copyright at all. But it is survival of the richest out there...

    • By gadders 2023-08-2717:51

      Eric Gill is another of those situations where you need to separate the art from the artist: https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gi...

    • By kstrauser 2023-08-2717:17

      That last bit is my understanding: the typefaces are public domain, but the font files that describe them are protected.

HackerNews