Is this the current EULA?
http://www.daltonmaag.com/info/dama/EULA.pdf

Yes.

Bruno
Dalton Maag Ltd

Hi Bruno:

Allow a designer/user to take a PDF with your fonts embedded to a service bureau without requiring that bureau to have purchased a license- great for corporations but bad small guys... who actually follows that- Vodacom?

Lifetime version upgrades make consumers feel good too- add that.

And generally the Eula is very clear but its too long. Simplify.

I’m a huge fan of your company’s work- I’m totally jealous of your loaded clients that get to commission exquisite custom type from you guys

All my best,

Mike Diaz :-)

Mike, thanks for your compliment. Trust me though - the clients may be loaded but it’s easier to get blood from a stone than money from them. This is particularly true when you need to sell the idea of a font to them when they simply can use one of the increasingly high quality system fonts.

Bruno
Dalton Maag Ltd

My ideal EULA:

This font is for your use.

You may install it on X (at least 2) machines.

You may purchase site licenses for your office.

You may embed it media files (PDF, Flash).

Do not give or distribute the font to others.

You may (or may not) modify the font for your own use.

You may (or may not) modify the font for your client’s use (provided they also purchase a license).

I would never even consider buying a font that requires the printer to also purchase said font.

Allow embedding. At the very least allow non-editable PDF embedding, and if you aren’t going to allow web (Flash) embedding, make it easy for customers to purchase a license for web embedding without having to negotiate terms. This will be good for your business as SIFR catches on, and especially good when the W3C and Microsoft get web embedded fonts worked out and cross-browser web embedding is a reality.

Allow alterations for internal use, provided that the font is not embedded.

Bruno, I’ve not read your EULA recently. I’ll have another read later. But, you should consider Adobe’s EULA as something to follow.

Like most people, I warrant, my eyes glaze over when faced with a page of bulleted legalese. A EULA free of whereases, wherefores, hereins, and herebys would be really nice. And don’t change the rules: “this agreement is subject to change without notice” is frankly bullsheisse. Make it easy and painless for me to adhere to the terms of your EULA, and you’ve got me as a customer.

PS; I applaud your asking the question of your customer base. Some of the language in your webpage might be nice as an intro to your EULA:

Fonts are a valuable asset in the toolbox of every designer and form an integral part of publishing, design and branding. It takes great design skill, experience and technical expertise to design and engineer a font which will perform across different environments. At Dalton Maag we carefully consider every curve, every serif; we consider the positioning of accents and superior numerals. But designing a font is an ongoing process; once a standard character set is published, we begin to plan expansion to other languages, or possibly more styles. We know the same is true for many of our colleagues in the font industry. This effort needs to be financed and protected to avoid unwitting or unscrupulous font piracy. It is why each commercial font has a legal contract, called an End User Licence Agreement (EULA), attached.

A little education goes a long way.

JN

EULA can change without notice. But the EULA which is in effect when you license your font software is the EULA that stays with out. You cannot be retroactively dinged. Also, the EULA has to be full of legalese it is the language of lawyers.

But, that does remind me, Bruno you could have a EULA FAQ on your site. P22, House, and Adobe have something like this.

Miss Tiffany, I apologize for my lack of clarity. You are completely right that a foundry should change their EULA, but retroactivity is really really crappy. The EULA one agreed to at the time of licensing should be the one adhered to, not some possible future EULA.

But does the EULA REALLY need to be in legalese? Will courts not uphold contracts if they are written in plain language? (And don’t ask our friend Uli...)

But does the EULA REALLY need to be in legalese?

That’s like asking if a Greek font really needs to be in the Latin alphabet, or if it can all just be replaced with Cyrillic glyphs. A EULA is—theoretically—a legally binding agreement and thus should be written in the style of a legal document.

Mr Puckett, I don’t think I’m being an idiot in asking this question, and your analogy is not analogous. I’m simply asking if a legally binding agreement needs to be mired in legal mumbo-jumbo. I recently licensed a font, and remember the EULA being written in plain English. I forget who it was, but someone biggish. And I can’t believe that a lawyer didn’t approve it.

JN

HA! Yes, Uli you aren’t invited to this thread.

No, it is a fair question. But, the truth is it has to be in the language of the courts. I think it might, as you guessed, have to be in order to be “respected”.

The legalese language EULAs are written is in fact one of my concerns. I don’t understand half of it either.

It is my aim to have the EULA worded as simply as possible. If we can’t do that - because of the legality of it - we intend to have a translation set up. However, this, again, needs to be approved by a lawyer and could (probably) not be considered legally binding so as not to contradict the EULA in the first place.

The process of buying a font is intrinsically linked with the EULA. It’s always stumped me why font buying, particularly in the domain of multiuser licenses and corporate environements has to be such an aruous process. With the EULA we also aim to hopefully achieve very simple proceedures for multi users and all sorts of other things. We have written up a list of what we feel we need to cover. I am not going to publish this list here, though, since I do not want to prejudice your thoughts.

Tiffany, did not Adobe recently update its EULAs? From what I understand they have now stopped allowing people making modifications to fonts. I will have to read through it, though.

Bruno

I don’t believe there is any actual requirement that a legal contract be in “legalese” so long as everything is absolutely clear. But lawyers and judges understand legalese and it probably makes them wary or uncomfortable when something is in plain [your language of choice]. That said, there is mumbo-jumbo legalese than only a lawyer can understand, and concise legalese that someone of average intelligence but lacking legal training can more or less figure out. It’s the latter that would be preferred in an EULA.

An EULA needs to take into account the reality of the publishing world, otherwise it will simply be ignored. These days a font is fairly useless if it can’t be embedded in a pdf, and of course one-time users such as a service bureau or printer should not be expected to have a licence for a font unless they are actually using it in-house for purposes other than simply outputting a client’s file. And of course the holder of an EULA should have the right to sell or give away a font licence they have purchased, provide they don’t keep a copy and the recipient agrees to abide by the EULA.

The problem is that EULAs are written for lawyers and courts. That makes it almost impossible for them to make sense to real people. I wish there would be a “Clif Notes” version also written in actual human language for the poor customers and type designers who are just trying to make sense of it all. This version would accompany the other and serve as an interpreter.

