Uli the witch hunter, first you’d have to ask does anyone at Typophile care. Judging from the development of other threads started by the witch hunter Uli, I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope that any witch hunting revelations published by Uli the witch hunter remain firmly in German only. German witches beware, the hunt is on!

hhp

Oh dear, this is so sad... :^/

You really really like to say “forgery”, don’t you? Come on, say it again — “forgery”. Knock yerself out. :^)

I don’t think anybody would dispute that you’d get along smashingly with Downer.

hhp

Uli,

according to my dictionary,

lying is “to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone”

whereas

ignorance is “not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something”.

Your website evidently contains untrue statements. I wonder which one it is in your case, lying or ignorance?

I missed the part where I had anything to do with people buying fonts at FontShop. :^)

Plus it’s not very nice to go about insulting people. “Stupid font buyers”? Tsk tsk, manners! :^P

I’ll admit, I have very little idea of what Uli is talking about. But, a cursory search of FontShop’s website turns up zero fonts named Paxim or Parlament. So, what’s the deal, here? Uli, do you have links that show otherwise? That is, something besides some .PDF lists in German that nobody here can/wants to read? Or, can I go back to bed?

Uli,

it seems that you have very strong opinions and you want to convince everybody of your views. That’s fair enough.

However, when you find arguments that support your point of view you do not seem to check if they are actually true, maybe because when checking them they might turn out to be invalid. That’s not OK. Please check your statements more thoroughly before you post them. It is not about asking others to prove you wrong, you should only post statements if you are certain to be correct.

So specify and prove at least TWO untrue statements.

You’re not getting the point here. It is YOUR responsibility to verify all the information BEFORE you post it. You cannot simply publish stuff and see if people tell you off.

Anyway, a simple example: On your website you say that Linotype has awarded the “Certificate of Excellence in Type Design” to their own fonts. Do you deliberately post such incorrect information? Or were you just to lazy to check it? Or were you worried to find out that your argument is invalid if you found out who actually awards the “Certificate of Excellence in Type Design”?

Please dont’t reply something like “OK - what else is wrong?”. It is not my job to look for errors on your website. It is your own responsibility to check what you write.

“Statements” in plural? This would mean at least TWO.
So specify and prove at least TWO untrue statements.

That sound very much like you are already aware of ONE lie?

Btw, I am still wondering about your motivation for doing what you do. You evaded my question the other day.

Uli,

I assume your logic is:
“I am right unless someone can prove me wrong.”
and
“If I am proven wrong in one point this does not mean that my other arguments are wrong.”

This logic is certainly true in court. However, this is an internet discussion and people think differently:

If you want to convince people you have to make an effort so they agree with you.

If someone spots a single error/lie in what you say (and most of them will not even be bothered to tell you) they will (unlike a judge) not believe a single word of what else you say.

Maybe that helps in our discussions?

I’m not going to continue wasting time arguing trolls in this thread, so this is my last post on this topic. That said, you wrote:

The Australian FontShop ... is even presently offering Paxim and Parlament for sale

I just checked, and the Australian site doesn’t offer the fonts you mention for sale. In fact, none of the iterations of FontShop worldwide offer Paxim or Parlament. The .JPG links you provided could be forgeries themselves for all I know (or care). But, unless you provide a working link to an active FontShop page somewhere in the world offering the fonts you mention for sale, there’s no basis to your argument. If FontShop offered it for sale in 2004, why post about it now? What can anybody at Typophile do about it?

For Mr. Ahrens and for the other Typophile members it seems to be entirely legal for forgers to snatch the fonts made by others and to rename them and sell them as their own fonts.

Typophile members don’t make the law. Indeed, many are quite upset at current U.S. copyright law which, in fact, doesn’t protect typeface designs themselves, only the source code of the computer files.

But, if you are arguing the morality of copying and reselling fonts under different names, you’d do much better to avoid ad hominem attacks on members of the Typophile community and the purchasers of the fonts they create. Likewise, if you want to be taken seriously as an impartial “documenter” rather than a biased “prosecutor” with an axe to grind, I’d take a page from journalists’ book and avoid using loaded words like “font forgers” and “criminal research.”

As of yet, I have not seen in this thread nor in others you have started any willingness to ascribe to these simple rules of polite discourse. As such, many on these boards spend their time and energy attempting to defend our community against your malicious, defamatory and, quite possibly, libelous vitriol.

I, for one, am done and won’t participate in this fruitless exchange any longer. I would recommend that by brothers and sisters here do likewise and avoid furthering this pointless debate with you.

This English expression in my German subsite was a wrong translation.
Oops!
“Documentations for Prosecutors and Criminal Courts”
Oh, very intersting. That’s very kind of you. However, have you ever heard of any case when the prosecutors were involved in a case that was about intellectual property rights or copyright infringement?

Aside from expressions like “witch hunting”, forgery etc., I am wondering what the general opinion is on the fonts Uli mentioned.

When I look at Paxim, there seems to be a strong similarity with Palatino. However, some distinct differences are the shape of bowls on the d, b, p, q (less round, less calligraphic), some of the serifs are and further, the s and the f are different.

Would this level of distinction make it fall into a category like ’revival’ re-interpretation’?

I am curious for your opinions.

