It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
John Hudson said:
no matter how substantially modified, the fonts belong to the original copyright holder.
Most of the fonts I use require two modifications: the addition of h+underdot (in all cases), which in the Unicode is U+1E25, and the removal from the ligature lookup table of the Th ligature. The first is a character I require for transliterated Hebrew, signifying the letter chet, to which I add a lookup that replaces the string h|.| with that character; the second is a matter of personal taste—the avoidance of revulsion, you might say, for a glyph I don't like and that has no historical basis.
Sometimes I ask the maker of the font for permission to make these alterations, but sometimes I don’t bother, since I’m not changing the font in a way that couldn’t be accomplished through normal means in InDesign, anyway. The fonts are never distributed and I do not consider them to be my original work or property in any way. If I am violating a EULA by doing this, I can only suggest that the offended font foundry lawyer-up and come after me. It would be interesting to see whether such restrictions in EULAs would hold up in a U.S. court. My guess is that they would not, as no aspect of commerce or intellectual property has been compromised.
John, the situation you propose in the second paragraph of your post is an interesting one. I believe that you're right, at least in regard to U.S. law. But a rich and vindictive company can spend you to death while you prove your point.
John Hudson said:That would require an explicit contract between the parties
John Hudson said:
I think the assumption that concerns about quality are concerns — or primarily concerns — with reputation are mistaken. It isn't that I think that someone will see a poorly modified font and associate it with me, but that I don't like to see things created with care and attention to detail being messed up. For me, the concern about quality is concern about the thing itself.This is not to suggest, of course, that all modifications result in a diminishment of quality, but it does mean that if one has a blanket permission for modification in a license, then one is surrendering any kind of quality control. It's extra work, but I think requiring a licensee to contact you and ask for permission to modify a font is a reasonable requirement. It allows one to ask some questions, offer some advice, or even propose to make the modifications oneself.
John Hudson said:
I don't like to see things created with care and attention to detail being messed up.
requiring a licensee to contact you and ask for permission to modify a font is a reasonable requirement.
John Hudson said:If you're talking about ....
John Hudson said:I'd like to know who is doing what to the things that I make, so that I can have some input of making modified, derivative fonts as good as they can be.
I feel it's only fair to get permission first before modifying it but more importantly getting some sort of feedback or including the the original type designer
One can't possibly prevent a designer to do changes to the text, right? So what's the difference here?
The fonts are never distributed and I do not consider them to be my original work or property in any way. If I am violating a EULA by doing this, I can only suggest that the offended font foundry lawyer-up and come after me.
…requiring permission is too gollum.
Katy Mawhood said:This could be argued for any IP permission, but that would be unfair to the original owner. Some software is permissive, and some is restrictive. There are markets for both.
And of course I'm not saying it's restrictive or anything. Your intentions are good and helpful. All I'm saying that this is not a prevention factor. If you don't allow modifying the font, they modify the outlines and there is no real way to find out which one of them they did.
I do design typefaces too. I'm not saying it's not important to protect the thing we do. I have seen a couple of times that the exact unique thing one of my typefaces had had been distorted. But I realized I couldn't do anything about that. At that moment I didn't think of the fact that it was a modified font or a change to the outlines, because to me at the end it is the same. Regardless of what EULA says what you created and intended to be preserved is changed and you somehow don't like it.
@Tiffany Wardle Thanks for the link. I'll watch that.