Any one knows which fancy font this is ?

Typoblivion's picture

Can anyone help me find out which typeface this is? the one on the block that reads "fancy". I would really appreciate it!

AttachmentSize
fancytype.jpg620.43 KB
Gräfenberg's picture

Found something very close but I’m certain the maker is guilty of ripping off legitimate commercial fonts, which leads me to suspect that their version of this might also be a rip so I won’t link to it.

Hopefully someone will be able to provide the true source.

hrant's picture

Ernst, thank you for being a true typophile. (BTW, I hope you're not holding back simply because you don't want me on your case! :-)

hhp

Typoblivion's picture

Well, I´m looking for a font similar to this one, doesn´t have to be exactly like that. Anybody has any suggestions?

DPape's picture

@Gräfenberg: I would recommend if you have no answer to give don't tease the OP.

@Typoblivion : Yes, take it to some forum which gives straight answers and doesn't jerk you around.

dogoftheopera's picture

Hope I'm not leading you to a "rip" but I found a font that looks like two versions of it were combined (see the "a" and the "n"). It's called Geometry Script:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/cheapprofonts/geometry-script-pro/

Ran your picture through MyFont's WhatTheFont and it came up. This is the first time I've tried WhatTheFont, so I'm not sure it works that well all the time, but it sure did this time! I'll try to insert an image from the link but I'm not sure it will work.

Gräfenberg's picture

(BTW, I hope you're not holding back simply because you don't want me on your case! :-)

:-) Not in the least.

Gräfenberg's picture

@Gräfenberg: I would recommend if you have no answer to give don't tease the OP.

Well you know what you can do with that recommendation don’t you?

@Typoblivion : Yes, take it to some forum which gives straight answers and doesn't jerk you around.

Nobody is jerking him around! I told Raul exactly why I was not recommending the one I found. If that’s not a legitimate reason for not recommending this maker’s products I’d like to know what is.

And this way he can make an informed choice about whether he’d like to buy something from such a maker, and maybe he has higher standards than you seem to have. If the subject didn’t come up, if someone just linked to the font and none of us said anything, well that’s just tacit support. We should hold to higher standards than that.

Gräfenberg's picture

Hope I'm not leading you to a "rip"

You might be: look at ‘their’ other wares. The problem should be quite obvious.

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

@Typoblivion: Yes, my Geometry Script Pro is very close. The original "fancy" logo is just a logo and has never existed as a font AFAIK. When I was working with my "Geometry Soft" project I toyed with making a connected version, I remembered that logo, and I chose to implement some similar letterforms across my two Script versions. It is not identical - it is after all built directly on my original Geometry Soft Pro letterforms). I made a sample image containing the word "fancy" as a homage ;)

@Gräfenberg: I object strongly to your language and description of my efforts over 5 years. I would recommend investigating matters before you throw your accusations around.
CheapProFonts is mainly a collection of upgraded "free" fonts, and all fonts reworked by me are done under agreement with the original font designers. They receive up to 50% of the retail price of all my Pro versions sold (which means that the fonts I sell through distributors like MyFonts, Fontspring and Fontdeck leave precious little for myself ;) If you ask any of my 13 collaborators I am sure they can vouch for me.
I have also created many new font designs of my own. Some of them may not be extremely original, but they are in no way ripoffs.
CheapProFonts is a good karma project (good quality, low price, fair royalties, generous licensing terms) and I am sad to see you slander me and my foundry like this...

hrant's picture

Revealing that you know versus keeping quiet is a conundrum. I can think of pros and cons for both approaches.

Roger, since you seem to be an honorable type designer you probably appreciate that there's a lot of gray out there in terms of legitimacy. I definitely think you should protect yourself, but also do value Good Intentions (which can nonetheless cause trouble sometimes) since that's the only thing that keeps us honorable.

hhp

Typoblivion's picture

ok ok, I just wanted suggestions. Suggest if you feel that what you will suggest will be ethically correct. If not, just don´t post anything.

Posting stuff about rips or not being a rip is just irrelevant on typeIDboard. Post it somewhere else if you want to, here doesn´t help at all.

hrant's picture

It's certainly uncomfortable, but are you sure it doesn't help anybody?

hhp

Typoblivion's picture

thank you!

Typoblivion's picture

thank you for making that clear.

oldnick's picture

Posting stuff about rips or not being a rip is just irrelevant on typeIDboard. Post it somewhere else if you want to, here doesn´t help at all.

Rather full of…ourselves, are we, Raul? Sorry if piracy is no concern of yours; OTOH, we who make our livings from designing and/or producing fonts actually DO give a rat’s patoot about it. Furthermore, the Type ID Board is the MOST LIKELY place to promulgate the no-piracy message, given the large number of noobs who come here seeking counsel and advice.

BTW, Roger Nelsson is aces with me…

Gräfenberg's picture

First off, thank you for posting here Roger.

@Gräfenberg: I object strongly to your language and description of my efforts over 5 years. I would recommend investigating matters before you throw your accusations around.

I would hope you can appreciate that I was careful to use words like suspect and might where appropriate.

CheapProFonts is mainly a collection of upgraded "free" fonts, and all fonts reworked by me are done under agreement with the original font designers.