ChrisL

“A EULA is—theoretically—a legally binding agreement and thus should be written in the style of a legal document.”

An IOU on a cocktail napkin can be a legally binding agreement.

There is no rule that says ’it’s a legal document, therefor, obfuscate it as much as you can with inane legal jargon’.

But, if one must, at least include the ’plain english bullet-point’ summary with it.

The reason most software licenses ARE written in legalese is that they don’t actually want you to READ it. ;o)

Our EULA* is written in English, and was approved by an attorney. His only addition to it was a “limit of liability” statement: “If, after we have worked to resolve any technical issues, you are still not satisfied with our product, we will be pleased to refund your money, which shall be the limit of our liability in this transaction.”

The EULA is as clear as day, and as binding as rope. As the majority of our sales are outside of North America, we feel it is very important that our EULA be comprehensible to those for whom English is a second, third, fourth, or twentieth language.

Tiffany is an authority on, and collector of, EULAs, and her thoughts on this matter are always insightful.

*The EULA was originally written for Thirstype circa 2001, and was later implemented for Village, and several of our member foundries. Of our 11 members, 7 of them use our plain English EULA: KLIM, Kontour, Lux Typographics, Schwartzco, Thirstype, Type Initiative, and Village. Other foundries have asked us if they may use our EULA as a template for their own, and the answer is always a resounding “yes!” Unlike other EULAs, ours is not protected by copyright.

Thanks for chiming in Chester.

Chester’s EULA, which I forgot to mention, really is one of the best out there because of the fact that it is understandable without a dictionary. If you, Bruno, can get your lawyer to look over Village’s that would be good as well.

>it is very important that our EULA be comprehensible to those for whom English is a second, third, fourth, or twentieth language.

As one of those(these?), i really appreciate, as well as i appreciate this initiative from daltonmaag!

A few thoughts and pet peeves about EULAs:

Restricting the number of backups is nutty, and benefits no one.

I think allowing embedding is essential, and allowing modification is very nearly essential.

I’m not as concerned with the language of the EULA, although plain language is always preferred.

Chester’s EULA is great, just great.

Concerning Adobe’s EULA, there’s been much discussion around here about what sort of mods it allows, but Adobe’s font FAQ is pretty clear (I quote from this pdf, which I found on their site today, so I’d say it’s current:

“11. Can I customize a font using font manipulation software?
You are allowed to use font manipulation software to modify the font software to produce “derivatives” of fonts licensed from Adobe, as long as you use the derivatives in accordance with the same licensing terms that accompany the original fonts. For example, you can use Macromedia Fontographer or Pyrus FontLab to customize an Adobe Font for individual usage, but you are not permitted to distribute, sell, or give away, the derivative work, and the derivative work counts as one of the permitted number of uses.”

As I recall, Thomas Phinney says that the FAQ was written by the same team that wrote the EULA.

That’s who it was: Thirstype. But even though I remembered that the EULA was easy to understand, I didn’t remember who it was, or its terms. I just remembered that I found it easy to read, and all of the terms completely reasonable.

Oh, and:
“For example, you can use Macromedia Fontographer or Pyrus FontLab to customize an Adobe Font for individual usage...”
Surely this whole EULA is now null and void since there is no such thing as Macromedia Fontographer? (I jest.)

JN

you can use Macromedia Fontographer or Pyrus FontLab to customize an Adobe Font for individual usage, but you are not permitted to distribute, sell, or give away, the derivative work,

That would appear to rule out corporate modifications, as only individual usage may be customized. Or does “individual” mean an individual licencee, e.g. the corporation? It would also appear to rule out hiring a third party to do modifications, as they would be selling derivative work — unless they did the work on their client’s premises. Not quite as clear as Thirstype:

You may not commission a third party to modify the fonts without first gaining permission from the designer through Thirstype.

or Shinntype:

...you may not distribute, or transfer your adaptations without written permission from the Shinn Type Foundry; this means (a) you may not make customized versions of the Fonts for use by your clients...

The similar passage in Bruno’s EULA:

You are permitted to produce a Derivative Work of this Font Software solely for your own use...

That seems to be like Adobe’s, in that there is some “wiggle room” for a corporation to interpret that they can hire a third party to do a modification for them.

Mr Shinn, you’re wrong about Helvetica, but you’re right about this. ;-)

JN

If you read Adobe’s entire EULA you would get a better grasp of it all. Only one part was quoted. Stop looking for opportunities to pick on Adobe. ;^P

Stop looking for opportunities to pick on Adobe.

Oh, was that Adobe again?
They’re everywhere, aren’t they!

Yes, the next point in the Adobe FAQ addresses third party mods:

“12. What is the accepted scope of modification and use of independent consultants, hired by companies, to localize or customize font software?
A consultant may solicit their services to companies who have legitimately licensed copies of Adobe font software. The work product of the consultant must remain with the company. The consultant cannot (i) take or keep a copy of the company’s original, localized, or customized version of the font software, or (ii) distribute any original, localized or customized versions of the font software.”

>If you read Adobe’s entire EULA you would get a better grasp of it all.

You know I have to disagree, a sensible person would read the FAQ and ignore the EULA - the two documents contradict each other on modification. The FAQ is definitely more liberal. By the way I’m not a lawyer so do not take this as legal advice :-)

On the subject of the DM EULA - the 5 devices + one printer restriction (drawn from the Adobe EULA of yester-year), is so far removed from today’s world of laptops, networks, wireless, printers (surely by connecting to the internet you’re conected to millions of printers?), devices, PDAs, flash memory, smartphones, virtualization, backups, time-machine, server based font management etc., that it should be thrown out and replaced with a per-user/server model (IMHO).

Sii, our present EULA is based on Monotype’s from about 6 years ago. As I said, it is hopelessly outdated.

I must admit that Village’s EULA is refreshingly simple, but I am not sure if it’s maybe almost too simplistic and too open for interpretation. It very much depends on the good nature and trusing the users. I am considering it, however, as a template for our discussions here.