“useless comments”
“Most font buyers are dimwitted”
“At Typophile nobody cares that forgeries of fonts of famous designers are distributed to gullible font buyers.”
“It seems that Typophile members are bloody laymen”

“Please delete my “Uli” account as soon as possible”

“Nobody at Typophile expresses any regrets”

> neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. Papazian nor anyone
> else at Typophile knows which Palatino was forged.

I most certainly do: the metal one.

hhp

> neither Mr. Peters nor Mr. Papazian nor anyone else at Typophile knows which Palatino was forged.

Uli, don’t you even try to assume what I know or don’t know, you silly bastid. :^D

Sebastian, I can’t get into it right now, but I will give you the lowdown on why different foundries have their ’own versions’ of popular typefaces. What Uli likes to call ’forgeries’ is actually something most everyone in the industry is aware of. Uli just wants to make us believe it’s all a big secret conspiracy while it’s no big deal, really. Like everything in life, not all is black and white but different shades of grey. ;^)

Here is the (unfortunately very long, but correct and working) link to where Paxim and Parlament are offered by the FontShop in Australia:

The page exists, but I don’t see any samples of the fonts in question and they are not available for sale. Try it and see. And the page doesn’t look like the other font pages

(http://www.fontshop.com/?fuseaction=catalog.fonts&searchby=category&sear...)

so it’s questionable (to me anyway) as to what it’s existence means. Did Fontshop once upon a time carry the fonts? Then why don’t they now?

George
I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no Bodoni

Over 40 instances of “forgery”, “forgeries”, “forged”, “forgers” etcetera in this thread already. Uli is having a field day! ;^)

Ooooh, say it again, Uli. “Forgery”. Taste it, spit out the ’f’, let the ’r’s roll on your tongue. Come on, you know you want it. :^)

Yves — This is juvenile. You may disagree, but pinning down someone on his terminology is downright dim.

Hrant — “the metal one” is not much of a help, is it? Which metal one? The one for machine composition on a Linotype? The one for hand composition by Stempel? Which master size? Etc.

All — Stay to the point!

Yes, stay on the hunt!

hhp

Please, lets not bring the Hunts into this! :-(

Ludwig, can we pin Uli down on his flawed reductive logic then? His haughty, judgemental tone, his acid words? His paranoia? The pointlessly combative air of his posts? I have to ask why Uli proposes to help anyone except possibly by enriching lawyers. He doesn’t seem to have any respect for font makers or font buyers. He’s declared Typophile useless to him. I doubt that, though I don’t wish for his return.

If it’s really worthwhile pursuing which Palatino was pirated here, prepare for a very long and tedious list of other pirated versions of Palatino. You may be ready for a nap before we even finish enumerating the “forgeries”, much less tracing the original versions.

I think it’s more interesting to contemplate the different original versions of Palatino, and why certain ones of them aren’t yet available digitally (from the descendant of the original foundry).

> Yves — This is juvenile. You may disagree, but pinning down someone on his terminology is downright dim.

Yup. I’ve stopped trying to make some sense out of his ramblings and decided to lower myself to his level. This is new to me, but it’s actually kinda fun.

Whatever, this is a non-discussion. Carl sums it up pretty nicely.

Si — ROFL :^D

Yves — If you stop trying to make sense out of someone’s words, sure you can turn each discussion into a non-discussion. The question at stake in the opening post merely asked after the sources of the two respectively quoted remakes. If this kind of font genealogy is of any interest to you (to me it is), then please partake into the discussion. If not, refrain from it and keep the supercilious quibbling to yourself.

Carl — I fail to perceive “flawed reductive logic”, “haughty, judgemental tone”, “acid words”, “paranoia” and a “pointlessly combative air” in the posts of Uli. Claiming that “he doesn’t seem to have any respect for font makers or font buyers,” is a blunt twist of his words, while he explicitly asserts the opposite: “At Typophile nobody cares that forgeries of fonts of famous designers are distributed to gullible font buyers.” You don’t pay respect to a naïve fool by telling him he’s cunning.

Piling falacious arguments always does the trick. Yes, you can silence people by ridiculising their words, convictions and interests. That’s what witch hunters are good at, right? I wonder why the author of this thread judged Typophile members to be “bloody laymen”?

> I’ve stopped trying to make some sense out of his ramblings
> and decided to lower myself to his level. This is new to me,
> but it’s actually kinda fun.

Ditto!
When there’s no point, might as well have fun
with it. You know, like a dumb punching bag.

hhp

I have to agree with Carl’s opinions, and add that someone who constantly refers to the “font forging industry” is probably just trying to get a rise out of someone. Let’s not fall for his tricks any longer.

Uli has the courage of his convictions, rightly or wrongly. Witchhunt or not, it brings into focus an interesting point. The opportunity is there to inform him of why you disagree in such a manner that he may get something useful from it.

I, and I’m sure there are others would like to hear someone expand on the reasons for these ’versions’ of typefaces beyond the obvious piracy arguments. Instead – from 2 of typophile’s usually eloquent members – we get...

Yup. I’ve stopped trying to make some sense out of his ramblings and decided to lower myself to his level. This is new to me, but it’s actually kinda fun.

When there’s no point, might as well have fun
with it. You know, like a dumb punching bag.

As a result I fear you’ve only strengthened his resolve and contributed to the perpetuation of information that doesn’t tell the whole story.

ChrisG, Ludwig,

the problem is not his concern, it is his method. That is unsound.

