by djnippa
Download disabled
The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.
Inspired by a small sample jpeg of Grant font
There are another 7 in the NEOPOLICIA series. I've simply not had time to do any samples for them yet.
There are another 7 in the NEOPOLICIA series. I've simply not had time to do any samples for them yet.
43 Comments
As I never use the European set, I'd appreciate any comments or adjustments that would make it look better.
THIS FONT MAY TAKE AT LEAST 5 MINS TO DOWNLOAD !
N = §
. = ±
A jpeg sample of this font was posted in a chat room, asking if anyone knew what it was called?. No one did, so I designed Neopolicia around it.
I'm very pleased with my version, and I feel that it is more usable than the sample I based it on. I felt I had created so much out of nothing, that it deserves it's own place, and respect.
I've also been told by Aphoria that the whole font is called Grant. Which I suppose is pretty obvious looking at the sample!
Having found this out yesterday, and looked through every letter, I still feel my version is far more usable, even though it's based on something else.
This was a very difficult decision, but we believe that we are acting in the interest of our entire creative community. We are ready to start a discussion about originality in type design and criteria for assigning Top Picks.
Slippery. Slope.
90% of fonts on Fontstruct are all sparked by some other font in some way.
100% of every font ever designed in the world are based on a previous font, after all they are simply shapes that must be adhered to. How many variations of Helvetica are there? How many typewriter fonts, Black Letter, Art Deco? The fact they are in catagories denotes they are similar by fault.
I learned a lot from designing this font, and with the little I had to go on (10 Characters), I think I've done an unbelievable job, and a more usable font that Grant.
My version is less condensed, and has enough variations to warrant it's own merit.
This decision will leave every one very confused.
I'll remove these fonts once this discussion has concluded. I feel the happy nature and good will of this site has been badly bruised.
What do you do about Cloning? Surely anything cloned from now on would ever get a Top Pick? Your going to have to revoke at least 20% of the Top Picks in that case. Then there's the ones that are based on other Fontstructs that's another 40%. Then the ones that are based on other fonts outside of Fontstruct, that's another 30%. You've got a lot of bad kharma coming your way if you do that.
Fontstruct is supposed to be fun.
I guess that's stopped now.
I've done a comparison alphabet Neopolicia above, Grant below.
This opens up a nice Pandora's box full of argumentation. I'm deeply interested in what both sides have to say. But first, here's where I stand in cogitation over the issue.
@djnippa: I have to admit, I was a little disappointed to discover that it was not a totally original design of yours, but 166 characters derived from 10 with 7 variations is a hefty achievement. That being said, I think you've improved on the original design. Being less condensed than Grant, it is more legible and therefore more usable. I especially like how you've smoothed out the edges. This release makes me wonder what happens when a free FontStruct font is better than a commercially available version? I have many unreleased fonts that I keep private in deference to professional designers, but I wonder where the limit is now.
Whatever pans out, Nippa, you seem to be involved with a lot of significant firsts on Fontstruct: first to publicly sell his fontstructions, first to have a Top Pick revoked. Please continue!
@gferreira: I would like to know the contents of the conversation that went on to revoke the Neopolicia series. I can understand one version being revoked, but every single iteration? Are we all now subject to a retroactive Top Pick revocation?
I acknowledge the responsibility you have in officially supporting fontstructions with a Top Pick badge. Being a major type foundry, this can be construed as Font Shop's condoning of what is released in the gallery, and can be frowned upon if competing shops find their creations being presented. Much like how thalamic discovered the redistribution of Fontstruct fonts on abstractfonts.com, but on a commercial level.
Can you let us all know what the existing criteria is for attaining a Top Pick, and what you think needs changing?
And he does have a legitimate point: he's fleshed out the entire character set... some of which must be considered to be non-derivative.
On the other hand I'd hate Fontstruct to attract the kind of legal notoriety that Napster brought down on itself, by not being seen to discourage copying.
