Bitstream Font names and licenses
Bitstream Support
This is the second in a series of three postings that answer
recent questions about Bitstream type and policies.
We would have replied sooner, but we lost access to comp.fonts,
then we had trouble with our news reader, so here goes:
Question:
Why are Bitstream font names so different from industry
standard? Is it because Bitstream has "ripped off' designs
and is covering up by renaming the faces?
Answer:
Bitstream follows the rules established by ATypI regarding
font names and designs. ATypI is an international body
that regulates reputable type foundries in their release of
type designs and other issues. According to ATypI regulations
a "Derivative Design" is legitimate if the derivative typeface
is based on another foundry's work when that work has been
available for more than 15 years.
Whenever possible, Bitstream consults the original designer.
For example, the creation of Zapf Humanist, Zapf Calligraphic,
and Zapf Elliptical, Bitstream's digital versions of Optima,
Palatine, and Melior was supervised and commended by Herman Zapf.
As has been discussed here before, in many countries
(including the US), typeface designs are not protectable
under copyright law, but typeface names are!
All of the typefaces in the Bitstream Library can be linked
to 4 sources:
FIRST
Typefaces designed by Bitstream staff type designers or
commissioned from world-renowned type designers outside of
Bitstream (and a royalty is paid).
Examples are Bitstream Arrus, drawn by then Bitstream staffer
Rich Lipton and Bitstream Amerigo, commissioned from noted
Dutch designer Gerard Unger. These typeface names have been
trademarked by Bitstream to protect them legally.
SECOND
Typeface designs/names that are in the public domain. Any
foundry may include these designs in their libraries.
THIRD
Bitstream licenses many of the designs in its library from
other type foundries such as ITC, Fundicion Tipografica
Neufville, and others. Royalties are paid back to all of
these foundries based on negotiated contracts.
FOURTH
Bitstream needed to release certain designs into our
library and the original foundries refused to grant us
licenses to use their trademarked name despite our offer to
pay royalties.
In this case, Bitstream issued a derivative design under
Bitstream's own name.
In creating a derivative design, Bitstream fully obeys
ATypI's guidelines, and creates original artwork for the
design based on its earliest historical appearances.
Some people find this surprising and/or objectionable,
but it is a practice employed by almost all foundries.
Helvetica and Times Roman are the most popular examples.
There are 20 or 30 different-name versions of these popular
designs (Swiss, Arial, Helios, Dutch, Tms Rmn, New Times Roman
and others), from many foundries.
NOTE:
Bitstream, along with Adobe and other reputable foundries
have established a precedent in copyright law that protects
digital typeface programs as unique, protectable computer
software.
This is a hard-to-explain legal point, but essentially,
digital typefaces are programs, with many unique components
(such as hints, etc), and may not be reverse engineered (as
some un-named companies made a practice of).
However, the logical result of executing that program, a
character on paper for example, has no legal protectability.
Question:
But why are the names so weird?
Answer:
For typeface names that originate at Bitstream, we use a
unique naming convention. With this convention, the
typefaces are classified based on their distinguishing
charactersistics.
In the case of many of the derivitave designs in Bitstream's
libary, these "Bitstream Classification" names are used.
The first part of the name is an indicator of the major
design characteristics (Slabserif, or Formal Script).
Typefaces are further distinguished by a three-digit number.
The first digit refers to x-height (higher number means larger
x-height).
The final two digits are assigned arbitrarily to cluster similar
typefaces together.
Examples
Gothic 720 is Bitstream's version of Groteque
Gothic 725 is Bitstream's version of Akzidenz Grotesk
The 7 means that these two fonts have the same x-height.
The name, Gothic, and the 20 and 25 mean that the two
fonts have similar but different design features.
Bitstream developed this name convention to aid users in their
selection of typefaces for particular tasks.
We hope it does help.
Karen Dupre, Bitstream QA
Disclaimer: I work for Bitstream. I am biased in Bitstream's favor.
Don Hosek
> This is the second in a series of three postings that answer
> recent questions about Bitstream type and policies.
> ATypI's guidelines, and creates original artwork for the
> design based on its earliest historical appearances.
Then why are you giving lining figures to Venetian 301 instead of
text figures? I've attempted to research the origin of the
Centaur lining figures and haven't been able to locate them in
any of the pre-digital versions. They certainly were not a Rogers
creation.
