DIN Around

Not to be contrary, but why is Din the "designer's favorite typeface"?

> why is Din the "designer's favorite typeface"?

Who knows? I actually had the chance to ask Albert Jan Pool himself in Rome, and *he* has no idea! Possibly the same reason Interstate is popular in the US - what might be called the "Forest Gump factor"?

BTW, I wonder if there's an IP issue with Jakobsson's "derivation".

hhp

Hrant, why do you put the word derivation in "quotes." If there was ever a more straightforward example of derivation, it would seem that this is it. The use of scare quotes seems to indicate you disapprove or have an said opinion about this situation.

Hrant,

what is an "IP issue"?

/peter

Hrantranslation: IP = Intellectual Property

Oki, thanks Stephen.

I don't think there should be any issues so since Albert Jan Pool has bought the derivation. as it says on the site.

> why do you put the word derivation in "quotes."

Because the term "derivation" suffers from a combination of sensitivity and ambiguity, and by putting it in quotes I can [hopefully] convey that my usage is tentative, reducing the chances of needlessly offending people. I don't mind offending people when it's for the better, but I have to be a bit more certain:

> If there was ever a more straightforward example of derivation, it would seem that this is it.

Not necessarily. If he took the outlines (without permission), rounded the corners, and kept all the profits to himself, then yes, I have a problem with it, since it would be unethical. I think it would be illegal too, even in the US. If he did it from scratch, based on the original highway signage (which I assume is public domain, like the US stuff), then there's no issue. If he scanned specimens of FF Din and traced them, that's borderline - and even this might actually be illegal - not in the US, but in Holland for example I think it is - at least that's what PMN once told me.

So, it depends.

> Albert Jan Pool has bought the derivation

I hadn't read that, sorry.

Well, how it started I have no idea, but I'm glad it seems to have ended amicably, sans lawyers.

Note that FontFont owns FF Din probably as much as AJP does, so it wouldn't have been just up to him, I don't think.

hhp

> why is Din the "designer's favorite typeface"?

In France, FF Din is really used more and more, almost as much as Helvetica I think.

>Mattias Jakobsson drew a rounded \

>subfamily of the ìdesignersí favorite

> typefaceî DIN, originally made by

> Albert-Jan Pool.

Is DIN originally made by Albart-Jan Pool? Of course not. I think rounded version is as questionable as the FF DIN. Both chose the safe way of reusing an existing design, making profit out of it.

I want to set somethings straight since Mattias is a friend of mine.

Mattias made a round version from Albert-Jan Pool adoptation of DIN. He did this for no other than himself. Not with any profit making in mind. When he was finished he thought it looked so nice, he wanted others to be able to use it too. He asked me what to do, since he didn't want to break any copyright laws. I told him to talk to FontFont. They liked it, but Albert-Jan Pool wanted to make his own version. So they bought Mattias fog-files for a a sum that was less than the work he had put in. (Less thatart director would make in an hour.) Sometime people work on/or customize fonts just for fun, because they like type. Not to make a profit!

Peter, the story you just told is exactly what I suspected happened. It's sad that Mattias couldn't "maximize" his efforts, but it's nice that he realized he shouldn't anyway, and it's also nice that AJP/FF did not try to "crush" Mattias, instead paying for something they might not even use.

----

> Both chose the safe way of reusing an existing design, making profit out of it.

Sure, but there's still a difference between reusing a design versus reusing actual outlines.

hhp

moving right along (from the IP issues)... I really do appreciate FF DIN and consider it among the uppercrust of sanserif designs. I do not, however, use it on any occasion simply because it's not for me.

this fine specimen, OTOH, is fantastic! I know, I know, they're based on the same font; but I really like what Mr Jakobsson has done here. I hope all of his variations are released -- I may be forced to buy them.

