You are what you eat, Jason, and you're a dick. From the looks of your picture, you do a lot of eating.

vinz, I use Winrar for all of my archives, both creating and opening. more than half of the .zips I download here are corrupted. In each case, it appears that less than 100% of the .zip was received when the download completed. In several cases, the 'corrupted' .zip will show only one or two files enclosed, but a full copy will contain more files. It isn't the .zip itself that is corrupted, only the downloaded .zip. Under those circumstances, it doesn't matter which unzipping tool is used. An incomplete archive is always an unopenable garbage file.

Did you open the .zip file first, and extract the font? That's step 1. If you can't open the .zip, try deleting your download, and downloading the .zip again. A lot of people have been having problems with corrupted downloads. As far as I can tell, the problem is that the .zip does not download 100%. More specifically, it appears that the corrupted .zips seem to download some, but not all of the files inside. This seems to apply in multiple browsers, and no one is sure yet why this is happening. The problem has come up only in the past couple of months.

If you're looking for one here on dafont, ChicagoGirl, try clicking the link on the main page for Calligraphy. The results won't all be useful, but the ones that are useful will probably be in there.

@sonoguerilla: 10,000 downloads is probably a bad Sunday for Billy Argel.

Probably the best way to receive comments is to comment on other people's fonts first, but that's not a sure thing, either. See this thread:

http://www.dafont.com/forum/read/492/look-at-each-others-fonts

Shame on you for wasting our time, Miss Murder! His e-mail address IS IN THE READ ME!!!

mynameisjack, I use MS Paint to make my source graphics in monochrome bitmap format, and I use ScanFont 3.13 to make the fonts. Unfortunately, FontLab is no longer selling ScanFont 3.13, but it's not too difficult to find a copy online, if you know where to look. I'm in a small minority, making fonts with this software combination, but it isn't essential to have several expensive graphics programs installed to make fonts.

Studio5 is a difficult program to use for someone new to creating fonts. FontCreator is the least expensive option if you're buying software. For the type of fonts that I make, ScanFont is the only viable option. The latest version of ScanFont, (5), is a plugin for Studio5, so you would need both apps to make it work.

mynameisjack, you can use photoshop to make the images for your font, but you need a font making program to create the font file. The size of images used for the font is determined by the designer, but they must all have a uniform height. Depending on which font making program you use, the source graphics may be imported into the font at actual size, or the font making program may reduce their size to fit a glyph window.

The image file format will depend on which font making program you plan to use. Monochrome bitmaps are good choices, or .eps files or other vector images. Some fontmaking software will allow you to import colour images, but quality may be compromised, as the images within the font will always be black and white.

~bito

We're all assuming that he extracted the font from the .zip before trying to install it.

Floorplans Demo by David Nalle, Scriptorium fonts:

http://sharebee.com/89b3b853

Ah, the wonders of babelfish translation.

Actually, emmalicious77, the majority of Graphic Designers ARE self-employed. They find their own clients, and charge the client an amount that is agreeable to both sides. If the designer needs to use commercial fonts, he/she will usually purchase the fonts, and include the cost of the fonts in the amount that the client will have to pay. The designer then keeps the fonts. Although the self-employed designer can't count on things like a regular paycheck, company benefits, taxes deducted at source, etc., they do have many advantages as well, such as being able to work from home, being able to deduct the cost of some puchases from their income because they are business expenses, etc. One very big reason why a graphic designer would want to be self-employed is ownership of artistic creativity. If you are an employee of a company, and you create something of artistic value, in most cases, it would belong to the company, not to you.

If someone is a graphic design student, they usually wouldn't need to pay for 'free for personal use' fonts while studying, UNLESS they use the fonts for commercial use prior to graduation, (ie: they're doing 'professional' jobs part-time or occaisionally while they complete their courses). If the student is using a font for a school assignment, where they would receive a grade for their work, rather than money, that would be considered 'personal use' by most designers, but you should read the license or read me file with the particular font to be sure.

The distinction between a 'commercial font' and a 'free for personal use' font usually relates to how the font is acquired, and the ways you are allowed to use it after acquisition. For most commercial fonts, you are buying a license to use the font for commercial purposes, in addition to buying the font file itself. There may be additional conditions, like the number of computers on which you can install the font, whether or not you have the right to modify the font in any way, etc. Those rights are usually connected to the font itself, so by buying the font, you don't acquire the right to sell it, or to give it away to other people.

With 'free for personal use' fonts, you have an obligation to compensate the designer or rights holder, if you are going to use their font for commercial purposes, ie: if you are going to make some money by using their font, they want you to give some of that money to them.

