zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
What saddens me is that a lot of people are so ignorant that they don't even realize a font is something that takes creativity, tradecraft and a lot of work/time/effort to design.

>>jll29+q3
I remember trying to explain to some colleagues why I paid about 100 bucks for the font I use and why I wouldn’t share it with them and they just couldn’t get it.

(It’s Berkeley mono).

I don’t even know how many glyphs it is (it’s thousands) but for something I’m looking at for 6-8 hours a day, every single day and is the absolute peak of perfection (at least to me), 100 bucks seems like a fucking bargain to me.

shrug I guess these folks never sold something they made completely by themselves maybe.

>>cyberp+i4
>shrug I guess these folks never sold something they made completely by themselves maybe.

Not saying font designers shouldn't get paid, but they mostly aren't making things "completely by themselves", they are mostly making derivative works from things that exist, without any consideration for the original authors.

>>Suppaf+C6
What do you suppose they should do to the original authors? Perhaps the original author is Claude Garamond who died in the sixteenth century? Or the unknown workers who carved the inscription at Trajan's column in the second century AD?

>>kccqzy+kb
So you understand the issue, it's derivative works all the way down.

>>Suppaf+ag
Clearly nothing based on Latin script can be original, which itself is based on the Etruscan Old italic alphabet, which itself it based on the Euboean alphabet — ergo, any typeface developed after say the 8th century BC is just a silly derivative.

Everything is derivative, there is nothing new under the sun, and your argument proves nothing.