New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Revival vs. rip off
Posted by ludwiguebele in
16 Feb 2012 — 8:08am
16 Feb 2012 — 8:08am
Some weeks ago URW++ published a typeface called Revis by Coen Hofmann. On the website it states: "Revis is a formal script based on Daphne, a typeface that was originally designed by German type designer Georg Salden. Coen Hofmann re-designed, completed and digitally re-mastered the font."
Daphne was designed in 1970. For 12 years Bethold had the rights to use it on Staromat, a phototypesetting machine. Salden never published a digital version of his typeface Daphne (although he digitized it and still plans to publish it). Now, Georg Salden is still very alive and he still works active on existing and new typefaces. Hofmann never asked for permission to "redesign" the Daphne typeface, nor he has any rights on the design.
So what do you think about this? I find it quite rude to copy a typeface of a still active type designer, do some changes and label it "revival".
http://www.urw.de/cgi-bin1/dalcgi/source/schnellsuche_e.htd?searchchar=r...
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/revis/
User login
Support our Sponsors
16 Feb 2012 — 8:20am
To me it seems too close to be OK without asking for permission,
considering the original is only dormant and not dead. I think
Salden himself needs to write a letter of complaint.
hhp
16 Feb 2012 — 8:33am
I’ve asked me the same when I got that URW newsletter.
When I saw 'Revis' I was immediately reminded of those notorious fonts that look awfully close to existing typefaces with some unfitting quirks added.
To name such a typeface 'Revis' is just mockery. And it’s sad that it happened to Salden (again).
16 Feb 2012 — 8:39am
So it's happened to Salden before? Well, since his designs
are apparently worth reviving, maybe he can be convinced to
stop squatting on them and team up with somebody to re-release
them legitimately (and hopefully in better quality than Revis).
hhp
16 Feb 2012 — 9:28am
Looks like Hoffman did that ‘nine things different' thing, so he'll be off the hook in the States…
Anyway, URW++ published this, so maybe a cry of outrage directed at them will do the trick.
16 Feb 2012 — 9:41am
plain as day:
"The disposal and use of the derivative work shall be dependent on permission of the author of the original work (derivative copyright) unless the author's economic rights to the original work have expired."
16 Feb 2012 — 10:13am
well - i'm ok with this one i think...
it is clearly based on "a/the concept" but several letterforms have been improved upon (save the lower case "r" - that is rubbish)
i think there are many more "rip offs" than this out there
16 Feb 2012 — 10:57am
It is clearly derivative, sure. (I don't mean that in the legal sense, btw.) But it's sufficiently different that I wouldn't call it a "revival" at all! More of a "revision" (as the name implies).
See also John Downer's essay, "Call It What It Is": http://www.emigre.com/Editorial.php?sect=2&id=1
16 Feb 2012 — 11:10am
Another great article, more aimed at what to do about overly-derivative work:
http://www.jessicahische.is/obsessedwiththeinternet/andbeingresponsively...
16 Feb 2012 — 12:34pm
I would say that Revis is to Daphne as Metro is to Futura.
16 Feb 2012 — 1:02pm
looks like a Schweinerei, to me.
16 Feb 2012 — 1:14pm
This is why he teamed up with Ludwig. I’m desperately awaiting your outcome, guys! Loreley!
http://www.typemanufactur.com/index.html
16 Feb 2012 — 1:37pm
To my mind, the degree of departure from the model may be about the same, but this case bothers me more because of the particularity of the letterforms. I can imagine somebody coming up with Metro when charged to make a monoline geometric sans even without taking a look at Futura, but nobody would ever come up with Revis without looking directly at Daphne.
They definitely chickened out when it came to Daphne's gutsy /o/!
17 Feb 2012 — 1:54am
Well, since his designs are apparently worth reviving, maybe he can be convinced to stop squatting on them and team up with somebody to re-release them legitimately (and hopefully in better quality than Revis).