Another problem is his choice of words. I do think terminology matters and we can and should critisize him for this.

Conviction, good. Berserker persecution, bad.

hhp

Undoubtedly Hrant. I am not in a position to comment on the veracity of Uli’s claims, but if they are wide of the mark as the consensus would suggest, bestowing some patience and collective expertise might make for a rethink on his part.

And just like a creature whose name I shall not mention (for the better part of me), off he go to the void.

Actually, he might go back in again after reading all of these comments.

> but if they are wide of the mark as the consensus would suggest, bestowing some patience and collective expertise might make for a rethink on his part.

Frankly, that would be a monumental waste of time. We’ve been there and done that, believe me. Countless times. Over and over again. :^/

You only say this because you’re new to his antics.

Yes, I’m unfamiliar with Uli prior to this thread, and if it is an ongoing thing it puts your exasperation in a different light. No offence intended Yves.

I’m on the last page of the hunting manual, yay!

hhp

We do not delete accounts so as to keep some continuity in the content. The best thing you can do is simply not visit Typophile. Cheers!

> Yes, I’m unfamiliar with Uli prior to this thread, and if it is an ongoing thing it puts your exasperation in a different light. No offence intended Yves.

No no no, no offense taken, really! This thread was actually quite funny. Uli reminds me of an old kook in my wife’s native street, who after 55 years still thinks the Germans are coming. Pops out of his garden and starts to talk crazy to you, pure paranoia.

Tim,

> the problem is not his concern, it is his method.
> That is unsound.

It is an unsound method, and Uli shoots himself in the foot because of this quite often.

> Another problem is his choice of words. I do think
> terminology matters and we can and should critisize
> him for this.

Well, I actually like his choice of words. Uli uses his own terminology, but he quite clearly states his purpose and his reasoning.

Sometimes, he’s completely wrong, and it’s quite easy to pin him on that. But if you ignore the rambling overhead of this posts and writings, you’ll find out that in many cases, he’s unfortunately right. It would be helpful if he did not ruin this by shooting himself in the foot on so many occasions, claiming things that are not true, jumping to illogical conclusions etc.

Reading Uli kind of requires some mental discipline, but at the end of the day, there are many useful things on his website. I guess, had he been less confrontational in style, he’d more easily find audience willing to listen. A lesson that I learned myself some time ago.

A.

Ps. At least Uli considers the font forging industry “funny”, a view that I most certainly share.

Some good points.

Personally my only real problem with Uli is that he’s so obsessed with something so deathly boring. It’s like somebody who only frequents a forum for discussing the composition of music to express outrage at Spears’s and Aguilera’s promiscuities.

hhp

I guess most of the population considers type design itself deadly boring — including some type designers. I actually don’t consider the “funny font forging industry” boring. I find it fascinating that all those people keep knocking each other off and get away with it just fine.

A.

I guess most of the population considers type design itself deadly boring...

That’s a good point, actually.

Uli,

while I’m not in any way part of the dispute, I would like to make some comments on your findings and claims.

As you point out in http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/escoria.pdf, the original type design Chevalier was designed by Emil A. Neukomm in 1946 at Haas, and was distributed in Germany by D. Stempel AG from the 1950s on. As you probably, know, both Haas and Stempel assets have been acquired by Linotype-Hell around 1985-89. Linotype-Hell was acquired by Heidelberg and its font division was separated into Linotype Library GmbH in 1997. In 2006-07, the company changed the name to Linotype GmbH and was sold to Monotype Imaging.

There has been a continuous legal ownership of matrices, design originals (drawings), designer credits and (in many cases) trademarks by Linotype GmbH from its predecessors.

While Hertin Anwaltssozietät asserts there is no copyright protection for type designs in Germany and typeface designs can be only protected as design patents (Geschmacksmuster), this does not automatically imply that this is the case worldwide. For example in Poland, courts have decided that typeface designs are protected under copyright law (rather than the patent law, which only offers paid and more time-limited protection).

On http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/chevalier.htm, you interpret the “June 2006” release of Chevalier by Linotype so that before June 2006, Chevalier was not available at Linotype. Your interpretation is wrong. As you have documented yourself, Haas published Chevalier as metal type in 1946 and D. Stempel AG distributed the metal type from the 1950s on. The typeface was available for sale by these companies. Haas’ type assets and D. Stempel AG were purchased by Linotype-Hell in the 1980s, and their assets have gone into Linotype GmbH. Linotype GmbH is the legal successor of D. Stempel AG and at least of the type assets of Haas (I don’t know the exact details of the transactions).

You make the point that Softmaker sold the digital font “Maurice” as early as 2002 (or perhaps earlier), and that it was a “forgery” of the Chevalier design. You conclude that Linotype’s digital font “Chevalier” is a copy of “Maurice”, therefore not an original. But as Linotype is a legal successor of the type assets of Haas and Stempel, wouldn’t you agree that it has the right to claim to be the originator of the Chevalier design, dating back to 1946?

Further, you completely ignore the distinction between typeface design and the digital font form. The Adobe vs. SSi ruling in the U.S. has affirmed that digital fonts are treated as software programs and are copyrightable under U.S. law. Since U.S. and Germany are part of the WIPO and of the Berne convention, it can be asserted that while typeface designs may not be copyrightable in Germany (but only enjoy patent protection), the software programs, and therefore the digital fonts, are copyrightable. I believe there are some German court rulings that see it the same way.