I'm having a very difficult buying into what P. Bruhn is saying regarding why Mattias sold the font. I have very mixed emotions about this. For one, I've had a version of DIN rounded for six years now and it looks exactly like the one Mattias just created. It's a little suspicious. For two, the designer that created this version would have never imagined taking someones font, doing a slight modification, turning around and selling it to the designer. To this designer, it wasn't even a thought to try to profit off this slight modification. I've had the font for 6 years and it has never crossed my mind to start circulating that font, totally out of respect for the original designer.

It's like going to Damien Hirst and saying, "you know, you should jam an elephant in

formaldehyde", and then say, "well, if you do that, you are going to have to pay me because it was my idea". He would look at you for one second and start laughing in your face. I think it is totally disrespectful to want to make even a dollar off making DIN rounded. And if he did make such little money, why didn't he just give it to Albert-Jan Pool out of respect?

On the other hand, I do respect the fact that he didn't make those minor tweaks, rename it and then turn around and sell it to T26. I guess in the end, I just wish the art of design wasn't so disposable, where is the passion???

I will more than happy to post a jpeg up of the DIN round that was created years ago.

Greg,

first: I'm sure Mattias didn't know there was a rounded version of DIN around.

second: he didn't contact FontFont to make money but to ask them what to do with the font. If there already was a rounded version around designed by Pool I don't understand why FontFont suggested they release it.

Now Pool wanted to make justifications himself ñwhich is understandable since he is the creator of that version of DIN Mittelschrift ñ and Mattias got a little payed for doing the groundwork.

Since I know Mattias I know he's not a profit seeking person ñ he's just a design loving guy who wanted to share the modification he did. He thought someone would appriciate a rounded version.

But now that there already is a rounded version of Pool's DIN around then there's probably no need to release it.

BTW does Pool know you have the rounded version he made 6 years ago, or maybe you got it from him directly?

oops sorry Greg,

I missed the part about your designer friend who made a rounded version & then, without having the licens to do so, gave it away to you.

I liked that study of the font. It presented the font well, and it was fun as well.

Greg, I'd like to see the comparisons. If you could also post the font's info text, that would also help your claim.

So is it Kosher or not to take a font family and create a rounded version (or what have you), and then try to sell the modified creations back to the distributor/original artist?

The reason I ask is because I've been contemplating creating a "rounded" version of Pump to suit my own aesthetics, and I was curious of the legality of doing so.

I don't see it as that unusual, as such "remixing" is common in other creative fields such as music (sampling) and software (open source). In some cases, modifications have opened new doors of commerce, as the Doom video game mod phenomenon has proven.

Again ñ Mattias contacted FontFont to ask what to do with the modification - not to make a profit!

Jesse —

Under U.S. copyright law (and I suspect international laws are similar), the right to the creation of derivative works is one of the several bundled rights which are collectively known as copyright.

The EULA (End User License Agreement) spells out the rights that are being licensed to you, the user, when you ‘pay for the font.’ Many licenses will allow you to make derivations for personal use, some will not.

If you do make a derivative, the copyright still belongs to the original copyright holder; you cannot distribute it without permission. If you want to do something with it (like Mattias did) then you must contact the copyright holder and get permission. They are under no obligation to grant you that permission (except in some very specific circumstances which would not apply in this realm). You can try to sell your work back to them, but they can just as easily decide to create the derivation on their own. They cannot force you to turn over your work, but they can prevent you from distributing it.

In Mattias’s case, I think it’s commendable that he received some compensation. FF and AJP could have left him out in the cold. I think the compensation should have been comparable to what they would have paid to hire someone to do this groundwork. Without seeing the actual work he did, it’s hard to say whether it was or not.

Clearly, doing derivative work is a speculative venture. If you have in mind something other than your own use, then it behooves you to check things out with the copyright holder early on, before spending long hours and hours of work.

— K.

I heard all the commotion over this new version of DIN rounded so I thought I would contribute a "show & tell".

If it makes Mattias feel good about getting the font out there, all to him. DIN is one of the most flexible fonts ever designed in my opinion and as long as it was crafted to absolute perfection, I think Albert-Jan Pool would see it as a compliment.

