7 champions of typography essay by daniel updike in digital format?

inkaxr's picture

i would like to give my students the digital version of '7 champions of typography', the essay by daniel updike, to set in book form as an assignment. this is the first time i will be teaching! if anyone knows how i can get this, i would be most greatful.
thanks and regards,

Reed Reibstein's picture

If your local library doesn't have it (and can't get it for you), you could buy it off Amazon, though at $72 for 18 pages it's certainly not cheap: http://www.amazon.com/Champions-Typography-Daniel-Berkeley-Updike/dp/B00....

On another note, I've never heard of this text; do you happen to know who the seven champions are?

PublishingMojo's picture

Do you have a hard copy of the essay? If it's only 18 pages, it probably won't take very long to re-key it, especially since DBU liked big type and generous leading.

kentlew's picture

Reed — the seven champions aren't Whos.

"When I entitled this paper The Seven Champions of Typography I had in mind (being a lay person) the seven champions of Christendom, the seven wonders of the world, the seven seas, stars, deadly sins, liberal arts, and some other 'sevens.' But on counting up my champions, I was disconcerted to discover that there were but six [. . .]. So I propose to make my title good by adding to six Champions of Typography — Spacing, Leading, Indentation, Ink, Paper, and Imposition — one more — the most important of all, without which (as is alleged of charity) the rest profiteth nothing. That Seventh Champion, dear Reader, is You. And it all depends on how seriously you take the following pages, whether my title turns out to be truth or falsehood! I assume for it no further responsibility."

And No, sorry Inka, I won't key in the whole essay for you. Perhaps you could assign the task to one of your students for extra credit.

kentlew's picture

BTW, the essay is included in The Well-Made Book: Essays & Lectures by Daniel Berkeley Updike, which you might be able to find for less than the $72 quoted above.

Michel Boyer's picture

You can get in electronic format here, page 51 of "In the Day's Work", 1924.

Reed Reibstein's picture

A-ha! Thanks for the clarification, Kent.

Florian Hardwig's picture

With the quote provided by Kent, I was able to track down this page:

inkaxr's picture

goodness! wonderful! thank you.... very much!

bowerbird's picture

and not one word uttered about respecting copyright?


Theunis de Jong's picture

That's unsung hero #8 -- just didn't make it into the list.

typerror's picture

This is an exercise for students Bowerbird. They are not looking to publish for profit.


paragraph's picture

D.B. Updike (1860-1941), In the Day's Work, Harvard University Press, 1924.

Not to mention that this work might already be in the public domain.

inkaxr's picture

of course this is only for educational purposes! i hope that there is no problem with that. and, unless the copyright was extended or renewed, yes it could be in the public domain. thanks for the link, paragraph.
and thanks again for the help, others....

bowerbird's picture

typerror said:
> This is an exercise for students Bowerbird.
> They are not looking to publish for profit.

paragraph said:
> Not to mention that this work
> might already be in the public domain.

i don't wish to get into a discussion about copyright.

(i don't get the impression either of you know enough
about the topic for me to engage you productively, but
if you want me to try, just let me know, and i'll do a bit.)

i was merely pointing out that when someone comes here
and talks about copying a font, everyone assumes the worst
and jumps all over them with a copyright infringement lecture.

yet when someone comes here and wants a copy of some text,
everybody is very accommodating, and gives them no lecture...
heck, you'll google it for them, and even offer to do o.c.r. on it.

i have a single standard -- i don't care in either situation, and
wouldn't get tied in a knot even if it were my font or my text --
but i do get a chuckle out of the double standard that exists here.


bojev's picture

"I would like to give my students" this is a dead giveaway that the doctrine of "fair use" applies to this issue. Copying for educational purposes is covered by different standards than regular copyright.

bowerbird's picture

bojev said:
> I would like to give my students”
> this is a dead giveaway that
> the doctrine of “fair use” applies to this issue.


first of all, nothing is that cut-and-dried with copyright.

"fair use" can be used as a _defense_ in court, certainly,
but the criteria are multifaceted, and it's up to a judge...

further, some of the _other_ criteria would _not_ be met
in this case -- e.g., the essay is being used in toto --
considerations which complicate the issue substantially.

the fact that the property is being actively commercialized,
as represented by its presence on amazon, is also relevant.

plus it is telling that the content is applicable to the class;
if it was a piece on physics, or fortune-telling, or football,
and thus inapplicable to the coursework, that'd be different.

> Copying for educational purposes is covered
> by different standards than regular copyright.

i don't believe a lawyer would put it in exactly that manner...
then again, i'm not a lawyer, so i can't say. are you a lawyer?

but educational institutions still have to respect copyright...

i'll bet you dollars to donuts that if inka ran this question by
the school lawyers, they would advise against using the text,
precisely because landing in court is the last thing they want.

the problem with copyright in this computer day-and-age
is that real people have to waste their real time and energy
being concerned about penny-ante crap questions like this.