Tiffany, I read through Adobe’s EULA and found it hard work. There is so much about all the other software products in this EULA that as a user I would lose the will to live too quickly before reaching any font relevant part. What bits there are about fonts are in fact not too different from Village’s. Interestingly enough, Adobe does make provisions for local legislature, such as Germany and Austria, regarding warranty and liability.

The longer I think about this, the more I believe that a EULA could act as an educational tool (as a previous commentator suggested). Maybe Village have gauged it right trusting their user base.

Bruno
Dalton Maag Ltd

Sii, our present EULA is based on Monotype’s from about 6 years ago. As I said, it is hopelessly outdated.

I must admit that Village’s EULA is refreshingly simple, but I am not sure if it’s maybe almost too simplistic and too open for interpretation. It very much depends on the good nature and trusing the users. I am considering it, however, as a template for our discussions at Dalton Maag.

Tiffany, I read through Adobe’s EULA and found it hard work. There is so much about all the other software products in this EULA that as a user I would lose the will to live too quickly before reaching any font relevant part. What bits there are about fonts are in fact not too different from Village’s. Interestingly enough, Adobe does make provisions for local legislature, such as Germany and Austria, regarding warranty and liability.

The longer I think about this, the more I believe that a EULA could act as an educational tool (as a previous commentator suggested). Maybe Village have gauged it right trusting their user base.

Bruno
Dalton Maag Ltd

”...as a user I would lose the will to live too quickly before reaching any font relevant part. “

My feelings as well :-)

ChrisL

Our EULA does not allow modifications. This has been done more as a protection for us than trying to be a pain in the butt to our users. Many of our clients are engineering firms, architectural firms and DOTs working with our fonts in signage and regulated applications. We have chosen to forbid modfications to protect ourselves from some user mucking with our fonts, implementing them and then something going wrong.

We are considering changing the EULA to allow for modifications by first obtaining our permission. Does this float anyone’s boat?

James

I like the idea of getting permission. It requires that the person be on record with the foundry so the foundry has some idea of how many mods are out there. I would assume you would approve any reasonable request by a client.

ChrisL

I think most smaller vendors which prohibit mods have an open-door policy. Who’s going to turn down a mod request if there might be some additional licenses in it? I think what tends to be missing is good customer-facing content related to this, perhaps in the form of an FAQ. Perhaps linking this to a “modification approval request form” that a customer could fill out – would give the vendor enough detail to say yes or no, without a whole bunch of to-and-fro email.

I, too, am inclined to live by the Adobe FAQ (as opposed to trying to make sense of the actual EULA). But there are problems with that approach. What if Adobe suddenly changes the FAQ, saying that no modifications are allowed?

Olli

Without anything formally in place, we have, on occasion, been approached by our clients for permission to do modifications. I can’t remember any request that was not granted.

James

Well, James, you may grant most requests, but I was turned down by FontShop when I asked for permission to add the f ligs from the “expert set” into the regular font.

Their EULA says, “If you want to make modifications to the Font Software, you must obtain the prior written consent of FSI.”

I found that, in my case at least, “must obtain” meant “won’t obtain”, so I’m leery of EULAs like theirs!

> But there are problems with that approach. What if Adobe suddenly changes the FAQ, saying that no modifications are allowed?

The Web Archive Project should retain the current FAQ.

>The Web Archive Project should retain the current FAQ.

But in court, I’d hate to have to resort to citing the FAQ that was current when I did the modifications, or bought the licence for the font.

EDIT: My point is simply that Adobe’s way of doing things isn’t very satisfactory in principle – though in practice, it might be the best that a big, corporate foundry can do. I do appreciate the fact they at least don’t clearly prohibit modifications.

The problem with having to ask for a permission to do modifications is precisely that it entails the possibility of being turned down. John’s experience confirms my fears, showing that being knowledgeable about type won’t guarantee you getting a permission, nor will even wanting to do just practical changes intended to simplify your work (as opposed to changing outlines, though I’d like to be able to do that too).

I find that every font needs modifications, and I guess I’d have to ask for a permission before even buying a licence if the EULA says – or seems to say – “no modifications”.

Olli

The modification part is certainly something that we have found a great interest for in the design community. I think the reality is that tools are available to do this work and that users have a desire to tweak a font to better fit their requirements.

The problem is not the user who swaps numeral sets around in the font for their personal usage (the fonts never leaving his desktop) but where modifications are applied and the fonts become part of a grander print job, or even corporate project. At this point I would like to have control over what is being done.

I am thinking that Dalton Maag will allow modifications in principle. However, we would like to be notified of such an intent and have first refusal to do the work. Where it is a simple job that is solely for the purpose of personal use, we probably would not want to be involved as we could not justify the cost of doing this. However, where the project is more of a commercial nature, where the fonts are being distributed afterwards we probably would want to do the work ourselves for the following reasons:

- Quality control: As the copyright notice and parts of the font name may remain as per original, it is possible that we may be called to provide tech support for a product we have not created. By insisting of either doing the work in-house, or at least have a quality testing, we can help with support queries and ensure that the client receives a product that matches our standards.

- Distribution control and license fees: as the modification will be a derivative product, the copyright remains with us and we’re entitled to license fees. Being informed and having participated in the work will allow us to negotiate licensing and distribution.

- Recommercialisation: some modifications, such as language extensions or typographic features may be of interest to us. We would potentially want to integrate these into our own library and recommercialise them.

This is not to make the process more complicated but to ensure that everyone is compensated fairly and that the client receives the best possible quality.

Bruno
Dalton Maag Ltd

Bruno: “The longer I think about this, the more I believe that a EULA could act as an educational tool...”

I fully agree with you. My continuing education on the subject cements my belief that “the EULA” actually represents a spectrum of EULAs over time, and a rank of EULAs for the customer base at any given time. The overriding goal of course, being to provide with the software, an agreement that is understandable and workable for the legal user of any language. So, in order to do this, a bidirectional education, like this thread, or any one of the hundreds of conversations we have with clients, is part of that tool.

Cheers!

@ John Nolan: We can’t recall neither at FontShop International in Berlin nor in San Francisco that we have turned down such a request like yours. We want to be asked for permission of modifications, mainly to respect our designers and to keep track of modified FontFont versions. Dependent on the character and purpose of the requested modification we decide individually whether we or the type designer or our font technicians do the modification or if we just allow the customer to do it. It’s also a support problem – we can only give technial support for fonts we have produced.

