what the font???

12/12/2011 a las 15:30

Fuentes identificadas

Balmoral Sugerido por rocamaco

Amazone Sugerido por claudeserieux

12/12/2011 a las 15:36

"B" and "N"

Fuente identificada: Balmoral

Editado el 12/12/2011 a las 15:40 por rocamaco

12/12/2011 a las 15:38

"allo" and "atalizio"

Fuente identificada: Amazone

Editado el 12/12/2011 a las 23:57 por rocamaco

12/12/2011 a las 15:39

Brock Script

Editado 2 veces. Última edición el 12/12/2011 a las 23:45 por rocamaco

12/12/2011 a las 16:29

Brock Script is illegal.

Editado el 12/12/2011 a las 16:43 por claudeserieux

12/12/2011 a las 16:31

All of us, know that since Rodolphe deleted it some months ago...

(exactly that meant the smileys, a little typographic and macabre joke)...

Editado el 12/12/2011 a las 16:33 por rocamaco

12/12/2011 a las 16:41

http://www.dafont.com/es/forum/read/15559/fonts...

12/12/2011 a las 16:51

In your defense, I will tell you it was you who taught me that, among other many things...

Editado 2 veces. Última edición el 12/12/2011 a las 23:46 por rocamaco

koeiekat

12/12/2011 a las 23:02

In this perspective also Amazone is illegal. Leo Smit and Tetterode never gave permission to digitize the typeface, did they? But then, in the same perspective all fonts that Bitstream started with, and still the bulk of their offering, are illegal as being Linotype property ...

#10

12/12/2011 a las 23:43

koeiekat ha dicho

In this perspective also Amazone is illegal. Leo Smit and Tetterode never gave permission to digitize the typeface, did they?

Bitstream n'avait pas besoin de demander la permission Leonard H.D.Smit ni à Amsterdam pour vectoriser cette fonte.

#11

koeiekat

13/12/2011 a las 00:27

Can you write this in Dutch or eventually English please

#12

13/12/2011 a las 00:59

Copyright is no explicit protection for fonts or typeface designs in US copyright law.
The Design Patent is the only US legal precedent that protects the actual design - the individual shapes of the letters in a font.
The fonts are protected from unauthorized duplication because they are computer software. Note carefully that this applies only to the font software itself (the .otf or .ttf file), not the actual artistic design.

#13

koeiekat

13/12/2011 a las 12:18

Yes, we know about that Judge who could not distinguish the Helvetica from the Times New Roman and thus ruled that an a is an a and a z is a z. Thus creating jurisprudence. Jurisprudence, case law, but not a real law. Any other judge may rule differently keeping the Convention of Berne, also ratified - be it late - by the United States, in mind. Yet, US law is only law in the US and nowhere else.
Now, if Bitstream and the lot may digitize any type design that is not under patent then so may others, including Dieter Steffmann, as long as the resulting font software is not identical to already existing font software.

Dilemma.

If Bitstream and the lot digitize a type design, also when that design has already digitized by others, that is considered legal. But if Dieter Steffmann does so suddenly it is considered illegal.

Did Dieter Steffmann copy the Amazone glyphs for the Brock Script? See for yourself, he did not:

and the same is true for the Balmoral.

Apart from all this, is there anyone around here or somewhere else who actually believes that the maker of the above pict has actually taken the trouble to combine the Balmoral and the Amazone, using different sizes for the two to get the above result?
Ergo, the correct answer was and is Brock Script.

#14