> Helvetica and Times Roman are the most popular examples.
> There are 20 or 30 different-name versions of these popular
> designs (Swiss, Arial, Helios, Dutch, Tms Rmn, New Times Roman
> and others), from many foundries.
Times New Roman is in fact the original name for Times. Times
Roman is a trademark of Linotype who managed to get that name in
the United States by being first off the mark and exploiting a
technicality or three.
-dh
--
Don Hosek "The Only Solution is Love"
Quixote Digital Typography -Dorothy Day
Publishers of _Serif: The Magazine of Type and Typography_
909-621-1291 Current reading: _Paragraphs
FAX: 909-625-1342 on Printing_ (Rogers),
dho...@quixote.com _On Nature_ (Lucretius)
Harvey Fishman
> > In creating a derivative design, Bitstream fully obeys
> > ATypI's guidelines, and creates original artwork for the
> > design based on its earliest historical appearances.
>
> Then why are you giving lining figures to Venetian 301 instead of
> text figures? I've attempted to research the origin of the
> Centaur lining figures and haven't been able to locate them in
> any of the pre-digital versions. They certainly were not a Rogers
> creation.
As has been pointed out here before, while the figures in Venetian 301 are
not as extreme as the text figures in the Monotype Expert Set, they are
CERTAINLY NOT the lining figures of the regular Monotype set. Their
general form is certainly text, but they just do not descend quite as much
below the baseline.
I think that a far worse departure is that Venetian 301 is VERY light in
optical weight. Rogers' original Centaur was light enough to make Jenson
spin in his grave, but this is enough for him to approach escape velocity.
Mind that ___I___ find the light weight DELIGHTFUL, but I think that it is
certainly not prototypical.
Harvey
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Fishman |
fis...@panix.com | When in doubt, set it in Cheltenham and center it.
718-258-7276 |
Don Hosek
> I think that a far worse departure is that Venetian 301 is VERY light in
> optical weight. Rogers' original Centaur was light enough to make Jenson
> spin in his grave, but this is enough for him to approach escape velocity.
> Mind that ___I___ find the light weight DELIGHTFUL, but I think that it is
> certainly not prototypical.
Actually, Centaur is not that different from Jenson's original in its
typographic color. It was Morris' Golden Type and many of the early revivals
which were busily rotating Jenson's corpse, no doubt. Serif #1 will have a
great deal of information on this between articles on Morris and Centaur.
Harvey Fishman
> In article <330ata$9...@panix.com>, fis...@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) writes:
> > I think that a far worse departure is that Venetian 301 is VERY light in
> > optical weight. Rogers' original Centaur was light enough to make Jenson
> > spin in his grave, but this is enough for him to approach escape velocity.
> > Mind that ___I___ find the light weight DELIGHTFUL, but I think that it is
> > certainly not prototypical.
>
> Actually, Centaur is not that different from Jenson's original in its
> typographic color. It was Morris' Golden Type and many of the early revivals
> which were busily rotating Jenson's corpse, no doubt. Serif #1 will have a
> great deal of information on this between articles on Morris and Centaur.
Yes, you are right. I got to comparing a sample of the Jenson type (in
_Types of Typefaces_, J. Ben Lieberman, Sterling Publishing Co., New York
1967, page 35) with a sample of the Monotype Corp. Centaur (in
_Encyclopaedia of Type Faces_, Berry, Johnson & Jaspert, Pitman, New York
1958, page 15), and they are very similar in color. The Lieberman book
has a sample of the Aldus typeface of 1495 apposed to the Jenson. THAT is
the one that is about the same color as the sample of Golden Type on page
148 of BJ&J (perhaps the Golden Type is a scootch lighter).
Perhaps what led me astray is that the editorial comment about Centaur in
BJ&J says "It is lighter in colour and more modelled then Cloister Old
Face." Having just compared Centaur with Golden at the time that I read
that, I ran off at the mind and leaped to a wrong conclusion about the
original Jenson. Oh well, how else do you learn?
Harvey Fishman
> In article <330ata$9...@panix.com>, fis...@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) writes:
> > I think that a far worse departure is that Venetian 301 is VERY light in
> > optical weight. Rogers' original Centaur was light enough to make Jenson
> > spin in his grave, but this is enough for him to approach escape velocity.