I personally created a version of DIN rounded myself years ago for a specific broadcast project but that font has not left my computer since the day I finished it.

If you would like to view my version, you can check it out at:

http://madebyroyal.com/din.html

I only created a regular and a bold. I have not seen the version Mattias has created but I hear it is a full family. Is it out yet? I'm sure it will do very well.

cheers,

john

Maybe not derivative, but certainly inspired by DIN is Lineto’s Gravur Condensed.

There is also a font by Mecanorma called Normalise DIN which is a rounded version of the same. Like a lot of the Mecanorma stuff, I can’t find a sample online.

Speaking of lineto, and speaking of modifying existing copyrighted outlines, what do you make of their Courier Sans?

I have all kinds of modified fonts sitting around on various boxes. Usually the modifications are mundane things like renaming and reÎncoding characters, merging SC+OsF into the main font & building OT features, or before OT came along, building Roman OsF weights with the LF moved into the SC. Or sometimes I come across a shareware font that needs a few accents. Nowadays I always output .otf so it's easy to keep track of them. I haven't sent anything to a commercial printer in years, but if I did I would contact the designer or distributor first before sending a PDF with a modified font embedded in it to a service bureau for output. The worst that could happen is the designer says no, and I would just have to use a different font. It's not the end of the world if that happens. I also never put a PDF up on the web with embedded fonts that I have modified.

The moment you try to use a derivative work for printing anything publicly visible without talking to the original designer, you risk a few headaches. Likewise for putting PDFs containing modified fonts on a webpage. The desinger and his licensed distributor won't always necessarily see eye to eye, and both have to be accounted for and coordinated with. I apply this rule to anything from bound books to posters to simple throwaway rave flyers. The prospect of some designer I admire and respect being handed such a rave flyer, seeing the modified font, and asking me, "hey John what's this?" is, I think, too much of a disincentive for spending any substantial time on a derivative work. And in my own case, I've decided I want to get proficient at making my own designs first.

Clearly, Matthias was thoughtful and considerate in consulting with interested parties about this design.

I can't find any info about the person who originally designed the DIN types. Part of me wants to assume it was designed by committee, but there had to be someone in charge. As for the original DIN fonts, there are lots of commercial digitizations for sale by the big foundries. Peter, do you know which foundry was first entrusted by DIN or its designers to make a digital version of DIN? If any?

DIN always struck me as a government-financed effort, and here in the US government documents are in the public domain. Even Top Secret stuff if it ever gets leaked, though the govt employee doing the leaking commits a felony in doing so. But once it's out there, anyone can do anything with it.

For the record, the contribution above from John Hudson is not from John Hudson; rather, it is from John Hudson. John Hudson is a completely different person with the same name as John Hudson. Thanks to John Downer -- of whom there is only one, to my knowledge -- for alerting me to what he first thought was a hoax.

D. Cushman wrote: 'Speaking of lineto, and speaking of modifying existing copyrighted outlines, what do you make of their Courier Sans?'

Courier Sans began by modifying outlines, but the type that lineto sells under that name was completely re-drawn from scratch. There is no question of legality when it comes to the letters; the name, on the other hand, could be a problem for them.

Oh wow, a post from the designer of the original Courier himself, the very dead Bud Kettler...

As for the Johns, I recommend entirely new names.

But please not "Steve/Steven/Stephen/Ste*".

hhp

This confirms the rumors that I've been hearing about IBM having working prototypes of "turnkey solutions for beyond-the-grave communication." Now if only they'd finish building me that 600ppi monitor...

> Now if only they'd finish building

> me that 600ppi monitor...

I've heard they have Babbage working on it.

hhp

Forgot to mention DIN 16 (italic) and 17.

I have always understood that the DIN standard was originally created for signage and lettering, and was not implemented for type (founders would have considered that too tacky, or "infra dig"), except perhaps by such as Mecanorma dry transfer lettering, for graphic designers to fake the appearance of engineering or architectural drawings.

The traditional drafting tools are still available.