I should have been more specific:

I was not granted permission to modify the font _myself_.

I did not pursue to its conclusion the option of having FontShop do the work, because I felt the cost would be too high, and the process too time consuming...I never got a real quote, but I vaguely remember getting the impression it would be about $25 per character.

Further, I was asked which character slot I would like the f ligs placed in, in spite of the fact that I had stated that the modication I wanted to make was in order to have the ligs available to InDesign. This indicated that the particular need I was hoping to address was not understood by the questioner, so I didn’t have confidence that the work would be done correctly. I could have done it myself in 20 minutes, including adding new kerns. Life’s too short.

My initial request for permission was dated July 14, 2005.

Here are some excepts from _some_ of the emails I got from Danny Dawson in 2005:

Aug. 5, 05:
“This all means that you are effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself. There may be situations I am not aware of where you would be granted permission to make the changes yourself, but those situations are not mentioned in the packet I was given.”

In August 9, 05 Danny said:
“I don’t quite have answers for you yet, but I am still looking into (1) costs for the modifications you’ve inquired about and (2) further EULA language clarification. Unfortunately, international communication moves at its own pace, and this is further complicated by the legal complexities of the subject matter, so I do apologize that my responses aren’t more prompt.”

Aug. 23, 05:
“As for clarifying our current EULA, I am *still* waiting for an enumerated list of things you are allowed to do on your own without paying FontShop for customizations. I’ll let you know when I hear more.”

...the thread ends here, probably because I told Danny I was no longer interested. I also spoke to Danny on the phone about all this. I don’t remember exactly when I told Danny “I give up.”

Thanks for the recap, John – with this info I was able to find emails regarding this particular issue after all and see that communication within our company was lacking. A rather unfortunate instance which I think/hope is rare. In Summer 2005, we had just changed our EULA to make it more userfriendly in general (eg use of laptops, embedding, service bureaus) though we did make a point about not allowing modification per se, for the reasons I gave above. As I said, in general we try to meet our customers’ needs, and in a timely manner. So do not give up on us ;-)

@ Simon

You know I have to disagree, a sensible person would read the FAQ and ignore the EULA

I don’t think I was saying that. I was simply saying if someone really wanted to know the information is there. Trust me, I’ve read that EULA a few times now and it still takes patience. In fact, ALL EULAs written by a lawyer for other lawyers take time to read. I think the FAQ is a good way to cut to the chase, but in a court of law the EULA would be what is referred to and not the FAQ.

@ Otto

What if Adobe suddenly changes the FAQ, saying that no modifications are allowed?

It is illegal to do that. The fonts you licensed remain powered by the EULA under which you licensed them.

Although this is a conundrum because some EULAs, as DAMA’s, are being improved. Do those who licensed before need to contact the foundries to upgrade their EULAs?

Edit: I see that you said basically what I was saying. A court of law would use the FAQ as part of the case, but don’t you think the EULA would bind? I suppose it depends upon what is being tried.

It is illegal to do that. The fonts you licensed remain powered by the EULA under which you licensed them.

Actually Tiffany I don’t think this is true. I believe there is something in contract law that allows the changing of the EULA to affect previous licensing that occurred under different EULA terms. But I am not a lawyer so don’t quote me.

- Miss Tiffany: “It is illegal to do that.”
- Mr. Montalbano: “Actually Tiffany I don’t think this is true.”

Such “I don’t think so” arguments are not of much use.

I repeat here what I said in another thread:

My recommendation for the American Typophile website is that they badly need an independent American design law and copyright law expert, who is not affiliated with a certain font company, for answering legal questions, because there seems to be much need among Typophilers for reliable legal information in these matters.

Experts such as Mr. Frank Martinez will not do, for he is affiliated with certain font companies and hence will only supply biased information in favor of his clients. What is needed is an independent expert, who also takes care of the “end users”.

I think, in a country of the size of the USA, it should be possible to find an independant professor of law who is willing to supply independent answers on questions like those discussed in this thread.

@ Bruno

The longer I think about this, the more I believe that a EULA could act as an educational tool

I agree with this completely. You can learn a lot about a foundry by their EULA. Of course, some of what you might learn is based upon assumptions, but it is still interesting to read it in that way. In many instances you can ascertain how much value, for instance, a foundry considers their fonts to be adding to any given user.

@ Patty

Not to be a list mom or anything...Although most people probably do it anyway, it isn’t supportable behavior. I think your comment in another thread is better. If you don’t like the foundry’s EULA don’t license from them. I’m paraphrasing.

I’m editing this thread - so it will fall out of order (grrrr) and make Tiffany’s comment seem strange.

A few EULA requests:

1. Allow embedding.

2. Allow transferring. If I have no use for a font after a job is done I’d be happy to turn the license over to the client along with the font.

3. Allow the font to accompany the job to the printer without requiring the printer to purchase an additional license.

4. Allow making a backup copy for archiving purposes.

5. Make the license per user, not per machine.

It is my belief (as stated in other threads) that absent any ability to effectively police users, overly restrictive and/or wordy EULAs encourage violation, or encourage designers not to buy fonts. I don’t read most EULAs word for word, but I don’t resell or give away fonts either. I just use them to get my work done. It ought to be that simple.

I have seen EULAs with terms like this: “This license granted herewith is subject to change without notice.” Which is pretty clear. In agreeing to this EULA you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of future versions of the EULA. If these terms are in any EULA for a typeface I am interested in, I lose my interest pretty quickly.

JN

Maybe that is what I was actually thinking about. The fact that an EULA can change without notice seems highly questionable to me. For some reason I’m thinking about an old FontFont EULA. Can someone corroborate? Their EULA used to say this but they had to remove it due to legal reasons?

I think Patty’s requests are reasonable. Especially points 1, 2, 4, and 5. I’d imagine the fact that Patty does a lot of publishing work gives weight to her wishing to send the fonts to the printers. Printers who do books don’t want PDFs. The printers that I work with for a client for whom I design books said point blank no PDFs. So, I had to get everyone on the same page and licensing some fonts. It was like pulling teeth, but in the end it worked out. (My nightmare would be that this was a lie.)