Your analysis of Linotype’s Chevalier and Softmaker’s Maurice digital data is interesting. Indeed, it suggests that both fonts share the same digital software code. While Linotype release the font only in 2006, there is no reason to assume that it was not “digitized by Linotype” earlier. Many fonts exist in raw digital formats for years and only get published much later.

Keep in mind that copyright protection does not take the date of publication into account, but the date of creation. Therefore, it is of no significance that Softmaker released their font in 2002 (or earlier) while Linotype did so only in 2006. What is important to discover is who and when did the digitization of Chevalier, i.e. turned the Haas/Stempel/Linotype original design into software code.

I cannot agree with your conclusion that Linotype’s statements “Digitized by Linotype”, “Linotype Original”, “Copyright by Linotype” are “blunt lies” (“plumpe Lügen”). Given the fact that Chevalier was produced and marketed by companies that were acquired by Linotype, Linotype is entitled to call the typeface a “Linotype Original”. Provided that the font software for Chevalier was indeed prepared by Linotype (Linotype-Hell AG, Linotype Library GmbH, Linotype GmbH or a service partner working for any of these), I have no reason to see why Linotype should not claim copyright on the digital software code, and credit itself on the digitization.

Unfortunately, Ulrich — as usual — you are jumping to conclusions without properly analyzing the materials. I agree with you that the matter should be clarified by the legal authorities, and therefore am grateful for your work on documenting these issues. However, I don’t think that you’re doing yourself or anyone else much service by accompanying your documentation with loud claims such as “blunt lies”, which, in my eye, you have not sufficiently backed up with evidence.

Regards,
Adam

Uli,

regarding the correspondence from Elsner+Flake’s attorneys Anwaltsozietät Hertin, I believe you have not understood what they wrote. They say that the typeface *design* “Chavalier” has become public domain, and that Elsner+Flake digitized it, expanded the character set and implemented the typeface in contemporary font formats. While typeface designs may not be copyrightable in Germany, digital fonts are considered copyrightable software. In your reply to Hertin, you cite Hertin’s book in that he describes that forging public domain works such as Shakespeare’s is illegal.

But your analogy is flawed. The works of Shakespeare are public domain but if one produces a software program that displays and presents Shakespeare’s works on modern computers in an innovative way, and extends the works by comments or some other additions, the result of this work *is* copyrightable even though the underlying work is public domain.

This is why Hertin writes: “In case of the typeface ’Escorial’, our client [Elsner+Flake] digitized an existing metal type of letterforms, added special characters such as €, @ and others that have meanwhile become customary, and implemented the result in contemporary font formats. Our client offers this service as licenses for the relevant fonts.”

Quite clearly, Hertin’s point is that while Chevalier is a public domain design, Elsner+Flake’s version (“Escorial”) is not copyright-free because Elsner+Flake digitized the typeface and implemented the design in digital font formats (which are considered software) and performed some work that added intellectual property (such as creating the custom characters).

In your reply to Hertin, you mix up typeface designs and digital fonts and ignore the rest of the distinctions I have explained above. This indicates that you don’t understand what Hertin wrote to you.

Regards,
Adam

BTW, as you well know, Uli, the court ruling that confirmed that computer fonts are copyrightable as software in Germany was LG Köln, Urteil vom 12.01.2000, 28 O 133/97 “Schutzfähigkeit von Computerschriften”: http://www.jurpc.de/rechtspr/20000217.htm

I’m well aware that you are opposing this view in your analysis (http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf ) but to me, the arguments that you present in your write-up do not hold up.

Regards,
Adam

Two striking things in the Hertin letter:

(1) To my regret, the letter itself does not make the distinction between protecting type design vs protecting font software explicit.

(2) The Hertin letter (to support its claim that their client sells digitized typefaces that are public domain now and not protected by copyright) sweepingly states that for the protection of typefaces there is the Geschmacksmustergesetz/Schriftzeichengesetz — and no protection beyond that.* It goes so far to claim that typefaces are not copyrightable.** This contradicts what was published elsewhere, that typefaces are protected if they show “artistic added value” — unlikely maybe, but, well ... So, I regret that their argument is rather extrabold.
(At the same time, referring to the link Adam posted, I have the sad impression that the court took the easy route: because fonts deserve protection as font software, they did not even attempt to answer the question whether the typefaces are actually works of art and thus copyrighted in Germany. Since font formats come and go, protection of typefaces as font software is only a substitute for real protection of the pieces of art/design which typefaces are or can be. It is as if a 300-dpi scan of a drawing were copyrighted but the original drawing were not. It is plain absurd. But another story.)

*  “Darueber hinaus ist ein rechtlicher Schutz von Schriftzeichen vom Gesetzgeber nicht vorgesehen.” (p.2)
**  “Bei einem Schrifttyp handelt es sich jedoch eben gerade nicht um ein urheberrechtlich geschuetztes Werk iSd § 1,2 UrhG.” (p.3)

As to the Chevalier outlines, it is amusing that obviously Softmaker sells a cleaned up version while Linotype’s shows Ikarus-conversion-artefacts in the left serif.  :)
It might be a funny project for future students of type history to create a genealogy of font outlines.

Another interesting aspect is that - as far as I know - copyright cannot be transferred under any circumstances except inheriting according to German legislation. Therefore it is not possible that a company owns a copyright, it stays with the original designer until his/her death and with the descendants until 70 years after the death.