Would we rather have this kind of curb or potentially no Fonstruct at all?
i'll try:
Nippa, this is VERY close to "Grant"! My girlfriend didn't even get the difference!
I think being influenced THAT way, doesn't bring you into the position to get any fame for the idea/creation. Sure you changeda lot and kicked out nice variations, but after all i think especially YOU would be pissed if you was the original creator of "Grant".
Hm... i'm sorry but in this case i'd say it's a very WISE interpretation, but NOT worth being a toppick, cause i see the dot as something to honour your creativity...
I wonder what the creator of "Grant" thinks about that...
Don't get me wrong, but i think, you often got a demanding undertone in your words, which i'm not sure about...
I mean, you could use and download it, without publishing it :)
hm... it's tricky though
is that toppick important?
There are many Top Picks that are either clones or obviously based on another font. Where does this leave everyone else for the future?
I thought I'd created a whole family of fonts, based on someone else's ten letter logotype of a company called Grant Decoration.
I guess I've got to take this on the chin and sleep on it.
A few of my thoughts...
Comparisons to Napster aren't very accurate in my opinion. Napster was used to trade perfect (or nearly) digital copies of songs.
Djnippa is not trying to pass off an exact copy of another font as his own. He clearly stated his source inspiration and that he only had 10 glyphs to base his entire set off of. In fact, although they are obviously similar, they are distinctly different.
Maybe I'm sensitive because I've been djnippa's shoes. I didn't have a Top Pick revoked, but I was accused of theft (see Squire). There are some constructive comments mingled in amongst the shouting idiot's.
Another really good thread is on plagiacotti. There are a lot of great comments there that directly relate to this.
Beyond legal issues (IANAL), it boils down to when does inspiration turn to copying. It is a continuum I suppose, with the extremes being "any similarity is copy" to "it's not a copy unless it is the original .ttf file."
i'd be upset about losing a pink dot. this is a reflection of what this site means to us - especially investing so much time and energy into little more than just a "hobby". but it is more. perhaps terms and conditions pretty much say it all - fs can pretty much run the site how they want - and they've done a pretty good damn job. i never did a digital font before and probably would not have. i'm not interested in learning another photoshop. fonts are disposable. their intrinsic value probably nil. nowadays nobody pays for a font unless its part of a job, print or ad - where they know they better have rights or its trouble.
i think nippa's fonts, although inspired by, were actually better than the original. which may be an even more bitter pill to swallow than the possibility that someone is losing money. perhaps more like someone is losing money because someone may like this font better so why pay for something you don't like as much. makes sense to me. fs and fontshop are in a touchy situation that seems to be uncharted territory. best of luck guys.
maybe now is the time to add some different colored dots - maybe purple maybe blue. call it top creative design pick, or top technical pick, or top original pick or even honorable mention. and definitely djnippa and aphoria and anybody else who lost one should be re-awarded an appropriate dot. i think this will go a long way towards (re)building goodwill.
inspiration can come from anywhere and shouldn't be tamped down. but everything is politics. even here. at least we can express ourselves and hopefully keep growing :)
Also, a new category of 'Not Crap' might be established for FontStructions that are, well, not crap, but not quite Top Pick material. And and and, maybe an explanation of what would have to change in the font to convert it to a Top Pick.
Furthermore, I understand that all this is lots of work. Maybe you could nominate a trusted user, like geneus1 or afrojet to be an honorary member of FontStruct who could share the Top Pick duties with you.
Also also also, one of the things that makes FontStruct a favorite of so many is the fun nature of the whole thing. Whatever you do, please recognize the soul of FontStruct and don't kill it in the process of formalization.
Thank you.
I'm far too new to the world of FontStruct to comment on this weighty matter, but ... in the interests of 'a discussion about originality in type design and criteria for assigning Top Picks.' (gferreira above) would it not be a good idea to have a FontStruct forum so that these things can be debated more easily.
