are the fonts from dafont.com open type? How do you know?

Most of the fonts here are True Type, (.ttf file extension), but some are Open Type, (.otf). Some of the designers have one of each, for example, VTC Nue Tattoo Script, (shameless plug for my bud WolfBainX). The easiest way to tell is by looking at the icon for the file, either it has two blue T's, or a green O. You could also right-click the font file, and select Properties, or chose details from View in the Menu Bar. This assumes you are using a Windows operating system. If you're on a Mac, it's probably a similar procedure.

Open Type fonts can be made with FontLab Studio5, but not with FontCreator or ScanFont, and some fonts that can be made in True Type are too complex for Open Type. You probably won't find many fonts on here with kerning pairs or ligatures.

Hope this helps,

~bito

thank you for the info! Much appreciated...

If you have a choice between a ttf and otf file. Go with otf. Like was mentioned, in otf you have possibilities of kerning pairs and other cool features that give the font a more unique flair.

I host all of my fonts as .otf and most have autoligs and advanced kerning as well as foreign language characters.

@JasonArthur: That varies from font to font. True Type also has its' advantages. Most of my fonts are too complex for .otf, and when they can be produced, they are almost always markedly inferior. Of course, there are no kerning pairs or ligatures in dingbats.

Well, someone's off my Christmas card list.

too complicated for .ttf? My fonts are very complex. And I have to agree about dingbats. Those are less a font and more like "art".

@JasonArthur: I've made many .ttf fonts that were too complex to be generated in .otf. I don't think there are any .otf fonts that can't be generated in .ttf because of complexity, but certain features, (ie: kerning pairs and ligatures), can be .otf specific.

The definition of the word 'font' makes no reference to alphabet characters. Dingbats are fonts, but they aren't typefaces. The two are not synonymous. In it's literal sense, a font is a source, and for typography, a font is a set of character glyphs of equal size. Here's an example of how someone has used one of my fonts as a source, in this case, as a background prop poster for a Hollywood movie, now in production:



There are many who would consider the image to be every bit as much of a source as the lettering, even if you are not among them.

~bito

So you don't mean complicated in terms of multiple glyphs for each character, kerning pairs, ligatures and such. You mean because it's ARTWORK? That's why you're saying it's too complex for .otf.

Well, that's cool. I doubt your fonts need any ligs or kerning, so .ttf is perfect for you.

Designers that actually develop typefaces themselves should almost certainly choose .otf if given the option.

And yes, I realize that ARTWORK can be integral in design, but you're talking about artwork and not typography in it's truest sense.

-- J

JasonArthur, by complexity, I'm referring to the number of vector nodes in individual glyphs, and the resulting file sizes. Many of my early fonts have file sizes well in excess of 1 MB, some approaching 2 MB. When working on AParliamentofOwls, I made a single glyph .ttf test font that was 175 kb! Needless to say, that font was too complex for .otf format.

Here's a glyph I did for HaydenPanettiereBats, that was too complex for .ttf:



This is a really nice piece of monochrome clipart, and if I could have made the images in the font look as good as the source graphics, that would have been quite a spectacular dingbat.

At that time, I was doing a lot of experimentation with simulated gray tones. I have since abandoned that, because the tones do not translate well to fonts, and the 'illusion' is exposed when viewed at sizes above 72 points. Unfortunately, font making programs hate uniform gray tones, and the time it takes to add sufficient randomness is not worth the effort. There was no way to know that without first making an attempt, and looking at the results.

You and I are doing completely different things with typography. My fonts are all about attempting to find the absolute limits of the True Type format, in terms of glyph size, and complexity. I believe that my single glyph font, Bewarethefriendlystranger, hold the record for the largest ever True Type glyph. At 72 point size, it can be typed on an 8½ x 11 page only if margins are set at 0.1 inches, and if font smoothing is disabled in the My Computer Performance Options. The fact that such a thing CAN be done is useful to know if someone else wants to attempt to do an extra, extra large glyph.

To be able to have my fonts hosted here at dafont, however, it is necessary for me to limit complexity to a level that will not cause Windows operating systems to crash when ClearType is enabled. For my recent Obey series, the goal was to make very detailed, but very clean glyphs, so I could create font files within a relatively manageable file size, (most are in the 300 kb range). I think that current and future designers can learn much from both my successes and my failures, so they can think within a larger box, and also not waste time attempting to do things which have no possibility of success.

If the information is contained within a .ttf, .otf, or .fon file type, it is a font. Typography includes all kinds of typefaces and ornamental imagery, whether it be digital, wooden block, or chunks of lead. I do not make typefaces, other than my recent FixCystNeon, but my digital files are no less fonts than yours. To suggest otherwise is both arrogant and ill informed. Your fonts are well designed and executed, but they really don't deviate in any way from what others have done before you. They're safe, they're successful, and they're popular, but they conform to convention. I'm all about experimentation with what hasn't been done before, and sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I don't.I learn some new things with each new font, which I hope will make my future fonts better than the ones I've already done.

Regards,

~bobistheowl

Does it matter to you that your fonts are essentially a copyright violation on the photography and design work of others? You just digitized it (which, I imagine does take time and effort).

You say I'm not doing anything daring or treading new ground. Neither are you, friend. You're stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own hard work.

Regards back at you,

-- J

I always acknowledge my sources, either in the font headers themselves, or in the read me documents. All graphics in all of my fonts are adapted and/or hand drawn in MS Paint from photos or artwork I find on the Internet. in many cases, the end result bears only passing resemblance to the original. If the images appear to be very similar, it's because I spend a lot of time editing my source graphics, pixel by pixel. I don't use any autotracing, or importing of other people's vectors. It's a principle known as 'fair use', something new is created, based on something old. All of my fonts are free, as well. The 'free for personal use' condition on the Obey series is explained in the series' read me. Anyone who has asked to use them commercially, (and I have received three requests to date), has been referred to Shepard Fairey for approval, because I acknowledged that my fonts were based on his work. He and I do different things. He does art prints, and I do print art.

This is the source image used for the graphic shown above in this thread:



I think the two pictures are sufficiently different to be considered separate entities.

You've made it clear that you're not fond of dingbats. You have a right to that opinion. Chosing to define typography as you see fit is another matter.

You should probably read up on Fair Use a bit more. What you're doing is NOT covered.

And back to the original topic (apologies for derailing). Here's a good article about .otf files:

http://desktoppub.about.com/od/fonts/a/opentype.htm

@ Bob

To help you understand typography definitions a little bit better, a font is a [point]size of a face of a type.
An ornament is not a type, it is an ornament. Which size is not expressed in points.
That, since the appearance of digital type, the word font is now used for complete type families (faces) in any size is only because the software nitwits knew nothing about typography and just picked the word that was used to describe the typeface letter size to be used.

Ergo, your creations are not fonts. The fact that they can be reproduced by typing a certain letter on a keyboard does not make them what is nowadays called a font. They are probably best defined as dingbats.

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.

Read number 4 carefully.

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.

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

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

I understand you have no ill intent with your "font", but the fact of the matter is this... if those were made from artwork that I had created then you'd be reading a cease and desist letter right about now.

Fonts are vector art and can be scaled up to any size. I don't know how clear yours is at 11x17 or so, but 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. There's no fine print about that.

Tell you what, make a font consisting of cd or book covers and distribute it for free. See how long it takes to get your first cease and desist.

@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