REWARD OFFERED – Looking for Pre-2013 Evidence of “Fancy Modern Regular” Font

[Julietu]

Haven't seen a PM yet, bet that I wont. I like how the offer changed, after I found the proof requested in the original post.

I understand your point, and I genuinely appreciate the effort you put into this.

The screenshots you provided are by far the strongest lead I have received so far, which is why I offered a partial reward immediately.

However, the key issue in my case is not simply proving that the font existed. The critical issue is establishing that the font was publicly available before 2013.

The evidence you provided demonstrates the existence of a font file named “Fancy Modern Regular”, but it does not establish when or where that font was published or distributed.

In fact, in evidence we previously submitted, we found references showing dates as early as 2000. However, because the font library website displaying those references was first published in 2017, the evidence was rejected. The deciding factor was not the date shown within the font file, but the publication date of the source itself.

I do appreciate your contribution and consider it a valuable lead. If additional evidence can connect the font to an original distribution source or independently verifiable publication before 2013, I would be happy to increase the reward accordingly.

I’ll send you a private message. Paying via PayPal would be most convenient for me, though I can also do a bank transfer—whichever is easier for you to receive payment.

 

[Julietu]

I still have a collection of CASmate SCF fonts. They do still work when loaded into Flexi. The Scanvec/Amiable company put out a CD with a bunch of those fonts converted to TrueType at the end of the 1990's. "Fancy Modern Regular" is one of those TrueType fonts.

Also, it's worth noting that letter shapes themselves cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. But it's possible to do so with font names. There have been plenty of different look-alike knockoffs of typefaces like Helvetica, Futura, etc. But the companies releasing the copycat typefaces usually re-draw the glyphs. That creates all sorts of hazards in sign making when you're having to replace a storm damaged channel letter face and you didn't create the original artwork. The font might look like Helvetica, but it might really be Swiss 721, Triumvirate, etc. The letters from those look alike fonts don't line up with each other exactly. Even the different legit versions of Helvetica aren't identical. The 1957 cut of Helvetica is very different from 1983 Neue Helvetica, and 2019 Helvetica Now is also quite different. New Haas Grotesk might even like to have a word.

You can't simply take an existing font file, change its name and then resell it. The company that released Key Fonts collections on CD in the 1990's found out about that the hard way. Basically they took an Adobe Font Folio disc, cracked it, changed the names of the fonts and then re-sold the renamed fonts as a different retail package. The company wound up getting sued by Adobe over it.

I actually agree with your point.

There are countless similar-looking typefaces on the market, and many font websites make thousands of fonts available for download. In many cases, users can download and use them without knowing the original source or history of the font.

What makes things even more complicated is that many font libraries and download websites explicitly state that they are not responsible for any copyright or licensing issues arising from the use of the fonts they distribute.

Your information is particularly interesting because it points to a possible original distribution source rather than a later font archive.

Thank you again for sharing your knowledge and experience. It has been very helpful.

 

[MrDav3C]

I wonder how much the information being provided here is actually worth.

Perhaps before Jfiscus digs out installation disks etc. he should renegotiate?

 

[Boudica]

I'm super curious what this is for. Obviously a litigation thing, but why? Who's so but hurt about a (pretty generic) typeface that such research of proof is so necessary?
I hate secrets, I need to know more. You've got our community involvement, what CAN you tell us!

 

[Julietu]

I'm super curious what this is for. Obviously a litigation thing, but why? Who's so but hurt about a (pretty generic) typeface that such research of proof is so necessary?
I hate secrets, I need to know more. You've got our community involvement, what CAN you tell us!

Here is the situation:

Our company used a font on a design. Subsequently, an individual claimed to be the creator and copyright owner of that font and initiated legal action against us, alleging that we had used an unauthorized copy of his work.

To defend ourselves, we are trying to establish that the font existed and was publicly available before his claimed creation date. If we can demonstrate that “Fancy Modern Regular” was already in circulation prior to his claim, it would strongly suggest that the font was not his original creation and that his copyright claim may be invalid or improperly granted.