I wouldn't even have stumbled across this matter if I had not followed up on djnippa's work after he had kindly offered this newbie a tip about Brick Stacking.
"Where do you draw the line, I'm not telling you I'm asking you?" - Jello Biafra
Nippa you are an active member of the Fontstruct community with an impressive body of work and you always bring real honest critique and criticism to other peoples work. One of your trademarks is a constant need to improve not only your own work but the works of others. I think you see something and say, "Hey, cool. I think this can be done better." And I think that's a tremendous asset.
So in the case of Grant v. Neopolicia, it's hard for me to look at this as an unbiased judge because I know something about where you're coming from. I simply see this as another font that you think you can improve. And here I think it's all about intention. I don't think it is/was your intention to merely copy the Grant font. I believe you set out to improve it. I do think that you could have helped your case when you originally published Neopolicia if you had been more transparent with your intention and if you had written in more detail about how you saw Neopolicia as being an improvement over the Grant font.
Perhaps this illustrates again the need for a true Fontstruct forum. Perhaps if there had been a place for Nippa to throw up the Grant sample and say, "Hey anybody know what font this is, it looks like it was made with Fontstruct?" this could have been discussed prior to publication. (I know there are numerous other Type ID boards out there but maybe the Fontstruct community needs it's own).
There are of course too many things to reply to and comment on at once, so I’ll focus on what I think is most important at the moment.
First of all, there’s no reason to worry about a “retroactive Top Pick revocation” – this was an isolated episode which can be better described as “a Top Pick which should never had been given”.
Here are the facts:
The Top Picks for the three Neopolicia fonts (Jump Drop, Harlequin and Drop Serif) were given by mistake, before I knew that the whole family was heavily inspired by Grant. I was very disappointed when I found out that the features I had considered special in Neopolicia were in fact features from Grant.
I also felt cheated: my mistake was induced by the lack of credits to the original design in two of the three Neopolicia fonts. The appropriate credits for Grant were included in these fonts only after I made an explicit request through a comment on the Jump Drop page. Credits, images and explanatory messages were added soon after my request, but at the same time my comment was deleted, resulting in a thread that read as as if: 1. I had never been there, 2. the credits to Grant were included spontaneously (and not after a formal request), and worst 3. I had rewarded the three fonts knowing that they were heavily based on an existing typeface! which was definitely not true.
The rest of the story is known: it took us a few days to discuss the issue, and we agreed to remove the Top Picks and initiate this discussion.
(to be continued in another post)
Originality in type design
We could spend days, weeks & months in a complex and deep philosophical debate about this topic, and we would probably never agree to a conclusion or a general rule. At this point of the discussion, the most relevant questions seem to be: Where to draw the line between reference, inspiration and copy? When is a copy/inspiration/reference good, when is it bad? Again, I don’t think there are simple answers to these questions. When decisions need to be made, one inevitably needs to take the particularities of each case in consideration.
In this particular case, I don’t think that the Neopolicia fonts are illegal copies of Grant (but I Am Not A Lawyer). The main issue I see here is ethical, not legal: Is it correct to A. copy all distinctive features of a recently released commercial design? B. to sell such a heavily influenced design in competition to the original one? C. to omit the credits to the original, causing confusion among users and potential buyers? My personal answer to all these questions is NO, it is not correct, even if it is not illegal.
I believe that, more than fear of legal consequences, it is the respect for each other that holds a community together; and that it is part of my job to promote these ethical values within the FontStruct community.
Criteria for choosing Top Picks
Top Picks are FontStructions that demonstrate what we, FontStruct staff, consider to be a high degree of skill, originality and typographic usefulness. This apparently very subjective definition has proven to be very efficient so far – in most cases it is clear which FontStructions deserve this honor and which don’t. Neopolicia was simply not considered original enough to deserve a Top Pick.