The fact is that PDFs are how most presses work now. As long as the designer can set up a decent PDF there is little to no reason why the fonts have to leave the designer’s computer anymore.

I did a little google-ing, and came across this article:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=940

JN

I think, in a country of the size of the USA, it should be possible to find an independant professor of law who is willing to supply independent answers on questions like those discussed in this thread.

At how much per hour?

I think changing a EULA, which could potentially limit usage where a user once had it, isn’t quite the same as changing the way a website works. But I get the analogy.

Miss Tiffany, perhaps you didn’t read the first two words of the first paragraph:
“Contracts on Web sites now can’t change without at least a notice to users who agreed to earlier versions, says the progressive (and therefore oft-overruled) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”

JN

No, I did understand. I just didn’t include the word “contract”. I understand. If a site drastically changes and I count on the site to pay bills, let’s say, and I go there to pay my bills but I can’t find the button which I was previously used to ... Well, I can understand how it is in the best interest of the users of the site to know when the site will change. I think that is good and fair. But I don’t think someone who has purchased something, a font in this case, should have to deal with a new EULA. If I licensed a font from Widget Foundry specifically because they allow web embedding and they then change their EULA to disallow this I’m up a creek without a paddle. SOL. Even if the foundry emailed me to warn me how does that serve the customer? I think changing a EULA is different from changing a website. Hopefully, in both cases, change will be for the positive, but sometimes not so much. I think a EULA should stand and if a customer wants to be able to have their fonts under the new EULA it should be a free choice by the customer and not the foundry.

Miss Tiffany, I completely 100% agree with you. And so does the 9th Circuit. Like I said, if I am told that the terms of a EULA may change and that such changes will be my responsibility to adhere to... To hell with that! The 9th Circuit is protecting consumers against the ability for companies to change terms of contracts on the Web willy-nilly. Contracts on paper cannot be argued with. Contracts online can change on a whim.

JN

So, Ugla, now that you’ve found the correspondence, can you give me some answers?

Given that I won’t redistribute, that the modified fonts would only be for my use, and that I won’t expect support:

If I want to integrate the f ligs from, say, Seria expert into the regular font, can I?

If I want to integrate the small caps and make an OpenType version, can I?

pattyfab: “5. Make the license per user, not per machine.”

What is a “user” as defined in your EULA?

Cheers!

I am a one-person operation but have 3 computers and 2 printers. Most EULAs seem to allow 5 or 6 devices which is cool. But I think it should be by the number of people, not machines. I have a friend who is a web designer/retoucher/high end printer and has oodles of equipment. I don’t think he should have to pay more than I do.

” But I think it should be by the number of people, not machines.”
I think you are not understanding my position. I have to license software to a number of “somethings”. The software is installed on, and used from machines, not people. My clients have requested that they be asked to count machines, not people. People leave, and they must know that the fonts stay.

As I’ve said before, Patty, you can find friends who don’t fit, my model, or anyone’s model all day long. But the fact is, we have a model that 95% of users, you included, it seems, fit into without legal stress. Beyond that, we have “the enterprise” license, which means a client doesn’t even have to count the machines.

cheers!

This is definitely a sticky situation. I understand both sides, user and foundry. It is easier to count computers when someone has to audit their system, especially in a larger company. But the fact remains that for the freelancers and single person studios that might have 2 or 3 computers, and a couple printers, but only 1 person, it can be tough.

People leave, and they must know that the fonts stay.

But machines come and go too. If I buy a new printer or an additional computer I’m not going to re-license all my fonts. I’d prefer a pricing structure that dealt with the number of employees in the studio. Or, at least, the number of CPUs exclusive of printers.

Which is why I like the system some foundries have where there’s a license for up to 5 or 6 machines, then another license for, say, 6-10 machines. HTF has a fee for one device then it’s another $100 per machine, which is untenable for a one-person studio like mine.

Chester,

Are you still offering your EULA for adaptation by other foundries?

ChrisL

“But machines come and go too... Or, at least, the number of CPUs exclusive of printers.”
They don’t do it “on their own”, (yet). (-: and we don’t count printers. I’m not sure how explain it any better, but you don’t seem to leave any room for us to do this legally, while complaining that we don’t leave you to do things legally. I mean, I can go into any licensee and count the number of computers if I need to. You tell me!? how am I s’posed to count people and check a license? how are you going to count people and license correctly? “oh, two of my employees left, now I want a cheaper license” or even better yet, “I just hired two people and I’m calling the Font Bureau to pay you more now for the license” ??? Buying a new machine and installing fonts on it, is a legal threshold a user goes over completely conciously, it leaves its mark on the machine and makes a site that much more useful. Counting people means we have to listen to all the nonsense imaginable about who actually uses fonts, and quite frankly, that’s not any of our business.

“HTF has a fee for one device then it’s another $100 per machine, which is untenable for a one-person studio like mine.”
If you want to find a difficult group of users to license to, and a difficult foundry to license from, I’m sure you can make things really look impossible. . .

Cheers!

Mr. Berlow makes a very good point.

You could have a studio with 20 designers in it, and your entire library of fonts on all 20 of their machines. But on any given second, only 10 designers are using that particular font. So, you only need to license your 20 machines for 10 users.

Or to make the granularity even finer: Of those 10 designers, only 1 is actually using the Bold Italic weight of the font at any given moment. At this very second, the Bold Italic weight is in several documents being worked on by those 10 designers, but two of them are taking their lunch break, one is retouching a photograph, three are checking their email, one is spell-checking in Word, one is in the bathroom, one is using the Roman Small Caps, and only one is using the Bold Italic font.

So, of the 20 computers in your studio, you really only use any given font on one computer at any given time. So, all you need is a license for one computer.

JN

NewGuy - that system works fine for me, I’m only ever using one computer at a time, but I’m not sure it would fly with HTF which wants me to purchase a license for each of the three machines I actually own.

I guess the solution is one license per “workstation” which can include a desktop, a laptop and one or two printers. That should satisfy David’s need to count.

