NOTATIO

Actually, font "designs" are not copyrighted, just like any other piece of art is not copyrighted. What _is_ copyrighted is the digital data that makes up the font you actually use. It is also not technically illegal to re-outline the glyphs from a copyrighted font that have been physically printed out and scanned back into the computer. However, it certainly brings into question the ethics of the individual's actions when that is done, especially when the individual redistributes, or worse resells, the re-outlined font file claiming it as their own unless the original license allows such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tisimst wrote:Actually, font "designs" are not copyrighted, just like any other piece of art is not copyrighted. What _is_ copyrighted is the digital data that makes up the font you actually use. It is also not technically illegal to re-outline the glyphs from a copyrighted font that have been physically printed out and scanned back into the computer. However, it certainly brings into question the ethics of the individual's actions when that is done, especially when the individual redistributes, or worse resells, the re-outlined font file claiming it as their own unless the original license allows such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see .. Thank you for the explanation sir


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have the same understanding as tisimst of copyright as related to fonts. I also think tisimst's point about ethics in this regard is very important.

In my own personal opinion (which has no bearing legally, of course), the odod describes might still be considered an infringement on someone elses work, especially if we're talking about blatant plagiarism of a particular design. As an example, I got the consent of Durand before using a traced and slightly modified version of their g-clef shape. As the only traced glyph in my entire music font, it helps me sleep a little better at night, knowing that the publisher the design originated from is OK with me using it, even if I'm under no legal obligation to do so.

Knut wrote:I have the same understanding as tisimst of copyright as related to fonts. I also think tisimst's point about ethics in this regard is very important.

In my own personal opinion (which has no bearing legally, of course), the odod describes might still be considered an infringement on someone elses work, especially if we're talking about blatant plagiarism of a particular design. As an example, I got the consent of Durand before using a traced and slightly modified version of their g-clef shape. As the only traced glyph in my entire music font, it helps me sleep a little better at night, knowing that the publisher the design originated from is OK with me using it, even if I'm under no legal obligation to do so.

Agree with you too knut,
but somehow i always found sonata font from adobe was renamed by few music notation app
I always familiar with the 16th flag style of sonata font .. Even in Gould's book i somehow notice it was using the same design as sonata 16th flag glyph .. And also the book itself using modified or mixed opus glyphs .. Cmiiw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

odod wrote:Agree with you too knut,
but somehow i always found sonata font from adobe was renamed by few music notation app
I always familiar with the 16th flag style of sonata font .. Even in Gould's book i somehow notice it was using the same design as sonata 16th flag glyph .. And also the book itself using modified or mixed opus glyphs .. Cmiiw

As long as you don't break any laws, I guess you must decide for yourself what you think is right.

But, to bring it back on topic, does anyone have an opinion on the text font design in the last two examples?

All that i can say is "beautiful" i like it .. Fits with the score, a mixture between modern and old edition which is really nice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Knut wrote:

tisimst wrote: If possible, I would recommend thinning it down. It just seems unnecessarily too black, like if I had used a "caption" optical font in place of the "display" variant, if you get what I mean.

... here are two different versions of a song with translated text in PDF format; one with the original font, and one with a somewhat reduced version...

Those are not all that different, but if #1 is the same as your original sample, then I retract my assessment about it being too heavy. Must have been an optical illusion. After printing both out I'd say that neither is unreadable, but #1 seems to have just a little more presence than #2 (the "somewhat reduced version") and its weight doesn't stand out nearly as much from the non-italic New Century Schoolbook as I thought before. Nicely done!

odod wrote:All that i can say is "beautiful" i like it .. Fits with the score, a mixture between modern and old edition which is really nice

Thank you!

tisimst wrote: Those are not all that different, but if #1 is the same as your original sample, then I retract my assessment about it being too heavy. Must have been an optical illusion. After printing both out I'd say that neither is unreadable, but #1 seems to have just a little more presence than #2 (the "somewhat reduced version") and its weight doesn't stand out nearly as much from the non-italic New Century Schoolbook as I thought before. Nicely done!

Thank you so much, tisimst.
No, the difference is subtle, yet, very important if one wants to get it 'just right'.

I agree completely with tisimst. On the computer monitor, the heavier one looks too heavy, but in printing, the heavier one is best.

John Ruggero wrote:I agree completely with tisimst. On the computer monitor, the heavier one looks too heavy, but in printing, the heavier one is best.

Thank you, John.

This discrepancy between screen and print is probably related to 'hinting' (making sure the contours fit properly into the pixel grid). Up until now, I've just relied on the automatic hinting features of FontLab, but this may imply that it is indeed worth spending the time to do it manually (which is a very laborious process).