I need to say that I haven’t been able to select Top Picks as often as I would like to; FontStruct is growing very fast and we have a lot of work to do. But you can help: I am always open to suggestions and comments. I did receive two direct emails with suggestions for overlooked Top Picks this month and they were really helpful, even though I did not agree with all indications. Please, if think you think that a particular FontStruction deserves a Top Pic, don’t hesitate to send us suggestions.
(continues)
I think that, even though the process has been a little bit traumatic, the outcome of this incident is positive. I find it very important that this discussion is taking place, and that so many users have participated with well articulated arguments – it makes me even more proud to be part of FontStruct.
I learned that I need to be extra careful (meaning read all comments in all related FontStructions) before assigning a Top Pick, and that, if there is a problem, I need to react fast before the problem grows bigger.
I hope that the criteria for assigning Top Picks are clearer now, and the message that we value originality and ethics above everything else has been spread.
If your FontStruction is based on an existing typeface: please include the proper credits in your description text – this avoids confusion and disputes about originality.
Am I wrong in thinking that as long as the criteria is subjective, fairness in assigning Top Picks can't possibly exist.
There have been lots of FontStructions that I, subjectively, thought deserved a Top Pick, yet they weren't so picked. Being a mere user of this service I have no say in what gets TP'd and what doesn't, as it should be. But that doesn't mean that my subjective opinion is wrong.
Maybe a single TopPick is insufficient to define the nature of the FontStruction. Maybe what is required is a separate badge for each of your subjective criteria, i.e. Skill, Originality, and Usefulness. While some fontstructions may earn all three badges, some might earn just the skill and usefulness badges, or skill and originality badges, or skill and usefulness badges, or just usefulness badge or just skill badge, etc. That might make the whole thing appear less subjective.
And maybe, pretty please, a simple checkmark per fontstruction. Checkmark on for fontstructions reviewed, no checkmark for fontstructions yet to be reviewed.
I notice the way you don’t actually take any blame for this MASSIVE blunder, you twist words to make it sound like I deliberately set out to cheat and deceive you.
You kindly gave me Three Top Picks even after my Grant image was shown.
I have no worries about stating where my influences are from, please check all my other public fonts that reiterate this as fact. I am honest to the bone, sometimes it comes out as being blunt or aggressive, but I am proud of my always constructive brutal honesty.
You have in no uncertain terms called me a cheat and a liar with no justification. You’re covering your self, because you messed up.
Let me say that this new ruling is utter bollocks. Many, many, Top Picks are totally based on other fonts and Logos, and they hold nothing back in stating this. In my Jump Drop version I stated my influence. I have made NO mistake, I have NOT cheated anyone, I have NOT tried to deceive anyone. Yet you don’t seem to know the rules or meaning of the word Funstruct. With other mistakes you make, do you always pass the buck and blame somebody else?
Your job so far seems to be, to give with one hand, and take with the other. This NEW rule has killed Fontstruct for me. At least one font (within a family) of every font I've released on Fontstruct has been given Top Pick. My NCD Grand Theft Autostruct font is a classic example of how I create whole fonts from nothing.
You state “there’s no reason to worry about a “retroactive Top Pick revocation” – so why was mine isolated? My Top Picks should’ve been kept then a notice written to everyone stating the NEW rules.
I for one trust your judgements no more. They hold no enigmatic status, especially after you’ve given Arabix 01 a Top Pick! Or is that just another mistake? How that gets a Top Pick and some others don’t is beyond me.
The Top Pick rules were never clearly written anywhere. They were unspoken judgements. They were given on any number of the following criteria - Creativity, Skill, Educational, Originality, Usability, Variation of a commercial font, Humour and Colour. Even the sample can hugely influence the decision.
These guidelines still need to be kept as flexible as possible, allowing users to do whatever they like. To state rules, set boundaries, and revoke actions has only served as a deterrent and to stifle everyone’s endeavor to gain success.