Anyway, I operate in good conscience - I purchase my fonts at the minimum level as I work alone, and I don’t share them.

Ms. Fabricant, I’m sure you understand that I was trying to make the point that for foundries and licensees, the per-computer model is the best one, as it deals with tangibles. My model was idiotic. It’s like saying that the price you pay for a garment should be based upon how much you intend to wear that garment.

JN

All I’m saying is I think there should be some flexibility to the model.

It doesn’t help anyone if fonts are prohibitively expensive for independent designers or small studios. I’m not trying to game the system but if I have to pay hundreds of extra dollars to install a font on my laptop as well as my iMac then I won’t buy the fonts and everybody loses.

But Patty HFJ and Font Bureau caters to large design firms, newspapers, publishing houses, huge corporations, etc. Yes they sell to you and me but its the big guys were they make the most money on licenses. That’s why they are so ’stingy’ because the big guys have money and will pay it. They should have something for very small offices or one man shows- the 1-5 that most foundries allow. I guess when you are the best, you can demand the best too.

Funny though, at least for HF&J, I think the initial pricing is very good, though maybe not as awesome as Adobe’s pricing.

Laptops should be included in 1 license.

PDF’s internal or large scale should be included too. Again this fee is for the corporations and it has nothing to do with security either.

Mikey :-)

PS... A broad naive question: I wonder which model makes more money- expensive and caters to big corps. or affordable and very generous?

It would be nice if more foundries offered tiered licenses, i.e. for individuals, small businesses (fewer than, say, 15 employees), and larger enterprises.
15 is probably an arbitrary number, but I think that is where a lot of other special business requirements kick in. But yes, people come and go, and even in a one-person studio equipment gets retired and added. Having to relicense everything because I buy a new computer and put the old one in the closet without erasing the HD would be a thorough pain. It’s tough enough transferring the applications that have mechanisms for enforcing their EULA over to the new machine.

...HTF which wants me to purchase a license for each of the three machines I actually own.
...I guess it could be worse, they could ask you to license for other people’s machines too! (hadn’t thought of that angle).

All I’m saying is I think there should be some flexibility to the model.
I’m in full agreement. And, e.g. H and F-J fonts are both available in bundles from OS vendors for as many machines as you want!

It doesn’t help anyone if fonts are prohibitively expensive for independent designers or small studios.
Well...it is clear that it doesn’t help some independent designers, some small studios, and most students to fonts priced very high. It’d be a big problem if all fonts were priced that way, but they ain’t...now.

The existence of designers able to convince clients of the value of expensive fonts for exclusive or semi-exclusive use is one of the driving forces in type design, since Herr Gutenberg started this. Imagine where you’d be without the predecessors of H&FJ, e.g.?

Perhaps you should take a walk in them olden days, when fonts could break your toes, were hard to copy, the same price again if the typesetter chewed it up, or a fire melted it, and if you bought another machine and wanted to use a font on both...Pricing and profits then didn’t make anyone rich, so imagine today, won’t you?

The users of typewriters, typesetters, Kroy lettering guns, wine label makers, newspaper designers, magazine art directors, web heads, students, hobbyists, brides, book makers and fancy font flakes all share the same platform, the same formats, and the same font pool, in theory. EULAs slice it up. So, exactly which part of the font baby do you want cut off for you? and please, don’t tell me again you just want the head, and promise it won’t hurt. ;)

Cheers!

Ouch! I’m just trying to make a living and be able to afford to buy new fonts from time to time. I’m not trying to take off your head!

I have just come back from an InDesign conferencen in Switzerland. The audience there was mainly made up of people from the printing industry - prepress, printers, data processing, publishing. I noted with interest the absence of design/brand agencies.

However, I realised that we have been focussing our sales and EULA models very much on the design industry. The people I met have quite different needs, particularly when it comes to modification, font/project archiving etc. In regards to modifications, they often only need minor tweaks, such as adding specialist glyphs etc. Whilst we could provide this service, our fees do not make economic sense, or we simply cannot turn it around fast enough. I am now planning to allow modifications on the basis that we are asked permission and retain rights.

Another point that has struck me is that Adobe’s InDesign also comes with a server version that will allow copy input via a web terminal. In theory anyone inputting copy will not have to have the font resident. This undermines our revenue and I am certain we can create a EULA that, again expressly benefits both user and font designer/foundry.

I am now full of ideas on this subject and hopefully I will have a draft version of our new EULA ready. In fact, I am inclined not to call it EULA anymore but UGC (User Guidance and Conditions).

Bruno

Well...it is clear that it doesn’t help some independent designers, some small studios, and most students to fonts priced very high. It’d be a big problem if all fonts were priced that way, but they ain’t...now.

Font Bureau’s fonts are certainly expensive.

The existence of designers able to convince clients of the value of expensive fonts for exclusive or semi-exclusive use is one of the driving forces in type design

A driving force at Font Bureau anyway.

Perhaps you should take a walk in them olden days, when fonts could break your toes, were hard to copy, the same price again if the typesetter chewed it up, or a fire melted it, and if you bought another machine and wanted to use a font on both...Pricing and profits then didn’t make anyone rich, so imagine today, won’t you?
The users of typewriters, typesetters, Kroy lettering guns, wine label makers, newspaper designers, magazine art directors, web heads, students, hobbyists, brides, book makers and fancy font flakes all share the same platform, the same formats, and the same font pool, in theory. EULAs slice it up. So, exactly which part of the font baby do you want cut off for you? and please, don’t tell me again you just want the head, and promise it won’t hurt. ;)

Perhaps you should see what every other major foundry is doing with their EULA- Adobe, Monotype, FontShop, URW++, and Linotype. 5 devices per license is the standard. Exceptions are DTL, Enshede, Font Bureau and HF&J. These companies cater to the upper echelon of the market where a typical invoice carries the price tag of library of type elsewhere. Corporate users need your services. And we love looking at their newspapers and magazines. But buying Novia is not buying Photoshop and its certainly not metal type either, especially since software is the highest profit margin product every in history. If I have a laptop do I really want to call you people up and say “please charge me double now”? With endusers there will always be question mark when contemplating a purchase from your company (and the others) because of this- honest users anyway.

Did you really have to blow up Patty like that?