In most cases, the cost of a commercial font is much higher than the cost to purchase a license to use a 'free for personal use' font. You're also likely to see a noticeable difference in the quality, as well. Most commercial font designers are professionals, and their commercial fonts are going to be professionally made and technically precise. Most 'free for personal use' designers are amateurs or semi-professional font makers, and you'll expect to see some technical errors in many of their fonts, usually in terms of degradation of the quality at lower point sizes.

The demo versions of FontLab products are somewhat less user friendly. They distort every other glyph.

koeiekat owns stock in High-Logic, which is why he's always shilling their software

This is useful for testing the relative lengths of descenders. In MS Word, type the character set that you want to check, without any spaces, and include the @ symbol and the period, with the @ preceding the period, the period appearing at least four symbols later, and at least three characters following the period. This will create a hyperlink, because the format of the text is xxx@xxx.xxx, which conforms to e-mail address format in html. The blue line for the hyperlink, (if you click the link, it would open MS Outlook, for most people), will coincide with the lowest descender. It also lets you judge the descender length relative to the baseline, and it will show how much some characters may be raised above the base.

Try downloading the .zip file again. There have been a lot of problems with corrupted download zips here. If you can't open the .zip, delete it, and try downloading it again. Sometimes it takes several attempts. This is a recent problem that has affected many people, and the reason why is still unknown.

@Jason Arthur:

"You're claiming that redistributing the artwork of others, regardless of size, would not in any way impact their ability to earn money?"

No, what I'm saying is that three inch tall monochrome interpretations of larger, full size colour images are singular works in and of themselves. I am not in 'competition' with the artists or photographers from whom I am inspired. To suggest that what I do is a viable substitute is quite flattering. Keep in mind that the larger sized glyphs I use, and the time an effort I spend in trying to be as faithful as possible to the original is what makes that possibility even conceivable. No one is going to chose to not purchase a Shepard Fairey art print because they can get the same picture in a free dingbat font. They are two separate entities, mutually exclusive of each other.

"Also, regarding #1: Are you claiming that your work is for "nonprofit educational purposes"?"

Yes, absolutely this is what I'm saying! I do not seek, or accept, any financial compensation for any of the fonts I make. In fact, that is a condition in the agreement by which Luc Devroye hosts my homepage. When I complete one of my fonts, all work files are available to anyone, on request. This includes the original source graphics in monochrome bitmap, and the fontlab .vfb project files. Ask, and ye shall receive. In fact, the original source graphics for the Obey series are available as a separate download on my homepage, or through this direct link:

http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/Obey-Graphics.zip

Luc has unlimited bandwidth for his site, so he has no objection to hotlinking.

Although the files submitted to dafont contain only the .ttf versions of my fonts, the downloads on my homepage sometimes contain .otf and/or Type1 versions, if the complexity of the subject matter is such that it allows for those file types to be produced. In most cases, my fonts can only be produced in .ttf format. In most cases where an .otf version can be made, the .otf version is noticeably inferior, but I always attempt to make an .otf, just to see if it can be done. The complexity of the font, in terms of total number of vector nodes, largely determines if the font can be generated in .otf format. The range of complexity allowable within True Type is much larger than for Open Type. This isn't an issue with most alphabet fonts, unless they are decorative initials, but those are essentially dingbats with letters contained within them. Some fonts like Gyom (Last Soundtrack) Séguin's Final Lap:

http://www.dafont.com/final-lap.font

are clearly too complex for .otf, (the .ttf file is about 2.5 MB).

As Luc Devroye states at the top of my homepage, "he pushes the limits of what true type and open type can handle in terms of glyph complexity". Finding the limits of the True Type and Open Type file formats is what my fontmaking is all about. Rather than just accepting as given that a 72 point glyph must be contained within a box that is approximately one inch square, I question the size of the box. How much bigger can it be, before the file format says 'that's too big'? How complex can I make the image within the box before the font making program says 'that exceeds the memory limits'? How can I reach a compromise between complexity of imagery, and the limitations of the file format and the font making program, while still being simple enough that the resulting font doesn't bring on the Blue Screen of Death when someone previews the font when they have ClearType enabled? All of these things are educational, both to me, and to anyone else with the courage to work within a bigger box, and to explore the full potential of what can be done within the limitations of the font file format. They can learn from both my successes and my failures, and that's a pretty good definition of educational.

"if those were made from artwork that I had created then you'd be reading a cease and desist letter right about now."