The ruling to which Adam’s link refers clearly states that fonts — regarded as font software (= computer programs) — are copyrightable.
And typeface designs may be copyrightable as works of art, also indicated in the ruling.

Personal note, to extend what I already said in my previous post:
What really bothers me is the somewhat flawed argument to which the ruling subscribed. It goes like this:
To make software, you need to have computer knowledge and training as typographer or typesetter (the ability to space letters is explicitly mentioned). It does not even matter whether the type designer actually programs the font software, or uses applications which generate the font software. The ruling emphasizes that, to make font software, one needs “creative programming skills/efforts” which justify copyright protection. (One could back this by the assumption that e.g. a PostScript font in fact is a program which can be programmed. But there is no word of this in the said ruling.) In short:
On the one hand, protecting font software — i.e. the technical implementation of typeface design — is easy. The ruling emphasizes what at best can be characterized as mere technical skills.
On the other hand, the barrier for typeface design — as a work of art — to be regarded as copyrightable is set so high that it is rather unlikely that a good text face would ever enjoy this kind of protection.
Absurd.

Hi Adam, Karsten and Uli,

what do you mean by “copyrightable”? Do you mean “schutzfaehig”?

I just browsed my law books and found that some common assumptions about intellectual property legislation are not applicable in Germany:

- The notion of “who owns the copyright” does not seem to be common, at least I have not found anything like that in the texts. You could, of course, ask the question “Who could claim protection for his work in case of an argument, and on which legal basis?”
- Obviously, the creator (Urheber) could do so but no action is necessary to protect you intellectual property on the basis of the UrhG.
- A company cannot be a creator (Urheber). (§7 UrhG)
- Copyright can not be transferred between living persons (§29,2 UrhG).
- However, the creator can transfer rights of use (Nutzungsrechte). I guess this is the legal basis on which intellectual property is “sold”.

Yes, ’schutzfähig’. In the sense that something deserves this kind of protection and is ’urheberrechtlich geschützt’, or not. Not in the sense that you need to “apply” for this kind of protection.

[Slightly edited.]

Uli,

I’m amused by your megalomania. Throughout this thread, you keep stating that the letter to you was written by Professor Hertin, a “copyright law professor at the Berlin University”. However, the signature between the letter reads “Klages, Rechtsanwalt”, which obviously indicates that the letter was written by one of the attorneys in the law firm in which Professor Hertin is the major partner. According to your logic, if my little sister says something, you can quote these words as “Adam Twardoch says”. If you need this kind of appraise, go ahead. But I consider it laughable.

> Mr. Twardoch’s comment contains so many erroneous
> legal assumptions that it would require too much
> time to clarify them in this thread.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so my comments may have a few mistakes, though I don’t see why these would be “many”. And regardless of that, I believe that I at least managed to get away without any major logical holes, which your reasoning is unfortunately full of. As I have written repeatedly, you prematurely jump to conclusions based on imprecise of partial analysis of the text that you have at hand.

> hold the copyright to this same font sold with
> different copyright claims (“Copyright by Softmaker”,
> “Copyright by Linotype”, “Copyright by Elsner + Flake”).

What makes you think that these fonts are “the same”? Surely, these are based on the same typeface design, just as Helvetica LT, Swiss 721 BT and Nimbus Sans are all based on the design of Helvetica. But these are different fonts.

I recommend that you think long and hard, and try to finally understand the difference between “typeface design” and “digital font”. Or maybe you do understand the difference well but you just play naiive, hoping that by twisting your words you can get away with your major logical loopholes.

> Even if fonts were copyrightable in Germany, this would
> be legally impossible.

If these fonts were the same. However, while these three fonts represent a digital form of the same public domain typeface design, I’m still rather not convinced that the digital computer programs are the same. At least you have not shown any evidence that the Linotype version and the E+F version are “the same fonts”.

> But due to the legal fact that fonts are not
> copyrightable at all in Germany,

Fortunately, LG Köln thinks otherwise. Attorney Klages from Prof. Hertin’s firm in their letter to you only states that “Schrifttypen” (which in the context of his explanations is to be seen as “typeface designs”) are not subject to copyright protection. I do not see in which part of their letter Anwaltsozietät Hertin would comment on copyrightability of Fonts as computer programs.

A.

Uli,

the information about the legal case that you posted is interesting. Your conclusions are also interesting, but they’re just wrong.

A.

> there are a few persons at Typophile interested in law matters

There are also a few persons at Typophile interested in facial hair, but you don’t see anybody spending days and days talking about that. Everything is interesting for 5 minutes; nothing is interesting when a person drones on and on about it.

Uli, as it stands your posts would be much more interesting on Legalophile.com, which I’m sure has members who never knew people actually make fonts, and you could have fruitful discussions with them (and maybe learn more about Law). On Typophile, please make an effort to talk more about what you think of font design. It’s more interesting to more people. If you’re so interested in font legalities, surely you must be interested in fonts too - otherwise you’d be talking about the legalities of something else elsewhere. Come on, just a little bit. I mean, just look at this:
http://typophile.com/user/11274/track

hhp

… there it is again, the magical word, how sweet and styelish it sounds:

F O R G E R Y

_________________________________
(don’t you guys have girlfriends?)

Wow, I got fully halfway through that post!

hhp

For what concerns the terminology: I don’t find «font appropriation», «font tweaking», «mentally deranged graphic designers» with «pathological urges» any helpful if you try to convince people with proper facts.