(i originally wanted to say "mickey-mouse crap questions",
but that would've been a freudian slip of major proportions.)

at any rate, i remind people that i don't care what inka does;
i was pointing out the double-standard here on copyright...


paragraph's picture

real people have to waste their real time and energy

Real people have real names and identities. Go away.

Richard Fink's picture

@paragraph and all:

As I started reading this thread, as I progressed, my reaction was exactly the same as bowerbird's.

Incidentally, some moons ago I asked BB what his real name was, and was told, "bowerbird".
Hey, if Wavy Gravy's name is Wavy Gravy what do I care?

Anyway, bowerbird is a keen observer. We disagree on many things, but go away? No.


Nick Shinn's picture

Design students should write their own texts.

That would kill two birds (sorry, BB!) with one stone, as literacy is a useful skill for designers to have.

However, if a common text is required, perhaps the teacher could write it, or each student could contribute one champion.

Michel Boyer's picture

It is also possible to use texts that are in the public domain. Some generous people have worked to make them available. Have a look at the link http://z-m-l.com/

bowerbird's picture

michel boyer said:
> It is also possible to use texts that are in the public domain.
> Some generous people have worked to make them available.
> Have a look at the link http://z-m-l.com/

except the texts at z-m-l.com are just
reworked e-texts from project gutenberg.
i suggest you go to the source, where there
are thousands more than at z-m-l.com.

> http://gutenberg.org

more to the point here, most digitization of project gutenberg
e-texts these days is being done by "distributed proofreaders",
a collaborative system that allows collaboration on digitization.

(and, in the process, wastes lots of the time and energy of its
generous volunteers due to a workflow that is byzantine, but
hey, let's not let that stand in the way for the time being, ok?)

> http://pgdp.net

as people have noted here, this essay in question _might_
be in the public-domain. it's extremely unclear, since it was
published in 1924, just missing the pre-1923 cutoff which
would ensure that it was public-domain. but if it hasn't had
its copyright renewed, it would indeed now be public domain.

thus, if you can get someone at distributed proofreaders to
develop an interest in the essay, they would do the gruntwork
of seeing if it can be cleared, plus they would do the work of
actually digitizing it. it might take them a while -- years? --
since they are badly backlogged, but it could happen faster...
no matter how long it takes, if it is public domain, you would
have comfort that project gutenberg is willing to take the heat
for making that decision (and defending it in court, if need be),
so that you could proceed without fear of litigation in the future.

again, i think inka should just go ahead and proceed with using it,
as the odds that anyone will clamp down on them are very slight...
i was just remarking about the double-standard here on copyright.


p.s. and again, it's stupid that the law creates this field of obstacles.

paragraph's picture

I still see no double standards at work here. Anyway, the text in question is officially public domain here in Oz:

When the type designers on this forum* complain about copyright infringements they are still alive and kicking (not dead for more than 50 years), trying to earn a crust by designing typefaces, and bowerbird gleefully reminds them of their impotence to stop said infringements. And lo and behold he now emerges to defend text copyright, and spots double standards at the same time. Please give me a break, the creature is a troll.

*Typophile—a forum dedicated to type, eh?

bowerbird's picture

if inka lives in australia, then the "problem" is probably solved!
(project gutenberg has an australian contingent which will do
the books that're in the public domain there but not in the u.s.)

i'm not "defending" -- or challenging -- any kind of copyright...

my tuning fork resonates most strongly to proudhon's assertion
-- "property is theft" -- and "intellectual" property is very sticky,
since you can light a thousand candles from your own candle and
it still remains lit, so what have you lost? our entire species is a
testament to the value of sharing wisdom, and now some people
want to put a toll-station on _their_ output and make us all pay.

and i'm most certainly not "gleeful" when i remind you of your
impotence to stop "infringements" of your little legal licenses...
i'm just relating the facts. there's nothing to be "gleeful" about.

if inka would've just found the text and used it in the class, then
the odds that anyone would have found out would've been small.
of course, once you announce something like this on the internet,
you've broadcast it to the world, and google can track it easily, but
if it weren't for that, the owners of this "intellectual property" would
have been quite impotent in terms of detecting this "illegal" usage.

so, mr. paragraph, if you can't see the double standard i point out,
you are blind, and probably willfully so. so much for your insults...
but it's quite interesting to see how much effort you will expend to
misrepresent my position and misinterpret my motivation, all while
doing absolutely nothing to add any substance to the topic at hand.


paragraph's picture

Would you kindly check the topic at hand again? I was your remark (as usual) that derailed the discussion, not mine.