Those are the very heart of the problem. Just about any of the type guys here will immediately spot the issue with some of them; I doubt there’s any benefit to be had from going into this here, but would you like me to give specifics?

I have also created many new font designs of my own. Some of them may not be extremely original, but they are in no way ripoffs.

Good to know, thanks.

Gräfenberg's picture

Furthermore, the Type ID Board is the MOST LIKELY place to promulgate the no-piracy message, given the large number of noobs who come here seeking counsel and advice.

Exactamundo.

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

CheapProFonts is mainly a collection of upgraded "free" fonts, and all fonts reworked by me are done under agreement with the original font designers.

Those are the very heart of the problem. Just about any of the type guys here will immediately spot the issue with some of them; I doubt there’s any benefit to be had from going into this here, but would you like me to give specifics?

By all means give specifics. I'd love to know. I have tried only connecting myself to reputable font creators, so I feel confident that all the outlines of their fonts are original.
BTW, I do know Bleeding Cowboys is a roughed up version of Oklahoma, and that Fontleroy is based on Stuyvesant and Bellevue... And some of the other "grunge" fonts are probably also based on other fonts... But I feel that they all add something new to the designs, and do not compete with the originals in any way.

hrant's picture

Adding something new and not competing are indeed very important, and nobody should aim to stunt the nice cultural progress that derivation allows. But there's also the issue of not reusing outlines (without permission) in a font that's being distributed. If a designer saves time thanks to another designer having made an effort, I for one feel he needs to: admit to it; and compensate the original designer. Do you feel the same way?

BTW, I'm not making an accusation of any kind - I haven't even looked very closely at your library. And I certainly think your acceptance of feedback from Ernst is a very good sign.

For example my Trajic notRoman* was made with the outlines of Adobe Trajan. There's no way it could ever be used instead of Trajan (and in fact it might even help Trajan's sales since it intermixes with it). However not only did I not release it, but whenever somebody emails me asking to purchase it, I say no.

* http://themicrofoundry.com/ss_trajic.html

BTW anybody interested in voicing an opinion on such matters might elect to do it here:
http://typophile.com/node/99822#comment-543360

hhp

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

Adding something new and not competing are indeed very important, and nobody should aim to stunt the nice cultural progress that derivation allows. But there's also the issue of not reusing outlines (without permission) in a font that's being distributed. If a designer saves time thanks to another designer having made an effort, I for one feel he needs to: admit to it; and compensate the original designer. Do you feel the same way?

Absolutely. And I feel confident no outlines have been reused in the grunge fonts I have reworked. I base this on the horrible quality of the outlines, spacing and character sets of the fonts I started out with... ;) They were probably created with printouts or samples printed out, then grunged up, scanned and outlined. Which I think is a fair working method.

And f.ex. Nick Curtis and Halmos Levente are excellent at drawing outlines with beziers, so all their fonts are drawn from scratch, for sure.

Myself, I also drew my own (rather geometric) version of DIN Mittelschrift (from the german specs) before creating all my experimental variants of it in my (still ongoing) DINfun project.

I have made every effort to keep CheapProFonts an honest and fair foundry (even fighting some REAL pirates in the background) and have a very clear conscience about my work.

hrant's picture

I hope everybody here appreciates these "straight answers".

hhp

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

Why the quotes?
Don't you think my answers are straight?
(confused not english native speaker)

hrant's picture

No, to me you're OK.

hhp

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

Good to know. I consider myself a good guy :)

Gräfenberg's picture

Sorry for the delay in posting back to the thread, haven’t been on Typophile for a few days.

BTW, I do know Bleeding Cowboys is a roughed up version of Oklahoma, and that Fontleroy is based on Stuyvesant and Bellevue... And some of the other "grunge" fonts are probably also based on other fonts... But I feel that they all add something new to the designs, and do not compete with the originals in any way.

Those are of course what I was referring to.

The issue for me is when you can plainly identify that a commercial font was used as the basis for a grunge/distressed font. When the base lettershapes are created by redrawing — no matter how badly :-) — it is obviously less egregious than actual outline theft, but that does not make it any more ethical in my book (no matter that it is legal in some markets). AFAIC it directly sponges off the designer of the original font because, let’s be frank here, the finished product wouldn’t exist without that original.

Furthermore when a font such as this is done by an amateur enthusiast and intended to be released for free that’s one thing, but when subsequently given a commercial release that’s something else entirely.

Roger S. Nelsson's picture

First of all: I do know a lot of font history, and I do care very much about type designers and their rights. I just see it slightly different than you regarding some of these cases - I take more into consideration if the fonts add something new, and if they compete in any way with their "originals". If they respectively do and don't (and are drawn from scratch) I think they're OK - and deserve a reworking and a commercial release.
And there ARE fonts that I have available for reworking that I will NOT rework and release, exactly because of such considerations...

I don't believe you have "higher standards" - you just have "different standards". So I felt your initial response "I’m certain the maker is guilty of ripping off legitimate commercial fonts" was really uncalled for.

BTW, Oklahoma started out as a free font, which was probably why Guillaume used it as a basis for what became Bleeding Cowboys. Both fonts now have commercial versions. It's progress. ;)

Syndicate content Syndicate content