We have already located trademark registrations that utilize this typeface and predate 2013 in China; we intend to use this evidence to challenge his copyright claim since today is the final deadline.

 

[ikarasu]

Here is the situation:

Our company used a font on a design. Subsequently, an individual claimed to be the creator and copyright owner of that font and initiated legal action against us, alleging that we had used an unauthorized copy of his work.

To defend ourselves, we are trying to establish that the font existed and was publicly available before his claimed creation date. If we can demonstrate that “Fancy Modern Regular” was already in circulation prior to his claim, it would strongly suggest that the font was not his original creation and that his copyright claim may be invalid or improperly granted.

We have already located trademark registrations that utilize this typeface and predate 2013 in China; we intend to use this evidence to challenge his copyright claim since today is the final deadline.

I'm assuming you're being sued for 10s, if not hundreds of thousands, otherwise you wouldn't be putting the effort into this. It's smart to get a bunch of Sign professionals to help... especially for such a piddly reward, but it's not smart when one actually provides useful evidence...to offer $50.

He meets your most important requirement, and over half of the results your asking for - Pretty much every result proving the font was made before 2013... Anyone can send an email mentioning the font name, that means nothing - Same with archived websites or purchase records as there can be dozens of fonts named Fancy modern regular. I don't see why any court wouldn't accept a file that has its metadata created 20 years ago, and shows the copyrighted information on it... but either way.

https://ppdiaper.com/about-us/ - You're a pretty large company, who probably have dozens of lawyers you're paying thousands to... I'm sure you'd have got all these replies and had everyone help you with no mention of a reward... but to offer one then cut it to $50 is a slap in the face to the people who were helping you








Useful evidence includes:



• Screenshots of font menus showing “Fancy Modern Regular” before 2013. - Shows a file creation date of Sept 08, 2000
• Font catalogs or font specimen books - Screenshot of his Font CD... including the copyright company, and date it was copyrighted.
• Installation CDs or font collections - Again... screenshot of the font collection, I'm sure he would have been happy to provide you with a photo of the CD he got it from, although he did provide you with the name already.
• Design files created before 2013 that reference the font
• Archived websites mentioning the font
• Emails mentioning the font name
• Purchase records or license records
• Any document dated before 2013 showing the exact font name - He does this


The most important requirement is that the evidence clearly shows the exact font name: - His evidence does this


“Fancy Modern Regular”

 

[Bobby H]

The whole thing sounds pretty ridiculous to me. First, one or more people already pointed out the fact the Fancy Modern Regular font is really a knock-off of Bernhard Fashion, a typeface that has existed long before the first computers were ever created.

I haven't seen the design in question that incorporates the Fancy Modern Regular font. However the notion that someone could sue for some kind of copyright infringement just because a certain typeface was used in the design is just laughable. No one would be able to use fonts at all for any kind of commercial graphic design work if this sort of thing could stand up in court. Likewise, no one can stake a claim of creative ownership over the use of a certain typeface just because they used that font in a design. Fonts that are sold commercially or widely distributed in computer software can be used by anyone.

The only way this plaintiff could have a leg to stand on in court is if he created a unique logo or wordmark using completely unique, custom lettering not found in any commercially distributed font and then someone else copied his custom lettering design without permission. For example, there's the iconic Coca-Cola script wordmark. No one can just copy that and sell it on things like clothing or other merchandise unless they want the Coca-Cola Company's lawyers swiftly moving in for the kill.

 

[jfiscus]

Fortunately, I have never, ever used that font, so I have no files that incorporate the use of it, from any time, ever.
It originally came with Flexi (why it was copyright SAI), but it has been 15+ years since I last used Flexi. 100% sure that CD was tossed many years ago.
I just have all my old fonts lingering around for the instance when a customer forgets to include it.
The folder this old font is hanging out in has 14,781 fonts, and it is not my only fonts folder, or what I currently have installed and semi-installed through Adobe.

I can't see it being any plainer than the screenshots I showed unless they came up with a Flexi install package from 15+ years ago in time for court.

