Typophile - ILLEGAL USE OF TYPEFACE! - Comments

Jordy, Luc and I do simply

Thomas Phinney — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:48:05 -0700

Jordy,

Luc and I do simply disagree on many things which are more matters of opinion. This doesn’t bother me so much. I’m perfectly capable of having a spirited disagreement with somebody and still respecting and liking them, as long as they are honest and not malicious.

> If you do a bit of research you will find that Luc Devroye’s comments, while very pointed, are accurate.

I guess we’ve researched different issues, or in different ways. But I’ve said my piece on this before.

My biggest issue with him is that Luc has a history of posting links to pirated fonts, including pirated fonts from the company I work for, and not willingly removing them when politely asked. That’s made me pretty grumpy with him.

But on the bigger picture....

You’re free to “dislike large corporations controlling and attempting to dominate the market as Adobe has done.” But you must be talking about a market other than type. Which company acquired ITC and then Linotype? What’s the biggest font retailer? (Hint: answers to both are “not Adobe.”) If you’re talking type, Adobe has neither attempted nor succeeded at controlling/dominating the market.

Now, it’s true that despite reduced market share over the years, Adobe remains highly *influential* in the type market. How? By having software that uses fonts in sophisticated ways, providing font development source code and tools at no charge, inventing or co-inventing key standards, giving font development training and info to our nominal “competitors” (both privately and via conferences and seminars), and helping educate the next generation of type designers and font developers at Reading (and this year at KABK as well).

I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve publicly posted font feature source code and presentations about font development practices, or updated my essay on font formats....

Frankly, I find it hard to imagine a private company being more open and collegial in how it influenced the font marketplace.

Perhaps you just don’t like Adobe’s market position for other software besides fonts?

Cheers,

Jordy, if you are talking

William Berkson — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:56:07 -0700

Jordy, if you are talking about type, I think you are way off base.

When Adobe was keeping its PostScript format secret, in the 80’s, you’d have had an argument. But now Adobe seems to be following a strategy of encouraging type design outside its company, particularly in the Open Type formats that its graphics programs are good at using. Ok, it’s self interest, but it looks like pretty enlightened self-interest to me—and not monopolistic as far as fonts go.

And Thomas Phinney in particular has been very generous with his time both on Typophile and at conferences, explaining the technical side of type to anyone who is interested. And they publish a lot of technical type information, available for free download. All this information helps other designers compete with Adobe’s type faces.

David K There are

jordy — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:56:15 -0700

David K
There are undoubtedly many companies and firms which do not pay for all of the typefaces they purchase, preferring intead to simply let all of the users on their networks use them disregarding the EULA rules. If you do a bit of research you will find that Luc Devroye’s comments, while very pointed, are accurate. One thing is clear. Luc and Thomas Phinney of Adobe do not agree about a lot of things. Personally I am on Luc’s side. I dislike large corporations controlling and attempting to dominate the market as Adobe has done. While capitalism is supposed to be about competition it also is about how much one corporation can do to eliminate the competition, regardless of the ethics or morals involved. For more on what a corporation is or does I would refer you to the recently published book by Robert B. Reich, “Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life.”

Just make sure you have an

Werfer — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:38:37 -0700

Just make sure you have an invoice :-) That normally covers the “normal” range.

Roughing the EULA...

sii — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:02:39 -0700

Roughing the EULA...

ChrisL

dezcom — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:55:56 -0700

ChrisL

P22 (and all subsidiaries),

Miss Tiffany — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:26:31 -0700

P22 (and all subsidiaries), Emigre, ...all do not allow symbols to be used in logos or other products where the glyphs are the key elements.

>if this scenario is

sii — Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:20:15 -0700

>if this scenario is acceptable or not:

Some EULAs (in particular some EULAS associated with symbol fonts - HouseInd maybe?) do not allow a symbol to be the primary element in a logo under their standard terms.

There is a difference

dezcom — Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:19:00 -0800

There is a difference between creating outlines for a few characters in a logo and giving the client the working software for the font to use in running text as a corporate typeface. I don’t know exactly what you mean but typically a logo based on an existing typeface is manipulated and customized to work better as a logo to begin with. This differs from the UPS font which was a working typeface.

ChrisL

i’m a bit confused here.

Ch — Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:07:02 -0800

i’m a bit confused here. please explain to me if this scenario is acceptable or not:

1) designer or designer’s company buys font X license for their computer.
2) designer is hired to develop logo for corporate client.
3) designer tries various ideas.
4) client chooses logo which uses characters from font X, converted to outlines.
5) logo is put into widespread usage.
6) font X software remains on designer’s computer.

what am i missing here ? is further permission required ? this is a sincere question. i’ve started another thread on the future of licensing, but here i’m asking for the specific nature of the violations cited above.

When was this case, Robert?

Stephen Coles — Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:02:38 -0800

When was this case, Robert? Was it a digital font? Can you name it?

I went to court over a font

Robert Trogman — Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:16:17 -0800

I went to court over a font copying and won. The verdict was based on the use of the name that was a marketing tool.

I agree. It’s a question

sii — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:47:26 -0800

I agree. It’s a question we get all the time, as most EULAs don’t address the issue, because after all the point of a font has always been to facilitate printing.

So my advice would be that unless the EULA prohibits a specific use (and some EULAs, eg some boutique symbol font EULAs, do have restrictions around shirts) you’re free to use the font in a print project.

I think you are safe in

Miss Tiffany — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:39:04 -0800

I think you are safe in following the suggestions of those you’ve asked previously. Those massive bundles don’t usually have EULAs beyond what you’ve mentioned because they really are free (not literally) to use however you wish. In addition, most foundries would not expect additional fees to use their fonts on your shirts. If the bundle didn’t have a EULA stipulating anything additional then I say go for it.

Who agrees?

If I could inject a bit of

Todly — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:24:45 -0800

If I could inject a bit of ignorance here and hopefully get some feedback, that would be wonderful. This is the closest post I have found to my topic, and I hope it might add an interesting perspective for David K.

I’m a small-scale graphic designer (T-shirts, note cards, greeting cards) and I’ve been searching everywhere for the legality of my using different fonts in my designs. I want to do the right thing and respect other designers’ intellectual property, but I can’t seem to find much info out there. Everyone mostly seems to discuss the issues surrounding copying/altering/reselling font files, none of which (I think) I’m doing.

I “purchased” and downloaded a “4200 FREE FONTS” package a couple of months ago. There were no text/licensing files with the TTF files (as I’ve seen before with other fonts I’ve looked at), but the header info in many of the files reads “(c)...All rights reserved...”. I’m assuming I need to search for the creator of the fonts to obtain their permission to use the fonts in my work. If this is indeed the case, would I expect to pay them a one-time fee? Or royalties on any sales I make of products displaying their font? Is there any standard practice?

I’ve asked many professionals (including lawyers and designers) these questions and, interestingly enough, MOST have said, “Don’t worry about it - you should be fine”. I’m not comfortable with that answer...

Any feedback / information would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Tod
____________________________________________________________________________
“In all things of nature, there is something of the marvelous.” Aristotle

ILLEGAL USE OF TYPEFACE!

David K — Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:36:27 -0800

Hello,
I’m a student in Switzerland and I do a theorical work about law and typefaces.
I’m looking for precises exemples of illegal use of Typeface. If you know something about Linotype coming in some Company with a bill for 200 unpaid licences for Helvetica. If you have any pictures, or you know Graphic Designer or Company who don’t pay any licences...

Everything is welcome

Don’t feel shy about denunciation!
______________________________________________________

Thanks/
David K