Mike Diaz

I have thought about licensing fonts on a per user basis, rather than workstation. But at the moment I cannot get it clear in my head how I would solve the conundrum of maintaining someone’s account who has fluctuating needs. The administrative effort required would gobble up all revenue the font sales make. In order to make any money at all on font sales it has to be automated, online with Credit Card payment. I cannot afford to start creating individual, user driven specific licenses.

Patty, David B’s response may have sounded somewhat harsh, but he has a point. We, too, are trying to make a living. And considering that an average OpenType font today costs in the region of UK£30 (approx US$60) with many of them offering fantastic functionality, I don’t think that it is expensive. Remember that you can use this font over and over, paying only once.

Unless we can create some online models that monitor the use of the fonts on any users machine, there is no way to charge on a per use/time basis. I wish there would be functionality for having the fonts being loaded into a users cache and that every time you hit the keyboard with that font you pay a fee, accumulating in your account. Based on the number of keystrokes, or seconds used, you will receive an invoice. A little bit like phone usage. Unfortunately, there is no such system in place.

Citing Adobe, when it comes to font pricing, is probably one of the worst examples possible. Adobe make great fonts, but fonts is not their business. Software programs are. Fonts merely serve as value added extras. For the likes of Fontbureau and ourselves fonts are our daily bread. If you use the my font without paying, I can’t buy my son a Xmas present. It’s as simple as that.

It is also worth noting that many of the smaller foundries price on exclusivity rather than quantity. The big font retailers make their money through selling quantity.

In this pricing debate it is interesting to note how people moan how expensive fonts are. They are not! They cost considerably less than an iPhone and gives you far more satisfaction and longevity. You can also earn money from investing in fonts. Remember that without fonts you cannot do design.

Bruno Maag

I am not bemoaning the prices (except perhaps DTL!) I just believe the EULAs should be in line with how people use fonts. I recognize that my needs and finances are very different than, say, a design firm doing an identity for a bank. I consider fonts a necessary work expense and I don’t share them. I am also very appreciative of the hard work that goes into making a font. But I do resent being asked to pay an extra fee in order to embed a font into a pdf (which is an essential part of workflow) or to install the same font on my laptop as well as my desktop computer.

Patty, I understand your latest comments, and actually agree with them. As far as I am concerned I don’t really care on what device you use my font, just as long as you’re licensed within the number you specified at point of purchase. I also don’t give a monkey’s in what geographic location the font is, because I recognise that offices have different locations. As for me, you can put your office on the moon and use my fonts there.

Embedding into PDF is definitely an issue and we will give this. However, we’re presently debating what usage right to give - Print&Preview or Editable Embedding. I appreciate that from a work flow point of view Editable is desiered. However, at this point you go beyond the basic function of reading and printing and actually add a functionality to the document that is not possible without the font. Should this not be paid for??

Bruno Maag

My 2 cents: I never make editable PDFs. They are for Print & Preview only. Any editing of my jobs is done in the native software.

However in my business I need often to send the native file to the printer, with the font, and also to the client (publisher) for archiving. I always request that they delete the font from their servers or anyplace it can be accessed and reused. It is an honor system, just as this whole business is. I have to trust the client not to abuse the EULA just as you have to trust me not to give it to all my designer friends.

Interesting you should mention archiving. This is something we may actually include in the EULA - the permission to pack a font with a project for archive purposes. That would ensure that when the project is picked up again the correct version of fonts are available.

Yes font sales/usage very much depend on trust. App developers have more protection as they can add serial numbers to their products. In theory that is possible, too, with fonts but none of the OSs have any mechanisms to recognise such management mechanisms. And who wants to go through a lengthy install and registration proceedure every time they want to use a font.

The technologies exist to make font usage far more efficient for both user and vendor. But none of the system, app and browser developers give font management (and its associated digital rights management) any thought. To them fonts are plankton. Available in abundance and worth nothing.

Bruno Maag

“Did you really have to blow up Patty like that?”
No, I could apparently choose instead to walk up to her business and say, “I love your work. Do it for 1/5 of the price, or I’m gonna rip it off.”

This below:
“My 2 cents: I never make editable PDFs. They are for Print & Preview only. Any editing of my jobs is done in the native software.

However [] I [] send the native file to the printer, with the font, and also to the client[]. I always request that they delete the font from their servers []. It is an honor system, just as this whole business is. I have to trust the client not to abuse the EULA just as you have to trust me not to give it to all my designer friends.”

LOL! I don’t trust you not to give it to all your designer friends, I write a Eula that prevents it from legally happening. I must LICENSE the client not to abuse the EULA, not work on your trust with them...

You complain that font prices are too high for you to make a living, (you want us to design, produce, manufacture, license and support a product for $8.00 per machine before royalties), but then you expose yourself to career-crushing litigation to save your clients $40-$80. That sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

Cheers!

.

“Did you really have to blow up Patty like that?”
No, I could apparently choose instead to walk up to her business and say, “I love your work. Do it for 1/5 of the price, or I’m gonna rip it off.”

Oh blow me. In fact you do have to trust me. Because I doubt it’s worth your while to go after every designer who may or may not have embedded your precious fonts in a pdf.

Designers are not your enemy David (altho you’ve made one in me) and you’d be out of business without us. Be a cold day in hell before I buy a font from FontBureau again.

There was no need for personal attacks here. I was just trying to state my case. We are all entitled to opinions and mine has in fact received some support on this forum.

Oh blow me.

Sorry, I am not familiar with American slang. Is the expression “Blow me” the invitation to what is called in Webster’s dictionary a “blow-job” ?

It’s a schoolyard insult. Not a sexual innuendo.

The FontBureau EULA allows a back-up copy and embedding in a PDF to be sent to a printer.

Just looking around at other EULAs, if I read them rightly neither Adobe nor Monotype Imaging nor FontFont allows giving fonts to a printer who hasn’t licensed them.

The Village EULA is the only one I’ve found that allows sending them to a “prepress bureau” without further license.

Although I mainly send font-embedded pdfs to printers mainly, I too would send the artwork with fonts to a printer if requested with a similar request and expectation as Patty’s. Frankly to expect anything else is unrealistic.