But I’m out, I need some fresh air.

for the hefty sum of more than 2500 Cents
Nice one! That reminds me of the children’s meals you find on menus like:
Spaghetti Cinderella ................. 480 Cents

MA studies at the Piet Zwart Institute:
Hmmm, an article that doesn’t give away the full name of the author? Suspicious.

Hrant,

Typophile is not only about type design. There are discussions about the business of type as well, and if you think discussions about legal aspects of type are not important, I think you’re being naiive.

A.

Of course they’re important. I’m just trying to help Uli
get over his obsession, which would benefit everybody.

hhp

QED.

hhp

in juristischen Fachzeitschriften

Very interesting. Could you be more specific? Which ones? Which issues?

From the last link you provide:
Zurichten deutet aber gerade auf die Programmierung der Hinting-Informationen hin.

It seems that not only the court, but even critics of the ruling have no clue what they are talking about.  :(

So, the key question is whether font files are data or programs, right?
Does OpenType change anything? I mean, most OT fonts actually contain program conde (for the features) manually coded by the designer. These texts were written when OT was obviously not a big thing yet and I think the key arguments are not valid for OT anymore.

Karsten, when has Law ever had a strong
correlation to what regular people need?

hhp

I am still too idealistic ...

>I am still too idealistic …

No, Hrant is too cynical. As it has been put, law is “the science of liberty’. To give up on law is to give up on liberty. And cynicism about law is profoundly illiberal.

The law is alway full of problems, but the task we can engage in our own ways to try to better it through democractic processes and courts. If we give up on law, then we end up with war-lord societies, which are way worse. For example, there is no protection of intellectual property rights, nor property rights, nor in fact human rights.

Nah, you’re too deluded. What you’re exhibiting is purely a coping mechanism. You’re a peon, just like me. We don’t make the laws - they’re not for us.

Proposed bumper sticker:
“Voting is not the answer.”

hhp

> If Linotype had digitized Chevalier, Linotype
> would not have sold Veronika Elsner’s and Günther
> Flake’s “nefarious evil knock-off clone” under
> the name Escorial. This proves that Linotype
> did not digitize Chevalier. Instead, Linotype
> grabbed a “nefarious evil knock-off clone” and
> renamed it to Chevalier and then declared
> “Digitized by Linotype” in order to deceive font
> buyers.

ROTFL. Actually, this proves exactly the opposite. Had Linotype not digitized Chevalier, it would still continue to sell Escorial EF. However, when selling Escorial, Linotype had to give part of the income to Elsner+Flake. At some point — probably after finding out in the vast Linotype archives that Escorial EF is actually based on a design which was originally released by Haas/Stempel (Chevalier), to which Linotype has full rights — Linotype produced a digital version of the font themselves. Quite possibly, they actually even discovered that the font was already digitized by Linotype at an earlier date but only existed in Ikarus form, never converted to PostScript. Quite logically, when Linotype stopped selling the Elsner+Flake font, they decided to publish their own digital version of a typeface that they owned design credits for anyway.

A.

… always taking the meaning of ›nerd‹ to new levels, unthought of before …

Uli,

again, you make some points and then draw ridiculous conclusions.

In 1973, ATypI succeeded in lobbying for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to pass the Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces and their International Deposit (Vienna, 12 June 1973). The Vienna Agreement envisioned a 15-years protection for typeface designs but the Protocol to the Vienna Agreement recommended a minimum of 25-years protection. The Vienna Agreement was signed by 10 countries but was only ratified by two (Germany and France). Germany introduced a special law (“Schriftzeichengesetz”) that implemented the Agreement.

In parallel to the lobbying work that would finally result in a legislative protection of typeface designs, ATypI had agreed on its own Code Morale. You are somewhat right to call the ATypI Code Morale a ’faked camouflage “Moral Code”’. However, the fake paragraph was not Article 2, that you keep quoting all over the place:

“(2) Members consider it to be incompatible with their professional ethics to make a reproduction of another member’s typeface, whether identical or slightly modified, irrespective of the medium, technique, form or size used, unless the owner of the typeface has given his written agreement on terms granting a license.”

The fake paragraph was Article 3, that you miraculously ignore from your deliberations:

“(3) If, after a minimum period of fifteen years of the typeface first being offered for sale, the owner refuses to grant a license, members may copy the typeface provided that the unlicensed copy is sold under a name which is in no way connected with the original name. The manufacturer of a copy made under these circumstances must not contravene trade mark rights, industrial property rights, copyrights, laws against unfair competition etc., or private agreements.”

In plain words, the ATypI Code Morale gave its members a carte blanche to rip each other’s designs if the designs were older than fifteen years.

This Code Morale may have reflected the de facto reality 30 years ago, when the Code was set up, but in the 1990s it was long overdue to be discontinued.