As regulars, we need encouragement to continue. We spend hours hunched over the keyboard glued to the screen. A pat on the back keeps us going for weeks.
It is the users comments that really keep me going. The fact that we are all involved in this perpetual game.
The respect of my fellow Font Designers, who both feed and buzz off each other in a community spirit, and the comments they make do so much more than any Top Pick ever could.
The only thing a Top Pick does, is that more people see your work, adding more encouragement. I buzz when someone comments on my work, after all font design can be a lonely task.
It is so obvious when something deserves a Top Pick, you instinctively know when someone’s done a good job. Whether it’s based or influenced on something else is irrelevant. They’ve spent hours of work, and created something great on Fontstruct (with all its limitations), and then they have shared it so everyone else can use it.
Here are the real Facts.
You state you“ made an explicit request through a comment on the Jump Drop page “.
This is wrong. My influence was added after Afrojet kindly pointed out how he thought it was reminiscent of Grant. He included a link. I clicked the link, and viewed the whole font. At first I thought “wow, it’s exactly like the Logo”. I was also pleased that someone had actually found the font. I was even more pleased to find many differences, as well as similarities. I was happy that I had done, what I thought was a better job. They looked very different next too each other, yet still had a feeling that they were from the same Family. I had designed a whole new branch. Much like Lubalin is based on Rockwell. Credit and high accolade is still give to Lubalin.
My influences were not added because you told me to. I was already adding a comment. If you read my comment it is directed at Afrojet. I removed your comment after I posted mine. As that is when I first viewed it. I felt your comment was not needed, as I’d already, responded to Afrojet, and as you said, you were - “embarrassed”. So I removed it, to save your face, not mine.
You state you“ had rewarded the three fonts knowing that they were heavily based on an existing typeface!”. Yes you did award Three Top Picks, which was great, nothing wrong with that. However my font was based on only 10-12 characters from a small jpeg logo that used the Grant font. This is hardly copying. The angles, the shape, the color, the width, the corners, are all different from Grant. I also only have 2 diamonds in the legs, where as Grant has five. Even if it may use characteristics from another font, Neopolicia is still a unique font. Otherwise you'll have to say that every pixel font uses distinctive characteristics of every other pixel font. That characteristic being the pixel. Or even a font with slab serifs, isn't that a distinctive feature?
When I see a logo using a typeface I like the look of. I try to track it down. If I can’t find it to buy, then I design a variation of the font myself .
This same process was achieved with NCD Grand Theft Autostruct . Which was based entirely on the Playstation game logo of Grand Theft Auto . I had no idea there was an actual font. I thought it was a just a unique logotype.
The biggest mistake you made was not the giving of the Top Picks, but the taking away of them, with a formal comment. I had made no mistake, there were no rules to adhere to, I’d worked hard and achieved great results, yet I was made to feel bad as if I had cheated you or something. The guilt trip you bestowed upon me, has only served to infuriate many bemused users of this site. There is no consistency with Top Picks, and now there are rules! The rules of selection for Top Picks prior to your arrival were. 1. Is it good? 2. Is it worthy? And that’s it. No complex over regimented rubbish. This is a very enjoyable site, please refrain from being a kill joy.
It would have been better to keep them as Top Picks, but then informing the community as a whole that “from now on, Top Picks will only be awarded to”…..and then state the new rules. That would’ve been the professional way to do it, and it would’ve kept everyone happy.
Fantastic series, fantastic sample. Please don't let this discourage you and keep up the great work :)
The Top Picks by definition are FontStructions selected by FontShop staff, and I think that as a user, even if personally I don't agree with almost 50% of the staff's selections, I cannot criticize the staff for picking or not a font, or revoking the pick. Nor I think that laying down a list of criteria would help: such a kind of selection is always personal, never objective, and what looks like skillful, original or useful to one person, may look the opposite to another.
