Do googling for “Palazzo Original” and you will find the digital version of the 1951 Palatino.

I can’t give the link for fear that the moderator removes it. Remember: Linotype pays this forum and does not like that other companies are “The Source of the Originals” :-)

Cheers,

W.O.

Well crud, I thought I was splashing around in the shallow end of the pool, but I appear to have slipped off the shelf into the deep end. “Palazzo Original”, for those who don’t know, is one of the ten zillion typefaces found on the Megafont XXL CD from SoftMaker. The CD is chock full of shameless copies of classic typefaces (Newcastle -> News Gothic, Opus -> Optima, O801 Flare -> also Optima, etc). Also, somehow Berthold Types is tied into the whole mess, for good or *cough* for ill.

Given the tremendous respect I hold for Hermann Zapf, and given that all of the fonts on Megafont XXL are TrueType (they don’t even list the Mac as a supported platform, even though Mac OS X can handle Windows TrueType fonts no problem), I guess I’m just outta luck unless I want to kick down for a CD that contains a lot of stuff that makes me queasy. Either that, or revive the old style of Palatino myself. Does anyone have any words on the quality of Palazzo Original? Is it good enough to justify the purchase of the Megafont CD? Is there any way to purchase SoftMaker fonts individually?

Thanks anyway, Mr. Stie

---

quote:

I can’t give the link for fear that the moderator removes it.
Remember: Linotype pays this forum and does not like
that other companies are “The Source of the Originals”.

---

Linotype paying for this forum has nothing to do with us moderators
removing links to pirate copies of fonts, it has everything to do with
ethics as Forrest correctly noted.

I particularly resent you implying I would be a corporate hand-
puppet. Any of my postings and my Bald Condensed column
proves quite the opposite.

Sorry Wilhelm, I guess I overreacted. No offense.

To Mr. Peters:

You did NOT overreact. It is CORRECT what you said.

To Mr. Norvell:

There exists yet another font which seems to be closest to the original of 1950. Unfortunately I presently do not have enough time to make a detailed time-consuming letter-by-letter comparison. However, I attach an example (italic letter “d”): To the left of this picture you see the font that is extremely close to the original of 1950, and to the right you see the present-day derivative sold by Linotype.

The use of the word “original” requires a precise definition. An “original” is defined as “the FIRST form of something, from which other forms are derived”.

Example: Bruno Steinert does not assert that he is selling “A FEW” or “MANY” originals. No, Bruno Steinert asserts that he is selling “THE originals” and that Linotype is “THE source of THE originals”. However, since an original is the FIRST form of something, it goes without saying that the present-day “Palatino” is a derivative form, i.e. a form derived from the original.

To the left of the picture, you see an extremely close digital version of the original foundry type, whereas to the right you see the present-day Linotype derivative. Professor Zapf made both the original and the derivative, but there always exists only ONE original, namely the FIRST form of something, in this case the original of 1950.

The distinction between original and non-original is crucial, because Bruno Steinert’s outfit is the only font company claiming to be “THE source of THE originals”. (Adobe, Monotype etc. do not make this legally binding claim.)

Example: In the German Copyright Act we read:

“It shall be punishable by imprisonment up to three years or by fine, insofar as the conduct may not warrant a more severe penalty pursuant to other provisions, for any person to affix a designation of authorship WITHOUT the author’s consent on the ORIGINAL of an artistic work, or to distribute an ORIGINAL bearing such designation” (

Postscript:

I forgot to deal with the question whether it is LEGALLY permitted to publish a font which is a very close or even a totally identical copy of Professor Zapf’s original of 1950. The answer is YES: Since Professor Zapf is a German, the German laws is applied. (For non-Germans, international conventions are applied). However, in 1950 there did not yet exist any laws protecting the design of typefaces by copyright law or by design patent law or any other German law. This legal situation has completely changed in recent decades, but this does no longer affect typefaces that were created many decades ago. Due to lack of space, I cannot go into legal details of German laws, but in a very SIMPLIFIED way we can say that all German fonts that were created more than 25 years (ROUGHLY before 1980) are not protectable by any German law. However this is a very SIMPLIFIED statement, but sufficient for all those who only need a legally simplified answer.

A different question is whether it is MORALLY permitted to to publish a font which is a very close or even a totally identical copy of Professor Zapf’s original of 1950, without having obtained his express permission to do so. The answer is NO. Since Professor Zapf does not want to re-publish his original of 1950, this means that nobody is MORALLY permitted to do so.

W.O.

I’m going to follow the honest and humble road and say that I’m just not qualified to evaluate your legal arguments, as fun as it would be to play pocket lawyer. Thank you for taking the time to explain the issues to me, though.

You do raise a good point about Linotype’s claim to be “the source of the originals”; my question would never have arisen if Linotype were actually selling the original version (for even a semi-loose definition of “original version”) of Palatino. However (again, leaving aside the legal arguments), the version of Palatino that Linotype sells is one that was devised and blessed by Hermann Zapf himself, so it’s not like Linotype is lying. They’re saying, “we don’t sell clones and knockoffs”, and in this particular case, they’re correct. I’m disappointed because the only vendor who is selling the font I want is selling a knockoff; my quandary is that the “original” cut is unavailable digitally in a form authorized by Hermann Zapf. It’s an ethical matter, not a legal one. (Also, a practical one: I’d still like to know if Palazzo Original is high enough quality to use in print.)

In general, I think it’s best to leave the resolution of the legal issues you raise to the foundries, type designers, and lawyers affected. If your overarching point is that the laws regulating ownership of type are a mess, then I completely agree with you. After having studied the material made available by Luc Devroye and Ulrich Stiehl, as well as reading the American copyright law on the subject, I’m frankly at a loss as to what the ideal solution would be. And, in the specific case of Akzidenz Grotesk / Basic Commercial, I assume the foundries’ lawyers have their reasons for not taking action. To say more would be to cover ground already covered amply in other threads. Thanks again for answering my question!

Forrest

It appears that action was taken by Berthold in the case of Akzidenz Grotesk and Basic Commercial.

Linotype’s claim to be “source of the originals” I also agree is overly broad and should be restricted to specific Linotype fonts.

I seem to recall a campaign by Linotype “Helvetica is not an Adobe font!”