> > Mind that ___I___ find the light weight DELIGHTFUL, but I think that it is
> > certainly not prototypical.
>
> Actually, Centaur is not that different from Jenson's original in its
> typographic color. It was Morris' Golden Type and many of the early revivals
> which were busily rotating Jenson's corpse, no doubt. Serif #1 will have a
> great deal of information on this between articles on Morris and Centaur.
Yes, you are right. I got to comparing a sample of the Jenson type (in
_Types of Typefaces_, J. Ben Lieberman, Sterling Publishing Co., New York
1967, page 35) with a sample of the Monotype Corp. Centaur (in
_Encyclopaedia of Type Faces_, Berry, Johnson & Jaspert, Pitman, New York
1958, page 15), and they are very similar in color. The Lieberman book
has a sample of the Aldus typeface of 1495 apposed to the Jenson. THAT is
the one that is about the same color as the sample of Golden Type on page
148 of BJ&J (perhaps the Golden Type is a scootch lighter).
Perhaps what led me astray is that the editorial comment about Centaur in
BJ&J says "It is lighter in colour and more modelled then Cloister Old
Face." Having just compared Centaur with Golden at the time that I read
that, I ran off at the mind and leaped to a wrong conclusion about the
original Jenson. Oh well, how else do you learn?
Harvey
Don Hosek
> Perhaps what led me astray is that the editorial comment about Centaur in
> BJ&J says "It is lighter in colour and more modelled then Cloister Old
> Face." Having just compared Centaur with Golden at the time that I read
> that, I ran off at the mind and leaped to a wrong conclusion about the
> original Jenson. Oh well, how else do you learn?
By reading _Serif_, of course ;-). #1 has articles about Centaur
and Morris which is why I'm so full of information on these two
topics...
Tim Rylance
I've attempted to research the origin of the Centaur lining figures and
haven't been able to locate them in any of the pre-digital versions.
They certainly were not a Rogers creation.
My late 1960s Monotype hot metal specimen book shows a Centaur 352 with
lining figures (regular Monotype Centaur was series 252). Centaur 352
was only available in 18pt, which suggests that it is the version
specially cut for the Oxford Lectern Bible. The specimen of Bible
Centaur on page 43 of the Whittington Press `Miscellany of Type'
shows that this face does indeed have lining figures.
The lining figures in Bitstream Venetian 301 appear to be those of
Bible Centaur: 34579 have slight descenders. The lining figures
in (digital) Monotype Centaur are rather dull in comparison.
--
Tim Rylance <t...@puffball.demon.co.uk>
Terry Carroll
A very informative post; however:
> As has been discussed here before, in many countries
> (including the US), typeface designs are not protectable
> under copyright law, but typeface names are!
This is incorrect. Typeface names are not protectable by copyright
-- they are protectable by trademark, just as any other name for a
product is.
The relevant Copyright Office regulation is 37 C.F.R. 202.1; this is the
same regulation that states that typeface is not registerable (which for
all practical purposes is tantamount to saying that it's not copyrightable).
Names and short phrases are covered, I think, in 202.1(a); typeface is
covered in 202.1(e).
--
Terry Carroll | I survived the Great California Bar
Santa Clara, CA | Exam of Summer 1994, and all I got was
carr...@netcom.com | this lousy .signature.
William H. Blunn
> Helvetica and Times Roman are the most popular examples.
> There are 20 or 30 different-name versions of these popular
> designs (Swiss, Arial, Helios, Dutch, Tms Rmn, New Times Roman
> and others), from many foundries.
Judging by some of the articles in this group, I am a bit of a font virgin,
but surely it's a bit off to lump Arial in with Helvetica (look at "a",
"R", "1" just for starters).
--
Bill Blunn * bo...@bone.demon.co.uk
Mark J. Dulcey
Well, they may not be identical, but they are fairly similar sans-serif
typefaces that are typically used for the same sorts of things. The
popular PC versions of Arial are also width-compatible with Helvetica,
so you can interchange them without changing your document layout.
Finally, Microsoft Windows and some OEM copies of ATM for Windows
come with Arial in place of Helvetica -- and the environment is set
up to automatically substitute Arial when you ask for Helvetica.
So, it seems to me that there ARE some reasons why these two typefaces
get lumped together in people's minds.