If you look at top picks in the early days of FontStruct (my first font to be picked was Beamo, more than one year ago) you may see as criteria were really different, because we as users were less experienced, there were no complex fontstructions yet, there were less bricks (a lot of less bricks) available, etc. So it's natural that the criteria evolve, especially when someone new joins the FontStruct staff (BTW welcome Gustavo!).
Users have the rating systems to express their opinion on a font, and they can also express it in details in the comment sections. Of course I'm flattered when receiving a Top Pick, but I'm flattered as well when other users comments positively on my fonts, and maybe this is more interesting because it is an exchange between peers, while the Top Pick award cannot be publicly discussed for its own nature.
As concerning visibility, I think that top picks and visibility do not go always together. After a few days Top Picks are forgotten by users, and especially by accidental visitors, unless the fonts enter in the first pages of the Top Picks gallery. Just check how really few votes get the just-released-and-picked fonts which never access the top ten of the Top Picks gallery.
Instead of discussing about the Top Pick criteria I would find more interesting if FontStruct could offer different ways to expose fontstructions to visitors. I think that the What's New and the Gallery sections, and the featured download are not enough. Especially the latter is updated very rarely, overexposing a font to other fonts' disadvantage. Maybe fonts samples provided by users could be used to expose fontstructions in the news section; or a newsletter, like the FontShop one, could be sent to users, or could appear on the front page; or the news section could contain more infos concerning fontstructions that are appreciated outside the FontStruct community.
I think that finding new ways to increase the fontstructions visibility is much more important than discussing if a font deserves or not a Top Pick. In this way it could be possible to call attention not only to this or that single font, but to the FontStruct comunity as a whole as well.
that's what i think as well!
Harlequin is a jolly good font. It deserves a full 10.
This whole issue has left me a tad uncertain about my latest FS effort. In the absence of an open forum and without wishing to divert the discussion too far, I would like to ask for some guidance.
In an attempt to wrestle with the creation of rounded shapes I have been working on an Old English blackletter font.
I am aware that Monotype trademarked Engravers Old English as a commercial font ... but that in itself is just the formalisation of the script used by monks and scribes many centuries ago (unamed and now long forgotten). The same applies to many other Blackletter fonts
Surely, any attempt at such classic fonts must be deemed to be derivative ... yet I would hazard a guess that many (if not most) Fontsructers have tried their hand at these.
Will my humble efforts:
- be considered unethical?
- result in legal action by Monotype?
- bring down the wrath and curses of those old monk dudes?
So much to consider from such an innocent pastime ...
A design that, in my opinion, djnippa retouched and made better than the original.
djnippa, I may be only a newbie here, but let me say this: I've -picked- this font for later use, as it's -top- quality.
Neopolicia counterparts (Jump Drop and Drop Serif) should not have had their Top Picks taken either. They were completely and utterly different than Grant, almost at a point of no recognition.
To solve this problem, I agree with many other users above me. I believe that Peer Picks and things like that will help our community greatly.
But I think I side with many of the others here when I say that this may not be a TP anymore, but it still is one of the best fonts on FS.
As previously iterated, this font was based off of nothing more than a single sample pic. 167 characters sparked from a 5-letter sample of a font that happens to be almost twice the height as this, and with completely different styles, although the general idea is the same.
We certainly DO need some kind of way to display fonts that everybody likes without the decision of the slightly biased FS staff. There are only about four or five people in total making fonts featured and Top Picks. Is this a problem?
Perhaps we could take an example from democratic governments world wide, and allow Top Picks and Featured Downloads to be chosen by the FS community, rather than a specific range of people.
This font is GORGEOUS and, as mentioned by so many of you beforehand, as original as every single font here. I have always admired your (djnippa) boldness. You are never afraid to go places; and you never limit yourself to just one case set, like many people (yours truly included) here on FS. This one is so much better than Grant. Three cheers for djnippa!
Please sign in to comment.