First font license

Andrés Rodríguez

Hello there. I've been doing an extensive research (maybe I'm not using the right terms), but I'm trying to find out the steps to get my font to license; by that I mean: what do I have to do to sell a font I'm designing, I will try to sell them by myself to some graphic designers, so there will be no font service to help me out with this.

I'm not really that greedy about this font because it's a display font and it has a really specific use, so it's not the new helvetica or futura, and so I', not sure if I have to copyright it first or what to do.

I'm thinking, well maybe you just grab a license template depending on the use of the font (EULA, SIL Open font license, etc) and change the key words, but I'm pretty sure it's not that simple. I'm also not planning to be so strict about redistributing the font or installing it in different devices.

I would appreciate very much any help you could provide on this subject, I've been designing type for almost 2 years, but just for myself, now I want to start getting them out. If it's got something to do (because of the legal stuff), I'm from Mexico.

Thomas Phinney

It pretty much is that simple. Except that you should start with a license that the owner doesn't mind you copying, and preferably one that is at least broadly similar to your needs. So if you are making a retail font, an open source license is not much help as a starting point.

Copyright is inherent in authorship. For the US, you might want to register the copyright, but you can do that in parallel with getting the font out there.

Andrés Rodríguez

Thank you so much @Thomas Phinney. This is what I needed to know. I've also seen some fonts that come with a license-like file simply with the rules of use, I should check on that too. Now I'm on to find a license that could work for my case, thanks again!

Dave Crossland

MyFonts offers a range of licenses to use, if you use them as a distributor.

Andrés Rodríguez

Thanks for the info @Dave Crossland I looked at MyFonts and it sounds great. I've also checked Fontspring, but it looks like MyFonts have more info out to help the process. Right now I'm just checking out how it is to sell a retail font on a lower scale, but will definitely join a font distributor service once I feel ready for the mayor leagues.

BTW, I once went to a workshop you gave at my school and hometown. That inspired me to explore type design, so, thank you for that too.

Stuart Sandler

Be aware it's always best to err on the side of more restrictive EULA than less restrictive one as customers always assume with rose colored glasses, if something isn't expressly restricted it must otherwise be granted. Feel free to look at our EULA for ideas of things you may wish to consider restricting: http://www.fontdiner.com/fd_license.html

Thomas Phinney

I would have said it's always best to err on the side of a more clear and explicit EULA, not necessarily more restrictive. 

Tiffany Wardle

I think the problem of a EULA is that most EULAs are written in English which presents a problem for a majority or users. No? I agree that being as explicit as possible is good, but I also agree that erring on the side of restrictive is good for business. When you err on the side of restrictive you can always make case-by-case exceptions for clients who reach out to you with specific needs. But if you err on the side of less restrictive you will find it difficult to back track.

Additionally make the user feel that they can reach out to you if they need questions answered. 

Ray Larabie

Sometimes it really pays to be conventional. I've tried being more permissive with my agreements over the years and I've found that it was often confusing to customers. I included acquiescent features such as allowing unrestricted application embedding or roll-your-own web embedding; allowing open-ended in-house font mods and other EULA curiosities. I tried making the wording clearer and even included diagrams. I think the problem wasn't my lack of clear explanation, the problem was that I was offering something too weird. Agencies would often ask permission for features that were already stated painstakingly plainly in the agreement. Sometimes they'd make me print/sign/scan (sometimes mail) release forms and custom agreements. I had quite a few customers tell me that they'd prefer a more conventional agreement because that's what they're geared to deal with. After three years of that nonsense, I switched to a bog-standard agreement and all is well.

In summary: just be normal.

Mark Simonson

My EULA is relatively permissive (although not as permissive as yours was) and I've run into some cases like that, too. It hasn't come up often enough that I would change it, though. Most people are satisfied with an email reply of "yep, that's allowed." 

Dave Crossland

Agree with the weirdness thing. I often get consultancy requests where clients contact OFL licensed rightsholders asking for an invoice to get permission to do what the OFL already permits. 

Stephen Coles

Popping in a year later to say that CJ Dunn’s new eula-builder is a web tool for writing a font EULA based on selected options.

Johannes Neumeier

Interesting! Also, here a link straight to an online version so folks don't have to clone the code locally.

JoyceKetterer

You can also look at our EULA: www.dardenstudio.com/eula.  It's in the middle of a rewrite at the moment but as is it's still pretty clear.  We don't permit any embedded use (but do permit logos and commercial uses unlikely some more display oriented foundries).  I agree with both Stuart and Phinney  - err on the side of caution and clarity if that's a balance you can strike.  But also, I like your attitude.  If you make mistakes now you will likely still be fine.  

Thomas Phinney

Johannes Neumeier said:

Interesting! Also, here a link straight to an online version so folks don't have to clone the code locally.

Huh. This doesn't seem to really do much when I tried it (on latest Chrome for Mac). I mean, after I check something, then that particular section opens with a parenthetical comment that suggests the section should reflect what I checked... without, you know, actually offering any legal boilerplate whatsoever. Not quite what I had hoped for.