Note that these are to the DIN standard.

This suggests that for small lettering, the norm was a rounded terminal, as would have been created by a Rapidograph technical pen held vertically in the stencil -- and that's the authentic DIN look. FF DIN, with its square-cut terminals, might be suitable for signage, but for text type it is really quite bogus.

I think the points you mention, Nick, are probably the main reason for which DIN is such a favorite typeface when we talk about non-graphic design.
In fact I think DIN (and any relative of DIN) is the favorite face in the field of Architecture and so-related books and printed stuff.
To me DIN have always symbolized a quite "cold" rendition of Latin letters, the most impersonal I was able to think about without being ugly (i.e. Helvetica). It was DIN I was thinking about when I talked of an "impersonal" sans serif or lineale (and Hrant suggested FF Kievit, which is all but impersonal to me).
This kind of typeface fascinated me because it was opposite to what I usually try to achieve with type, and I experimented with it, trying to have a face even more impersonal but more suitable for text as well, trying to work on details to compensate for the rigid geometricity and modularity, like Fabrizio Schiavi did with Sys. It was interesting. Maybe some day I will do something with it, who knows.

Impersonal isn't neutral. Impersonal is a pretty strong "character trait". To me Kievit is neutral. It's not that it says nothing (that would be pretty characteristic), it's that it says nothing notable. Which is what makes it useful in its own way.

hhp

Yes, I understand what you mean, now. Instead, I was looking for something “detached”, technical, neutral in this sense: not charged with many associations.
I quite agree with your definition, when you say Kievit says nothing notable. For the good or for the bad, it’s the “final frontier” of the humanistic sans-serif, so to speak.
My desire was to do something detached, emotionally unloaded, almost clinical, that’s why I did not understood your Kievit suggestion when you made it first.

> it’s the “final frontier”

But only for the time being. As tastes change, neutrality shifts. Univers uses to be neutral (from what I understand), but now it's Barbarella.

hhp

Universe is pretty cold, but enough warm at the same time. That’s why I like it. Did you mean now Barbarella, here is neutral or Universe now is “Barbarella” (whatever this last one may mean)?

I meant the original Barbarella.

hhp

And anyway: FF DIN is a terrible version of previous versions of DIN, and there are quite a few. Most of the essential coldness and awkwardness of the original DIN has been lost in FF DIN, which looks much too 90s to be cool. It's well done, with expert knowledge, but still a poor attempt, as essential details are lost, and the fact that it's everywhere just goes to prove my point. Successful, but bad. A definite No-Go.

Use your name. Otherwise it feels more like wanton slander than valid opinion.

hhp

>I meant the original Barbarella.
Then my questions apply again. Can you answer?
Did you mean Barbarella (the character) is now "neutral" or Universe now is “Barbarella” (whatever this mean).
It' seems funny but I don't get it.

And, Luke Skywalker, you DA (Dirty Anonymous), I am interested in what you said. I want coldness, but not awkwardness, as a reference, so what should I look to?
If DIN (FontFont version) is "too 90s", it should be awkward, not cold. And if the original designs for DIN were awkward, how can they be "cold" at the same time? I'm not getting it.

I meant that Universe is not neutral anymore, it's like the woman in that photo.

hhp

PS: Nice card!

Bei einer Geschwindigkeit von 250km/h, wird die Deutsche Industrie Norm Schrift vermutlich ohnehin als etwas abgerundet empfunden. Es wäre interessant zu erforschen, ob man denn Schnitte der DIN erstellen könnte, die nach Vorbeifahrgeschwindigkeiten bezeichnet wären...

(It would be nice to make a series of DIN cuts that would represent the perception of the typeface when seen from vehicles driving by at various speeds. The maximum speed could be 250km/h, as this is the speed was chosen as the highest “safe” speed some of the high end car manufacturers in Germany.)