In 2001, the European Union finally introduced an EU-wide protection of typeface designs through the Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (the directive was published in 1998 but went into effect in 2001). Article 1 of the Directive explicitly names “typographic typefaces” as items to be protected. The directive demands that the duration of the protection for typeface designs is at least 25 years. This provision gives better protection than the one drafted in the old Vienna Agreement, and sets higher standards than the old ATypI Code Morale. So in 2004, ATypI finally decided that having an industry moral code that gives lesser standards than the actual legal standards (at least in the E.U.) sends a bad signal. Especially the “license to copy” included in Article 3 was very troubling in the digital era. When the Vienna Agreement and the Code Morale were produced, manufacutrers of phototypesetting equipment produced fonts that only worked with their own proprietary systems, so the reality was that some successful Linotype designs were simply not available in any way for Monotype users, and vice versa. However, in the digital era, this restriction no longer applied: digital fonts are available in a variety of formats, and with the popularization of OpenType, practically the same font can be used on all operating systems. Therefore, the excuse to copy designs because of technical limitations no longer applied. Therefore, upholding the ATypI Code Morale was completely ridiculous.

In short, ATypI abandoned Code Morale not because it felt that now it is O.K. to copy each others’ designs — the very contrary is true. ATypI abandoned Code Morale so that people could no longer claim that they have a “license to copy” after as little as fifteen years after the first publication of a design.

The fact that you only picked Article 2 and omitted the — far more relevant — Article 3 of Code Morale in your deliberations makes me think that your motivation really are not covered by good faith. I will therefore refrain from further commenting on your writings, or discussing them with you. I can now clearly see that instead of searching for an objective truth, you’re merely trying to enforce your own agenda — no matter if it’s backed by facts or just by selective arguments that you keep inventing.

Regards,
Adam

Adam, thank you very much for your most useful comments. You made me trust in research and common sense again. Especially your latest comment made it clear to me that it’s useless to read any of Uli’s pamphlets again. Best regards.

> I have never worked in this font industry, and therefore, as opposed to you, I dare to tell the truth about this funny industry.

I have never worked as a psychotherapist, and therefore, as opposed to you, I dare to tell the truth about this funny person.

hhp

I’d rather not like to be a martyr for … fonts.

In my new documentation http://www.forgers.de/forgers/scangraphic.pdf

’Die Domain “www.forgers.de” wurde gesperrt.’
(The domain “www.forgers.de” was blocked.)

Uli? Any explanations?

FBI, I suppose.

People, ignore the troll. Waste of keystrokes.

> So, when you collect your money check at Linotype,
> you will not dare to ask: “Why did you sell the
> nefarious evil knock-off clone (Bruno
> Steinert’s words) “Escorial”?

Oh, don’t you worry, Ulrich: I dare more than you ever dream of.

I spoke repeatedly about the issues of “font forging” with many people from the industry, including Bruno Steinert, Veronika Elsner, Günther Flake and others. However, I will never ask presumptious questions such as Why do you sell a copy of “Maurice” as “Chevalier” with the wrong statement “Digitized by Linotype”? Why do you deceive font buyers by stating to be the owner of the design rights to the public-domain typeface “Chevalier”?, because these questions are b.s.

Earlier on this page, you wrote “Although the old German design law (“Geschmacksmustergesetz”) was already in force in 1946, at that time, it did not contain any provisions for font design protection (such provisions were added decades later) so that 60 years ago nobody would have tried to register a typeface design.”

Exactly the opposite is true. Before the introduction of the special German typeface design law (“Schriftzeichengesetz”) in 1973, the practice of registering typefaces as ordinary design patents (“Geschmacksmuster”) was very common. When the “Schriftzeichengesetz” was introduced, it merely constituted a lex specialis for typeface designs, and implemented slightly different procedures than for general design patents. In 2004, the old Schriftzeichengesetz was discontinued and typeface design protection was again folded into general design patent (“Geschmacksmuster”) protection.

In fact, before the introduction of the Prussian Art Protection Law (Kunstschutzgesetz in 1907, which was one of the earliest German models for copyright protection), the industrial design protection was the only available for type foundries. As early as 1894 (that is, 113 years ago!), the Leipzig foundry Schelter & Giesecke reigstered two blackletter Schulfraktur designs as “design patents” (Geschmacksmuster) at the Musterregister des Amtsgerichts Leipzig.

Also, as soon as the copyright protection was introduced in 1907, type foundries examined its applicability to typeface designs. For example, in 1911, the said Schelter & Giesecke sued a competitor who produced metal fonts with that design. The Reich Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) found that the Schulfraktur did not fulfil the “artistic protection” criteria based on the Kunstschutzgesetz, but did fulfil the “design protection” (Musterschutz) criteria (cit. BGZ 76, 339 ff. — Schulfraktur).

Interestingly, the supreme court found that no fixed distinction between artistic protection and design protection can be drawn, and that the difference is gradual — the greater or lesser aesthetic quality decides. According to the supreme court, work could be protected as art only “if, without considering its artistic value, the aesthetic surplus that complements the utilitarian aspect of the form reaches a level that can be considered artistic by the contemporary standards.”

The general opinion in German-language legal circles is that “body typefaces” typically do not enjoy copyright protection while “display typefaces” can be copyrightable. As you very well know, in German history the legal system analyzed the question several times, and the outcome was different on different occasion. Therefore, it is not possible to generally presume with certainty that a court would affirm or deny copyright protection for a particular typeface design.

For example in 1928, the Higher State Court (Oberlandesgericht) Darmstadt confirmed a first-instance judgement that Tiemann-Mediaeval (by Walter Tiemann for Klingspor 1909–11) enjoys copyright protection as a work of art (cit. OLG Darmstadt, GRUR 1929, 124 ff. — Tiemann-Mediaeval).