Tim

This area of uses of fonts by printers seems to be one of disconnect between some responsible designers and pretty much all foundries, with the exception of Village. And even their EULA says “if absolutely necessary” so it’s a reluctant permission.

Would it be possible for there to be a special “printer’s license” which allows printers to use a font for manufacturing only, for clients of the printers who also have licenses? That way foundries would keep legal control over the font, but the printers could buy—or have bought for them in their name—a cheaper license for manufacturing purposes only. Does that make any sense?

I guess my point is, if I’m paying for a EULA that doesn’t allow me to either show my client the job or send it to a printer (either embedded in a PDF or along with the native files) then the font is of little use to me.

I haven’t read all the EULAs but know Emigre and House both charge an additional fee for embedding, altho they do allow back-up.

The Village EULA is the only one I’ve found that allows sending them to a “prepress bureau” without further license.

We allow this in our EULA as well.

James

I am certain we can create a EULA that, again expressly benefits both user and font designer/foundry.

[re InDesign server]

One idea is to offer a single-fee per annum (renewable) licence for such web-document usage.
As I understand it, the fonts are not installed on the licensee’s website, but on the InDesign server(s) — a third party, as it were, avoiding the problem of direct exposure of the fonts on the internet.
Seems like a nice idea, Adobe.
I will be putting this in my next EULA.

blow me

It’s a contraction of “blow me down with a feather”, indicating that one is so surprised the slightest touch would knock one over.

“Well, blow me down, Jeeves, if you haven’t struck the nail right on the head.” (P.G. Wodehouse)

The Village EULA is the only one I’ve found that allows sending them to a “prepress bureau” without further license.

I do too.
This sort of thing is listed in Tiffany’s comparative chart of EULAs.

>It’s a contraction of “blow me down with a feather”, indicating that one is so surprised the slightest touch would knock one over.

Yes, that’s in English. In American it has the rude meaning. As they are the same words, they can be easily be confused or fused, which is I suspect what happened with Patty’s usage. Here’s more on “when languages collide.”

On the distribution to service bureaux: Thanks James and Nick. Now I see on Tiffany’s typowiki on EULA that there are others as well—but not most.

I definitely meant it in the rude American way. But that is a funny link, Bill. Just shows ya you can find almost anything on the web.

In American it has the rude meaning

Even when used by ladies?!
In general, I suspect the meaning was and is the same on both sides of the pond.
However, the further contraction “blimey” has never caught on outside of the UK.

I s’pose it doesn’t make much sense used by ladies but it was the first insult I thought of and then once Uli posted his query it didn’t make sense for me to change it to something more universal and less offensive. So it stands.

Getting back to the issue of font licensing and devices. I have a question in regards to printers, for instance, I can currently print to 3 different printers in the office. All are laser, one does black only, one is a proofing system that is capable of doing paper and film (who does that in-house anymore?) and one is a new everyday colour printer.

Do I need an additional license because I print to 3 different machines?

—

In regards to what I’d like to see in EULA’s is addressing the issue of multiple machines for one user. At home I currently only have my G4, but would like to at some point get a laptop to use while traveling. I’d like access to some fonts across both machines. Adobe currently lets you do this with their software, as far as I know, and I’d like to be portable with my work if I want to take something with me while on vacation, but otherwise wouldn’t be my main work machine.

I strongly side on the ability to archive fonts with jobs. I like packaging jobs up through InDesign once their done and have everything together so I’m not digging around my hard drive later on looking for a font. I’m not sending native files off to the printer, I just want it for organization.

Like patty, The only thing that goes out to printers these days are PDF’s. There’s too much room for conflict with software versions to send native files. I found this out the hard way when a print shop was opening files in an older version, ignoring the warning and output a proof that came back in a huge mess.

All, the typowiki article needs to be updated. There are several errors. I have recently done new research specifically about embedding and should add it to the wiki.

One thing to consider, and consider again, and never stop considering, is that every foundry is allowed to decide the value of their fonts and every designer is allowed to license or not license. Same goes for designers, we have to decide the value of our product and we charge accordingly. For instance, some designers would work for $65 and hour and others won’t get out of bed for less than $250.

I think it all comes down to one simple fact. Every foundry has a different business model. Some of those models have mutated over the years because they haven’t quite found their own niche, while others found it and have stuck with it.

I’d love for all foundries to allow print & preview embedding that would include sending proofs to clients and final files to the printer, but the simple fact is that not all do this. However, many of the big boys do this now and I’m excited about it. But, being able to send the fonts to the printer is more unique and I don’t know if the majority will ever allow this. But, I understand that in the publishing world sending native files is necessary so the problem remains. I’ve had to settle for simply not using fonts which the printer doesn’t have or using fonts from foundries which allow it.

This thread was begun to ask our opinions and suggestions, but I think it has gone a bit beyond that. ;^) If we can all just keep in mind that it is ok for us to not agree and also ok for us to completely disagree without taking things to a personal and/or insulting level it would be super.

There is no way that one EULA would ever work for every foundry and equally no way there is one price that would work for every foundry...nor is there one price and-or EULA that would please all designers and industries.

If there is one reason why it is good that there are soooooo many similar fonts is that you can usually find something similar with a EULA you can tolerate* as well.

*Tolerate being absolutely subjective.

Jonathan,

If you are going to follow EULAs to the letter you will have to upgrade some of your licenses. This is actually one thing I really do wish foundries might start considering. Output devices really start to get mucky because if you want to think about it too much so many things in the office can be considered an output device. I wish it could be either user and or workstation and then anything in the office that can be output to, from the given user and-or workstation is not counted against us.

“There is no way that one EULA would ever work for every foundry and equally no way there is one price that would work for every foundry...nor is there one price and-or EULA that would please all designers and industries.”

Agreed...but still we try. There is a class we call, “Preferred Designers” and they are trusted to have the whole FB library. We work out solutions to their changing range of problems and sometimes the result gets into the EULA, sometimes it gets into a contract, and sometimes we just shake hands so we can see what happens “next” without any “or else” clauses.

All’s else I can say is that I never say anything here I would not say to a person’s face. That’s the line I draw.

Cheers!