Galavant logo

edited January 2016 in Type Business
Hi guys,

I do not know much about licensing so I was hoping someone could help me in this area. ABC is using a font of mine called Desire for their tv show Galavant. Some of the letters are straight from the font and others are altered. I saw that ABC had bought a single user license before but I was curious if this logo would qualify for a broadcasting license ? Thanks any input you may have.



  • This comes down to your EULA. If it doesn't require a broadcast license for use on TV then they don't need one. If it does, call Frank Martinez.
  • I'm new here, and have no legal background but the LHF support pages state "You may… Use the fonts in film or video production" and in the EULA I can't see any specific reference to a separate broadcast licence. So, my interpretation would be that ABC are fine to use the logo under the existing single user licence, but I'm not a lawyer…
  • I read a lot of EULAs for my organization as part of their licensing strategy.

    The EULA(s) that binds ABC may ultimately depend on their choice of license vendor, including licenses that cover permissions beyond desktop-use. For example:

    Desire MyFonts EULA(s)
    Desire Veer EULA(s)

    In some cases, it may be considered the responsibility of users to confirm non-explicit usage permissions. But, equally if a user does not confirm permissions, they are not *necessarily* at fault.
  • SiDanielsSiDaniels Posts: 273
    edited January 2016
    House Industries has a clause* that requires extra payments for logo usage. The fees vary depending on the value of the product using the logo. I don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else.

    *Scroll down to the bottom of for the details.
  • Terminal Design's eula has a similar clause.

  • Really? Someone uses your font for a logo and you charge them more. That is awesome! (No wonder we have so many customers.)
  • edited January 2016
    Thanks for the feedback guys. I didn't know that a broadcasting license even existed before someone mentioned it to me.
  • JoyceKettererJoyceKetterer Posts: 268
    edited March 2016
    This stuff about additional broadcast licenses and licenses for logos are the sorts of things that make users hate EULAs and feel like it's just a bunch of traps set to charge them more.  What we do is cover all static use with our basic EULA (with one exception being use in products - though we exempt books and magazines) and require addenda for all live use.  I think this is fair to the user because it's easy to understand and I hope it's intuitive.  
Sign In or Register to comment.