This statement is based on a false premise, so it is irrelevant.

"Fonts are vector art and can be scaled up to any size. I don't know how clear yours is..."

So, you finally admit that they are fonts! Good for you. That is a positive step towards open mindedness!

"if someone could use your font instead of paying for a print from whoever took the Amy Winehouse (or however you spell it) photos then you'd be in clear violation of the photographers copyright."

I don't believe that the photographers who took the pictures I used for the fonts have any sort of copyright on Amy Winehouse's image. Most likely, those rights belong to Ms. Winehouse herself. I can't think of any situation where a little monochome dingbat glyph will negatively impact someone's ability to market a colour photograph. If a photographer is deeply concerned about possible financial gain from their photos, They probably shouldn't be posting them on flickr.com, where anyone can download them, and modify them as they see fit.

As for the AmyBats fonts, I strongly doubt that you have them installed, because if you did, you could tell that they are very rough, even at 72 points, and they would definitely not improve in quality when the size is increased. They were done very quickly, and they are somewhat crude in execution. Many of them include experimentation with simulated gray tones, a procedure which I have since abandoned. Still, I'm sure that some of the 53, 253 people who have downloaded them here at dafont have decided that they have some merit. I've received a few complimentary e-mails about them, and they were positively reviewed on a couple of blogs. I'm hoping that someone out there will look at them and say to themselves 'I could do something like that, only better'.

I made those in January, 2008, about four or five months after I made my first fonts. There are some really nice glyphs within those five fonts, but for the most part, they are quite crudely rendered when compared to my later work, which is to be expected from early efforts.

While we're on the subject of copyright violation, let me first say that I like Rough Typewriter, but, let's face it. It's just a hand drawn version of Courier, where you varied the baseline on a few of the letters, and roughed them up a bit. Let's compare the two, shall we?



From Wikipedia:

"Courier is a monospaced slab serif typeface designed to resemble the output from a strike-on typewriter. The typeface was designed by Howard "Bud" Kettler in 1955. The design of the original Courier typeface was commissioned in the 1950s by IBM for use in typewriters, but they did not secure legal exclusivity to the typeface and it soon became a standard font used throughout the typewriter industry."

Curiously, and conspicuously, there is no mention of your 'inspiration' in either your font header, or your license. So much for your moral high ground with reference to the sanctity of intellectual property.

When you really look at it, how many fonts are really new? If someone 'revives' a typeface from some old book, and digitalizes it for the first time, is that plagiarism, or progress? What about when someone takes an existing font, and 'grungifies' it with a filter in Adobe Illustrator? When I light a match, do I owe royalties to the Estate of the caveman that invented fire? It is the nature of most art to be derivitive of, or inspired by, something which has been done before. I'm always hoping that someone will be inspired by something I do, and to use that inspiration to make better fonts, better than they might otherwise have made within the limitations of the smaller box, and better than mine, because they have more artistic skill than I do. I also hope they will make those fonts freely available to others, and that their work will further inspire other people. That's the only compensation I seek for the hard work I put into making fonts that are as good as can be, within the limits of my skills and software.

Is there anything ground breaking in the images in my fonts? Absolutely not! What is innovative is the larger size of the glyphs, which allows for greater complexity of images, and what I have done with the larger 'canvas', ie: experiments with perspective, and tiling of glyphs to create composite images by typing different glyphs within a pattern.

I experimented with a lot of things in 2009, and I incorporated all those experiments into the Obey series, both because 2009 was the 20th anniversary of the Obey street art campaign, and because the message of the entire series was 'Don't Obey!'. Question conventional wisdom and protocol when it comes to font making! Say "What if?", and try something which might not succeed. Push the boundaries of the file format. Unchain yourself. Being different does not by definition mean being wrong.

They're all fonts, dude. They're all pictures. The fact that a literate person can interpret some of those pictures as written or spoken sounds, having an agreed upon meaning to represent an abstract concept, isn't relevant in the larger scheme of things. All alphabets started out as pictures, which were then simplified to more abstract shapes. Much of typography is the pursuit of making those pictures more complex again, prescribing a personal interpretation to that which is recognizable in different disguises, using black and white spaces to create images that are understood, and convey meaning. That's what we're all doing with fonts, either as creators, or as collectors. Free you mind, and the rest will follow.

That's all I have to say to you about this. Rebut, if you feel you must.

Regards,

~bobistheowl

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Oh, please! I make postage stamp sized black and white facsimilies of full size art prints. I'm not infringing on anyone's earning potential. Read Number 1 carefully.

Fair Use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.