🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <124647@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lemay@sun.UUCP (Laura Lemay) writes:
>>The PostScript programs that draw the fonts are.  The character outlines
>>themselves are usually either licensed from a type company such as ITC or
>>Mergenthaler, or proprietary to Adobe (the Stone typefaces, for instance).
>
>Well, close, but no cigar.  The outlines themselves are not licensed, the
>NAME is.  The outline fonts themselves are drawn by Adobe as well. 
>(I believe....I could be totally wrong, but this is what a graphic design
>expert told me once.)

Actually the earlier posting is correct.  We license the outlines from
Linotype, ITC, URW, Varityper, and others.  The outlines typically come
in a format that is not PostScript (URW's Ikarus format, for example),
and we have to do some data-conversion to get them into PostScript
outline format.  We also bring them up on a workstation screen (Suns,
in fact) to make sure the outlines are working correctly and to do some
clean-up of the data which is sometimes required.  We also apply
"hints" to the fonts for good rendering on a digital grid.  But we are
generally very, very careful not to alter the design or the metrics of
the characters except under very special circumstances where we have to
make some infinitessimal changes.  Now you can flame me if you want and
point out some of the early bugs in our fonts, but the spirit of what
I say is still true, give or take a little human error.  And also, the
Times and Helvetica fonts that most people look at were done practically
by hand back in 1984 or 1985 before much of the sophisticaed software
was in place, so they are a teeny bit more crufty than the gleaming
new fonts that roll off the assembly line today :-)

>Due to a glitch in copywright laws, and the fact that most existing type-
>faces have been around for hundreds of years, typefaces cannot be copywrighted.
>Only the names can.

That is true, unfortunately for us all.

>			Adobe could have re-drawn Times or Helvetica, but they 
>would have had to call them something else in order to publish them. (lots
>of little bitmap companies do just this). By licensing the names, the
>can draw thier own versions of the existing fonts, and have them get
>the recognition of that name in the design and publishing worlds.

Yes, licensing the names is important, both for our reputation and for
the preservation of the type designs and to give the designers their
due.  But again, we also license the typefaces, not just the names.

>ITC has its own line of fonts using thier drawings of the typeface, which
>sometimes can differ a great deal from Adobe's drawings.  ITC Garamond tends
>to be a lot closer to the original Garamond (a little rounder, with larger
>spaces in the closed of sections of the "B" and "e", and thier Times Bold
>is a MUCH better rendering than Adobe's is.  ITC markets its fonts with
>the ITC label in front because Adobe got the real names marketed first :-)

Adobe's Times-Bold was licensed from Linotype.  Our first Garamond,
the one with which you are probably familiar, was licensed directly from
ITC (the copyright notice is even inside the font, if you want to look).
We didn't redesign them or redraw them.  The differences you see
are most likely artifacts of digital rendering and low resolution than
they are differences in the font outlines, but I'm guessing.  It is
possible that there are some slight differences in the original ITC
design and the one that came out the back end of our software.

We have, however, recently done an Adobe Original interpretation of
Garamond called Adobe Garamond, which is available from us (as of very
recently).  I'm no expert, but I'm told it is very true to the original
foundry designs.

I hope this helps.  I don't quite remember what the original question
was any more, so this may be further afield than necessary :-)

Glenn Reid
Adobe Systems