Richard Fink's picture

OK, let me get this straight. It's OK to steal this guy Updike's stuff because he's dead. And anyway, it would be OK because it's educational. (This is cool, because all text is educational, isn't it?)
Look, inka found where to get the essay. (What kind of name is inka?)
So this thread is up for grabs.
Ahoy, mateys!

Check this out - I'm going to do a blog post about it:

There's a font named Droid that was released under the Apache license. In other words, royalty free. (I'm sure BB knows about it - comes with the Android SDK.)
Now, it seems Ascender was involved in creating it and has it on their web site and wants $90 for the three serif Droid fonts that I just downloaded for free. (Another $90.00 for the sans that I also got free.)
What's the frackin' $180.00 for?
This gives me an idea, though. I'll become a free font vendor myself and see who's stupid enough to pay me. Why not? Justify the price as a "download cost". A service fee.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall put it - "It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?"

Richard Fink's picture

Sorry, got it wrong, there's an italic bold, too.
Ascender wants 120.00 for the Serif set alone.

The more I look into this, the smellier it gets...

It seems what Ascender did was add some glyphs, rename the thing Droid Pro and make it an OTF.

But can't anyone do this under the open-source license?
Everybody should get in on this racket, really.

paragraph's picture

Mr. Fink, no one has been advocating stealing anything. Both my posts contained links, the first one to the relevant US law on the US government website, the latter one to National Library of Australia, which is run by the federal government here. The bit about being dead is actually part of the duration of copyright definitions worldwide, roughly 50-70 years after the creators death. Why don't you have a read about copyright instead of quoting justices out of context?

bowerbird's picture

paragraph said:
> Would you kindly check the topic at hand again?

the topic at hand is someone wanted a copy of something...

surely, when someone wants a copy of something, it can't be
off-topic to bring up the legality of obtaining a copy, can it?,
because that happens often when the "something" is a font...

(in fact, it's precisely because it happens so often in that case
that it was striking that there was not a peep in this thread.)

so once again, your comment adds nothing to the thread, jan.

moreover, if i did ever want to derail a thread, i could be very
confident that -- due to your personal vendetta against me --
you'd help me do such derailing by responding so fervently to
my posts, each and every one of 'em. mission accomplished!

i don't get it. why am i so important to you, mr. schmoeger?
and don't you realize your vendetta makes you look petty?,
even to people here who might be your friends? puzzling...


bowerbird's picture

paragraph said:
> Both my posts contained links, the first one to
> the relevant US law on the US government website,

that first link didn't address the question at hand.
(or, if it did, please cite the particular paragraphs.)
as i said, given a _1924_ publication date, the only
safe assumption is that it's still under u.s. copyright.

> the latter one to National Library of Australia,
> which is run by the federal government here.

the second link didn't address the question either,
unless inka happens to be located in australia...


p.s. i certainly hope inka is planning to proceed...

p.p.s. even if the copyright was renewed, this book
might be an orphan, in which case google will free it,
at least if google books gets its "settlement" approved,
in which case you will be able to purchase it from google.
of course, we can also assume that google will sniff out
all the "illegal" copies -- google knows where they are! --
and shut them down, so as to protect their "investment"...
so if you want a copy of that essay, you should get it now!

EK's picture

Most educational institutions handle the copyright clearance for the instructor. They can tell you if you require permission and if so, how much it'll cost the students (sometimes pennies, sometimes more).

If the text you're looking for is too expensive, have your students set some of bowerbird's posts (it's not in English, but it'll be a challenge).

Richard Fink's picture


Relax, man. I'm a sinner and a hypocrite just like everybody at times. (And Mr. Fink is my father, he's in a nursing home, call me Rich).
It's the nature of the world we live in today. All I hear you advocating is living life, sharing information with other people. The problem we've all got is that we can't help but break the law when we do that. At least technically.
This is a bad situation. IP law has a long history and it's sanctioned by the US Constition. I don't have enough years left to see a resolution of this in the legislatures or the courts.
But the maxim, "You can't sue everybody", surely holds.
And in some cases I would advocate civil disobedience.
But I can't tell you when I would advocate that lest I be accused of contributory infringement. (hah!)

BTW, Thurgood Marshall wasn't talking about copyright, I just liked the phrase which was most surely not original with him. You're somewhat correct, I should have made that clear. Marshall also used to say, "Hey, Chiefy Baby!" when passing Chief Justice Warren Berger in the hall - because he knew it would make him squirm a little.


paragraph's picture

Thanks, Rich. Best wishes to Mr. Fink. :)

Syndicate content Syndicate content