Also in 1928, the Austrian Highest Court in Vienna (Österreichischer Oberster Gerichtshof in Wien) confirmed that Koch Antiqua (by Rudolf Koch for Klingspor 1922) is a copyrightable design. The court found that a typeface enjoys artistic protection if “the individual form treatment and consistent rhythmical design” of the individial letterforms and of the relationship of the characters to each other is capable of invoking an “emotional reaction”. As the Vienna court declared, the artistic content of a typeface might be apparent or opaque to an artistically incompetent viewer; in the latter case, skilled guidance may be necessary to determine whether a work has artistic qualities (cit. P. Abel: Urheberrschtsschutz von Druckschriften, in: GRUR 1928, 740 ff.).

In 1942, the Reich Supreme Court confirmed the previous-instance judgement that the Stefan George Schrift (by Melchior Lechter for Stefan George, 1907) enjoys copyright protection as a work of art (cit. RG UFITA 15 (1942), 410 ff.) This ruling also confirmed the arguments of the Tiemann-Mediaeval judgement.

In 1958, the Supreme Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) denied copyright protection to the design of Candida (Jakob Erbar and Walter Höhnisch for Ludwig & Mayer, 1936, cit. BGHZ 27, 351 ff.).

In 1979 the State Court (Landesgericht) Frankfurt confirmed the copyright protection of Futura (Paul Renner for Bauer, 1928, cit. LG Frankfurt 2/6 O 418/78 vom 29.11.1979).

> After digging into the old German design law,
> I came to the conclusion that Linotype could
> have never owned the design right (...)
> to the Chevalier font (...)

Well, to sum up and re-iterate what I’ve written above: before jumping to conclusions, please do some more digging. Your conclusions will be very different then. Not that I really care about your conclusions.

Regards,
Adam

> Linotype has not yet blocked (i.e. removed)
> the “Chevalier” font. Let’s wait and see
> what happens when the cops move in.

ROTFL. Please, Ulrich, be careful. I may choke while hysterically laughing when I read some of your comments. You really make my day. Maybe you should switch to writing comedy sketches?

A.

That’s a good length for you Uli.

hhp

Ulrich,

first of all, my posting is not a “summary” of your article. I used different sources when writing:

— Brinkhoff, Susanne: Computerschriftzeichenschutz: der Schutz typographischer Schriftzeichen — insbesondere Computerschriften — durch das Schriftzeichengesetz und andere Vorschriften. In: Computer im Recht, Vol. 4. Marburg: Elwert, 1995.
— Kelbel, Günter: Der Schutz typographischer Schriftzeichen. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 1984, p. 387.

The Candida ruling set the standard that “body typefaces” (Brotschriften, Werkschriften) such as Candida or Garamond do not enjoy copyright protection. By underlining that the ruling is about body typefaces, the supreme court explicitly did not decide about display typefaces. This means that display typefaces are copyrightable if they meet the general copyright criteria (creativity, individuality etc.)

The Chevalier typeface may be many things but it most certainly is not a body typeface. Nobody sets running text with an engraved-caps face, so Chevalier obviously is a display typeface. Therefore, its copyrightability is certainly not ruled out by the Candida judgement. In other words, it is up to a court to decide whether Chevalier is a proprietary design or a public domain design.

Also, it is not Linotype who claims that it “owns the design of Chevalier”. Linotype only claims that it is entitled to the publication credit (because it is a legal successor of the company that commissioned the design and published it). At MyFonts, which is a company independent of Linotype, this situation is — perhaps somewhat unluckily — summarized as “designed owned by Linotype”. Perhaps a more clear wording is necessary — I will mention that to the MyFonts team.

For some mysterious reasons, although I pointed it out several times, you’re still attributing the letter that you received from RA Klages from Anwaltsozietät Hertin to Prof. Dr. Hertin. If Professor Hertin had written the letter himself, he surely wouldn’t have signed it “Klages, Rechtsanwalt”, would he? So, it was not Prof. Hertin who claimed that Chevalier is “gemeinfrei” (public domain), it was Mr. Klages. One attorney may claim something but until it is confirmed by a court, this is at least questionable.

I’ve never said that Chevalier is or is not a design that still enjoys copyright protection. But until a court decides otherwise, there is no reason to assume with certainty that the typeface design is public domain. Also, even if Linotype did not own the copyright in the strict sense, it would still own the “credit rights”, i.e. the right to claim that it is the successor of the first publisher and distributor of the typeface (Haas and Stempel). In that respect, Chevalier is still an “original Linotype typeface”.

As far as the matter between Elsner+Flake and Linotype is concerned, appropriate contracts existed between both companies that have since ended. Elsner+Flake used to have digital data for Chevalier but not the trademark, so they marketed the typeface under the name Escorial. Linotype sold this typeface rather than proceeding with their own digitization of Chevalier, to which they held the trademarks. Why this is so is none of my business. It was an arrangement between those two companies. This has nothing to do with forgery.

Regards,
Adam

Uli, please do not post links to sites where it is possible to download fonts—pirated, forged, or otherwise.

“By Any Means Necessary!!” :-/

hhp

People, ignore the troll. Waste of keystrokes.

Indeed.

Time to roll out The Silence Brigade....

.

.

.

.

.

.