Well, Hrant, probably it depends largely on each one's perception. To me (that I have not such a wide knowledge of Univers history and whereabouts) it still looks sober, quite neutral, and with enough care in details and optical adjustments to be used with good results in textsetting. I'm referring especially to the Condensed versions.
For example, I did not know about what Peter Bilak was talking when, speaking of his Fedra Sans, told he was commissioned to design a face to de-protestantize Univers (?). Or why so many people dislike Rotis (including Peter) for some cultural reason I seem to miss. These things sound funny.

I'm not sure what "de-protestantize" means. Maybe making it more mannered? As for the dislike of Rotis, I think it comes from the chirographic crowd (or those like Bilak who haven't yet made a total break from it). They want things to "make sense", and furthermore only the sense they can grasp - a sense devoid of true functionality. Even though Aicher didn't have a sufficiently firm grasp of reading to make Rotis really sing, he was on the right track. He bravely left the old continent, but his astrolabe was faulty.

In terms of Bilak what's interesting is that (in Eureka) he made the same mistake as Aicher made in Rotis (and a rare mistake): he made the letterspacing loose to increase legibility - but that ruins readability. Track Eureka a little tighter and see it snap into action. I think One magazine wouldn't have dumped Eureka if it wasn't so loose (even though I'm sure they didn't realize what was actually happening under the hood).

hhp

I think functionality is one of Peter's primary goals. I would not compare the Eureka with the sophisticated Fedra (especially the recent Serif).

> I think functionality is one of Peter's primary goals.

Most certainly. And the deeper he gets into that the further from chirography he will move. It's his humility towards the craft that prevents him from taking his own creative activity too seriously.

hhp

Chirography? Hrant please explain for the definitions-dictionary-deprived among us. Seems a long way from DIN being anyone's favourite, but...

> Or why so many people dislike Rotis (including Peter) for some cultural reason I seem to miss.

I dislike Rotis too, Claudio, but I would tell you that it's an aesthetic problem, not a cultural problem, that the font has. To put this very simply; it's really ugly, and it looks like it's falling over. This is not because it's badly drawn - in fact it's well drawn, but drawn to an ugly aesthetic - Aicher's idea of an upright stress leans the lowercase characters backwards, [especially 'e' and 'c'] while the variation in character widths makes for some characters looking condensed and others expanded. And as hrant says above, the open letterspacing is at odds with the fonts function; to be readable. Despite Aicher's published arguments for Rotis' credibility, it was already in decline by the time Naomi Klein's 'No Logo' was set [badly!] in Rotis, and others have already criticised its selection as a text face on this job. I hope the world moves on to Bilak's aesthetic in due course.

"Chirography" (a term introduced to me by John Hudson) means shapes derived from the hand. The way I use it in type design it means more: the influence of the arm/hand/pen system on the outlines. It's a wonderful term because it avoids the misleading associations in "handwriting" (too informal) and "calligraphy" (too beautiful).

hhp

The original DIN 1451 dates back to 1932, when it was registered as "alphabet for road signage" by the German Institute of Norms.
Therefore, couldn't it be in the public domain ?

Yes, it is in the public domain - that's how FF could make a copy without getting permission or paying anybody anything (although they certainly refined/expanded it). But FF DIN is software, so it's protected from direct copying.

The same applies to the US stuff: there are a few fonts that look like Interstate, but FontBureau can't do anything about it, since the original is public domain.

hhp

Hi. Who created DIN Mittelschrift?

Was DIN 1451 ever available as metal type?

Anyone knows when it was first introduced in the Letraset catalog?

thx

From Linotype.com:

DIN stands for Deutsche Industrienorm, German Industrial Standard. In 1936 the German Standard Committee settled upon DIN 1451 as the standard font for the areas of technology, traffic, administration and business. The Committee chose a sans serif font because of its legibility and because its forms are also easy to write. This font was not foreseen for advertisements and other 'artistically oriented uses' and there were disagreements about its aesthetic qualities. Nevertheless, DIN font was seen everywhere in Germany, on signs for towns and traffic, and hence made its way into advertisements because of its ease of recognition.