The last three years me and Georg Salden digitized, reworked and completed 15 of his typefaces: http://www.typemanufactur.com
There are still plenty to go, including Daphne. Anyway, I don't think only because a typeface is not available digitally, that allows anyone to do their own digital version.
it is clearly based on "a/the concept" but several letterforms have been improved
I showed Revis to Georg Salden. Here is his reaction:
"At first glance, it's Daphne, the second one sees a lot of change for the worse. New to me is the phrase 'revival'. Literally it means 'revive'. Now, Daphne was never dead, neither the author. I am just very amazed at the words 'based' and 'reinterpreted'. One interprets something that otherwise would not be understood."
Ludwig
17 Feb 2012 — 4:22am
Have you contacted URW?
17 Feb 2012 — 5:00am
Not yet. URW knows Georg Salden and his typefaces very well, since they did a lot of type work for him (in the 90ties I believe).
17 Feb 2012 — 7:13am
> The last three years me and Georg Salden
Ah, good. And it sounds like he has a large œuvre and
it's hard to keep up with those who want to swipe this
or that design. It would have been good to have started
in the late 80s :-) but better late then never.
> I don't think only because a typeface is not
> available digitally, that allows anyone to do
> their own digital version.
I myself am a pragmatist; I think taking human nature into
account is better than being a crazed Japanese soldier in a tree.
For example if Salden had little intention of re-releasing his
designs in a currently usable format and simply enjoyed
squatting on them, I wouldn't at all mind seeing somebody
else reintegrate them into culture. I believe everything anybody
makes belongs to Mankind at least a little bit (and sometimes
quite a bit) and there's more to it than simply making money.
hhp
17 Feb 2012 — 7:49am
Hrant wrote:
For example if Salden had little intention of re-releasing his
designs in a currently usable format and simply enjoyed
squatting on them, I wouldn't at all mind seeing somebody
else reintegrate them into culture.
My take:
If an author has NO intention of having his/her creation around forever, that is a choice one has to respect. Who are we to decide what has merit or not?
Culture is also about the stuff that is not around anymore, and the things we will never find out. Mankind has to learn to live with that.
17 Feb 2012 — 8:06am
> that is a choice one has to respect.
> Who are we to decide what has merit or not?
No, I respect something else: reasonableness.
Who are we? We are part of the fabric that produced the work.
Mankind has far less to learn than individuals.
hhp
17 Feb 2012 — 9:46am
Hrant, don’t twist it that way. If URW knows G. Salden personally and they turn to ship this Ripp-off without having talked to him in advance, this is very bold behaviour, to say the least.
17 Feb 2012 — 10:34am
@Craig: …this case bothers me more because of the particularity of the letterforms… nobody would ever come up with Revis without looking directly at Daphne.
Right.
Having had a similar thing happen to me, I have to say that what grates even more than the appropriation is the “improvements”.
One has the right to cock up one’s own earlier designs with V.2s, but others should have the good grace to wait until one has passed on!
17 Feb 2012 — 10:35am
It’s a **** ripoff. No doubt about it.
17 Feb 2012 — 11:28am
Only four stars, @Goran? Seems to me the rest of the gang has already declared it a five-star ripoff.
Of course, one could also say that Revis is somebody else's opinion on what Daphne should have been like in the first place.
17 Feb 2012 — 6:18pm
Andreas, I don't twist. Daphne itself did not arise from a vacuum.
And I'm not defending URW since apparently they made no effort
to get any feedback from Salden on releasing what is in effect a
"remix". But a society spurned by a crazy old man (not Salden)
has more recourse than to feel sorry for itself.
hhp
25 Jun 2012 — 12:54pm
Just to let you know: URW finally no longer offers Revis. And more good news: Daphne is now available digitally. Georg Salden and me worked hard to get all the great features of the original typeface into OTF. Because what Coen Hofmann ignored, is that the original Daphne had a large number of swashes, which optionally can be added to many letters via OpenType feature. I prepared a little GIF animation to show Daphne: http://www.typemanufactur.com/eng/index.html
25 Jun 2012 — 1:06pm
Good news indeed (and thanks to your efforts).
hhp