 

[jeffdpia]

If you have the ttf or otf font file you can look inside (text or word) and see the copyright and foundry information.

 

[Stacey K]

garyroy - you are 100% correct.

A 2 minute google search I found the following, which I'm not posting the links to because I'm mad now.

- Scanvec has a Chinese page and there's an attorney listed at the bottom for contact information - she knew it was a Scanvec font to begin with
- Another page created by some guy who they could have contacted lists Fancy twice under the 1990 Scanvec, so he got the information from somewhere
- I'm sure there's more but I have work to do so I'm done clicking on links

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

Well, how the court case go? You sell diapers? How did the font become a problem? Was it on your packaging?

 

[jfiscus]

FWIW, I did receive a paypal for $50.

 

[jfiscus]

If you have the ttf or otf font file you can look inside (text or word) and see the copyright and foundry information.

I sent screenshots of exactly this. Also sent the original font file from way back.

 

[Gino]

If you simply google original date of this font, you'll see it has been in use in bundles since the 1990s. It is also a free font download anywhere, so what's the beef ??

 

[damonCA21]

To add to someone claiming it is their original work. It is HEAVILY based on lots of art deco fonts used from the 1920s onwards so it would need to be significantly different from these to be considered original.
If you had used a free copy of the font, then the first step from the creator would be to issue a cease and desist notice, not sure you for hundreds of thousands. It doesn't add up unless you were selling this font as being your own. How would the original creator prove you had used an unlicensed copy purely by looking at a jpeg of a logo you have created with it?

 

[Small Lettering]

I found this on a 'Flexisign Fonts & Graphics' disc ©2000

 

[Small Lettering]

Others in the Fancy Modern font family:

 

[jeffdpia]

I sent screenshots of exactly this. Also sent the original font file from way back.

None of your screenshots contains the
creator, designer, copyright holder, or foundry.

 

[Krissy Louderback]

1. The Core Timeline (Prior Art Evidence)​

• Late 1990s: Scanvec/Amiable (which later merged to become SAi - Scanvec Amiable International) compiled and distributed "Fancy Modern Regular" as part of a massive TrueType font collection bundled on software installation CDs.
• Pre-2013: The font file was actively used globally by vinyl plotters, CNC operators, and engravers. Industry documentation establishes that trademark filings utilizing the exact "Fancy Modern Regular" typeface were registered in international jurisdictions (such as China) well before 2013. [1]

2. Legal Precedent & The "Font vs. Software" Distinction​

Under U.S. copyright law, a crucial distinction exists that your legal team can leverage:

• The Design Shape Cannot Be Copyrighted: Typeface designs (the visual weight, shape, and curves of the letters) are considered utilitarian objects and cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law (Eltra Corp. v. Ringer).
• Only the Software Code is Protected: A copyright can only protect the digital font software file itself (the .TTF or .OTF code instructions that render the font). [2, 3]
• Defense Application: If an individual is suing you claiming they "drew" or "created" the visual look of Fancy Modern Regular recently, they cannot legally claim copyright over the visual design shapes. If the physical design matches the 1990s Scanvec software output, the plaintiff's claim of originality is demonstrably false. [1, 2]

3. Actively Sourcing Physical Evidence​

If your legal deadline is immediate, standard web searches will not yield the physical .TTF file data needed for a court exhibit. You must source historical physical media:

• Target Software Bundles: Search secondary markets (like eBay) or legacy business backups for physical CDs of Scanvec Amiable CasMate, Inspire, or early versions of SAi FlexiSign (Flexi family) from 1998–2005.
• Industry Forums: The sign-making community on Signs101 has hosted active peer-to-peer efforts where veteran sign shop owners dig through old archive drives to locate the original, unedited timestamped file metadata for this exact case. [1]

4. Recent Case Law to Reference​

Your legal counsel should look closely at recent digital typography litigation, specifically Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.. That case intensely litigated whether fonts generated via third-party software (like FontLab) automatically qualify for valid copyright protections based on the selection of coordinates, providing modern guidelines on font software infringement boundaries. [2, 4, 5]
To help narrow down your evidence collection, let me know: