Pragmatica is not a clone of Helvetica. Its development was, precisely, inspired by Helvetica.

Call it what it is.

The type industry has a long history of both copying type outright and decrying the practice of copying of type outright.

It probably won't change anytime soon.

Nick's link is a great article.

It is a great read. Thanks, Nick.

Maxim, my bad. I knew that Helvetica had at least two other siblings. One was Swiss 721, but the names of others I forgot. Wikipedia had Pragmatica listed along with CG Triumvirate and Nimbus Sans, and I blindly copied the name from there. No offense implied.

Aesthetically, it seems like this question of cloning/inspiring is purely a function of similarity. For each face, somewhere between 0.1% and 99.9% similarity is a threshold where people will stop ascribing "inspiration" and start bemoaning "cloning".

Of course, if you simply want your own personal version of it for your own use, does it really matter what others think?

Maxim Zhukov:

"Pragmatica is not a clone of Helvetica. "

Is this philosphically true in Russia?

Philosophers ponder this logical riddle:

"A Cretan said: All Cretans are liars."

What happens, if we substitute "Cretan" by "Russian"?

...but I would really appreciate any insight where does the line go between copied/cloned and inspired/derived types.

As you already have figured out, it depends on who you ask. And people will never come to a good mutual understanding on this since there is money and personal interest involved.

If you ask me, there are VERY many clones/knock offs out there in the market.

A simple test - post a sample of the alleged clone font to the Typophile font ID board - if the typorati identify it as anything other than the alleged clone font’s name then it could be considered a clone.

Pragmatica is not a clone of Helvetica.

What would you say then Maxim, more of a miracle--immaculate conception?

Sii:

> A simple test - post a sample of the alleged clone font

What is it?

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/What-is-it.jpg

Is it Pragmatica?
Or is it any of the many other clones of Helvetica,
e.g. Nimbus Sans, etc. etc. etc.

What is it?

The ID forum is here...

http://typophile.com/typeid

I would suggest posting a reasonably large image containing most characters directly to the forum. Don't use your Uli alias (set up a new account) or link to your site - that would bias the ID'ers.

> I would suggest posting a reasonably large image

The "What-is-it.jpg" scan is drawn from the FontBook.

The font identification should not be too difficult,
given the fact that Pragmatica is a knock-off clone.

>All this doesn’t make its Roman letters any less nicer. So I had this [] thought to try and create my version of Rodin.

Have At It!

>The question I have though is this. How “OK” is it to try and replicate an existing type ?

Copy it right off the screen as a graphic, use that graphic as a template, and draw your own outlines based on that graphic.

You are bound to make some kind of changes, one way or another...

Cheers!

Thanks, dberlow. An encouragement was what I needed :)

> Copy it right off the screen as a graphic (dberlow)
> Thanks, dberlow. An encouragement was what I needed (episilicon)

Copy right off the screen the scan "What-is-it.jpg",
slap on it the name "Helvetica", and you are done.

nevermind .. deleted

Just for fun, I uploaded this comparison to What-is-it.jpg

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/What-is-it-2.jpg

Which is a clone? Which is the original?

By the way, someone registered one of these Helvetica clones as a new and original typeface design at the German patent office. Guess who?

Which is a clone? Which is the original?

Neither is the original.

John Hudson:

> Neither is the original.

Sorry, wrong. But thank you for having the courage to guess.

1. What-is-it.jpg was drawn from FontBook, year 2006, page 139

www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/What-is-it-from-page-139.jpg

and is Neue Helvetica, 66 Medium Oblique (see page 139, right column)

2. What-is-it-2.jpg was drawn from the same FontBook, page 225

www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/What-is-it-2-from-page-225.jpg

and is Pragmatica Basic, Medium Oblique (see page 225, right column)

(Note: I will remove these temporary files in a few days.
Who visits Typophile later, will have to buy the FontBook.)

> Neither is the original.

Sorry, wrong.

1. What-is-it.jpg […] is Neue Helvetica

Which, in fact, isn't the original Helvetica… ;-)

So, I was correct: neither is the original Helvetica.

> So, I was correct: neither is the original Helvetica.

I did not speak of "the original Helvetica". I spoke of "the original" as opposed to "a clone". For instance, if someone places a banknote on a color copier and make a color copy of the banknote, then, in my terminology, the banknote is "the original" and the result of the copying process is "the copy".

For instance, in my terminology, "Nimbus Sans" is a copy (= clone) of "Helvetica", and "Nimbus Sans Novus" is a copy (= clone) of "Neue Helvetica".

In my terminology, "the original Helvetica" would be the very first design made by Max Miedinger in ca. 1957, just like "the original work" is the first edition or editio princeps of a literary or other work.

>... “the original Helvetica” would be the very first design made by Max Miedinger... just like “the original work” is the first edition or editio princeps of a literary or other work.

The original work of a first edition comes from a single manuscript made into a number of copies usually intended to be identical.

The "original" of a metal type face intended for text and display, is not "one thing" to begin with so, it could not or cannot be copied to one clone.

Cheers!

> The original work of ... (original as adjective)
> The “original” of a ... (original as noun/substantive)

English is not my mother-tongue, but to judge from English dictionary definitions, "original" as noun and as adjective are semantically different in English. For instance, Webster's Collegiate, eleventh editition, defines:

original, adjective = "being the first instance from which a copy is made"

original, noun = "that from which a copy is made" (there is no mention of first instance in this definition)

So, the noun does not necessarily denote the first instance. Therefore, if someone makes a copy from "Neue Helvetica", "Neue Helvetica" would be "the original" (noun), although "Neue Helvetica" is not the first instance of Helvetica and hence not "the original (adjective) Helvetica".