Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!



Last Active
Member, Type Person
  • Re: Font or Font Software

    Forgive me if I misunderstood the flow of the conversation.  I think there's a suggestion on the floor that all  EULA should discuss the typeface as a design product the way it is treated in Europe.  

    I just checked our EULA and we are among the foundries @Katy Mawhood is talking about that don't use the work "typeface".  We just talk about font software.  We're aware that Europe treats the design differently than in the US but our general rule with the license is to treat everyone by the standard of the most permissive law.  For instance, we permit all licensees to open the software to look at it because some places would override us if we didn't (we didn't used to for the sake of clarity since you can't modify the software).  It's just easier for us if everyone is treated the same.  But also the governing law for our EULA is NYC.  I think it might be the same for some of the foundries discussed.

    As far as updates go, @Dave Crossland's venture makes things sound so much more linear than my reality.   We update our EULA as needed and same with the fonts.  Certainly more frequently than every five years in both cases. If a licensee gets a new download of the fonts (either because of an update or because they need to reinstall) or renews a timed addendum they agree to the current EULA in order to complete the action.  In some cases it's the same EULA they already agreed to but that's too difficult for us to track so we just make them agree and send a new EULA.  
  • Re: EULAs: No Modifications Clauses.

    @Hrant H. Papazian  I've already had this conversation with you and don't need to do it again.  I'll engage with new people on this topic only.
  • Re: EULAs: No Modifications Clauses.

    I think I've said this before but the primary reason we don't allow modifications is to protect our reputation.  Years ago we actually found a massive license infringement because a google alert on Josh's name pointed us to bad review of a new font.  The reviewer recognised it as a derivative of one of ours and raked us over the coals. 

    But also, we have since found decent amount of infringements do start with an unauthorized derivative of one kind or another. 

    While the idea of permitting modifications sounds generous (and even convenient to the foundry) I think that leads to more trouble than it helps.  Otherwise you've got lots of caveats and explanations like "no new styles, no new language" that a lot of people aren't really going to track.  They will just read "modifications are allowed" and then do whatever.  

    Our way, we can always grant permission to someone who asks and we sometimes do.  But in the EULA we say no.  
  • Re: Foundries Allowing Modification

    @Hrant H. Papazian you've not seen my talk so I will forgive the mischaracterization but, just to be clear, I am not in any way launching an attempt to get people to read EULAs.  That battle was lost long ago.  My mission is to teach the people who issue the licenses how it can still be a useful tool by writing it with the expectation that it will mostly be read after the violation has taken place.  
  • Desperately seeking digital librarians

    I've got a lecture coming up and for prep I would like to send a surveymonkey questionnaire to as many buy side font licensing managers as possible.  It will be quick - I just want to know what they look for when they encounter a new EULA.  I'm hoping for direct introductions so my email will not go into spam.  

    I'll share the results of the survey here when I compile them.

    Please pm me if you know someone and can introduce us.  Thanks!