I’m pretty sure Mono/Lino owns a trademark on the name and the font designs are in the public Domain.

So digitizing Gill Sans under a different name isn’t actually prohibited, just bad karma? :)

Why would it be bad karma? The guy’s dead! And you’d have to try hard to do worse than putting his name on some of the fonts Monotype has.

The design of the characters is protected under copyright/author rights. In most countries these rights remain for long time after the author's death. In Brazil, for example, this last 70 years after the death. This is also WIPO recommendation and the criteria adopted in many countries.

Eric Gill was British and his works are regulated by the British Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. I'm not sure if his fonts are classified as artistic design or typographical arrangements, two different sections in British law. I'm not a native English speaker so I'm unsure if "typographical arrangements" are just the diagrammed pages or also include the fonts.

If Gill's fonts are artistic designs, their protection expires in January 1st, 2011. If they are classified as typographical arrangements, the protection lasted 25 years after the first publication and thus are all expired.

All this is jut about the font design. The font software is surely protected because both TT and OT fonts are very recent.

Besides this, there are moral rights about one's works. This is not limited in any age and may be argued by anyone with rights over Gill's heir. Moral rights refers to work integrity and author's reputation.

Moral rights refers to work integrity and author's reputation.

Yeah, well, I don’t think anyone is too worried about moral rights when it comes to Gill!

:o)

So what are you saying, James -- that the man's private life somehow disqualifies his work?

frode frank, to answer your question, I went to Adobe's website and took this screen capture of the legal info...

@ frode frank

Some of the fonts, that are contained in the Softmaker collection are identically with the original versions, Stempel Garamond for example. As far as I remember the collection contains also Gill Sans (with a different name). It is legal. And because Gill is dead, it is not immorally. You are not a bad human, if you use it. But if you want to silence your conscience, just donate to Amnesty or Greenpeace.

I don’t intend to use it, Arno. I just wanted to know if I should let someone know their font was being ripped off.

Perhaps what James is refering to is Gill ripping off Johnston in the first place.

Yeah, well, I don’t think anyone is too worried about moral rights when it comes to Gill!

Well, you were kidding. Nevertheless: One wrong does not justify another.

Except from that it is totally unimportant with regard to the quality of a piece of art, if the artist is a cannibal or a vegetarian. Even if Gill had raped thousands of three year old children, this would not lower the quality of his work. None of the 100 Billions human beings, that walked on earth was absolute evil or absolute good.

So even the question "Can the art of a paedophile be celebrated?" is ridiculous. (By the way, pedophilia is not the crime, but sex abuse is.)

And because Gill is dead, it is not immorally.

Wrong. To change or not to credit one's work is an illegal procedure in most countries regardless the author is living or not. And even if this is not defined by the law, it would be morally wrong.

@ Freiberger

I don’t believe in hell and heaven. And I don’t believe in God, except you call the universe God. Deads don’t care. They are just dead. It is not immorally, but just a poor behavior, if you copy the work of a dead and claim, that it is your own. But was the name in the copyright info changed or was it just deleted?

I just noticed the if in your avatar.

If
I
were
a
rule,
I
would
bend.
(Pink Floyd)

So I can re-paint the Mona Lisa and take credit for it myself.

Cool.

So I can re-paint the Mona Lisa and take credit for it myself.

I did say, that it is poor behavior. But you can. You can do so many things. I mean, where is your fantasy? Don’t be so dismal. The guy is dead. Dead. He is not living anymore. I would be ashamed, when I would claim, that I had made anything, that I did not make. But it is neither necessarily immoral nor it is necessarily a violation of a law.

It is always such a drama. And the unability to build a sophisticated opinion about good and bad, tolerable scams and real wrongs, is pure entertainment.

Hrant was cool, when he said: I grew up in a civil war, with car bombs, snipers, no running water, the works. At 17 I was guarding my high school with a "klashin" (AK-47). This little conflict - which is destroying your lives - is essentially just entertainment for me.

It is not immorally, but just a poor behavior.

Of course, this is subjective and we don't have the same opinion.

Call it what it is... http://www.emigre.com/Editorial.php?sect=2&id=1

Thanks, Arno. Thanks, Hrant.

I made an all new version of Franklin Gothic. Offered it to Monotype, and they declined. I can live with that now.

Tomi, out of curiosity what did you change?

Could it be *this*?

Yes, I was curious to hear more about it.