Time to Leave Creative Market - Default Font License Now Grants Unlimited Commercial Use

Thomas Phinney

Certainly came up when I was at Adobe; user would have a modified font and be asking for support on it.

Rare, but certainly happened.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

If it's rare for one of the largest font houses out there...

Christopher Slye

Adobe's desktop EULA has allowed modifications for as long as I can remember (probably since day one). Modified fonts are restricted to the original licensee, and still count against the total number of license seats.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

One of the best things about buying Adobe.

Jens Kutilek

How do you modify font files you don’t have access to? (The Creative Cloud subscription puts the fonts in a hidden place on your computer and you are probably not supposed to find them and install them permanently)

Cory Maylett

I don't see how licensed buyers modifying fonts for their own use affects the font owner one way or another.

If a licensee needs a special glyph, or wants to add their corporate logo for convenience, what possible difference does it make if they add these things? If the company has licensed 500 copies of the font, as far as I'm concerned they can use 500 copies of the modified font.

Opening and messing with the font could easily break something else, which voids any customer support, but that's on them and, again, doesn't affect me in the slightest. I might not agree with their modifications, but so what? Similarly, I might not agree with their use of my font in their badly designed brochure either, where they've condensed, twisted and added rainbow-hued drop shadows, but so what? Just as long as I'm paid, that's all that really matters.

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

Cory Maylett said:

I don't see how licensed buyers modifying fonts for their own use affects the font owner one way or another.

It affects you by denying you the job. It also affects you by giving you a bad reputation if the mod is bad. Those are quite reasonable concerns, but to me they simply come with the territory; you have to grin and bear it, because that's the ethical thing to do, in the context of culture's "value proposition".

Cory Maylett

Hrant H. Papazian said:

It affects you by denying you the job. It also affects you by giving you a bad reputation if the mod is bad.

If they want a good job done, they would hire me. If they think they can do it themselves, fine. It's a choice I don't feel compelled to make for them.

As for a bad reputation, I suppose my concern there is minimal too. If they make poor design and quality choices with my fonts, that's their business. Whether they alter the font itself or just mess with the type in a layout app (which is far more common), again, that's their choice — at least as far as I'm concerned.

Others will disagree, which is fine, but as long as I'm paid, they can mangle and misuse the font, just as long as they don't try to copy and redistribute it. I would, of course, strongly prefer people always use my fonts to create beautiful, useful and beneficial things, but that's beyond the scope of my control, so it's best to let it go.

Thomas Phinney

Cory, note that your examples of changes are mods that do not really affect the look and feel of your work.

Some type designers are wanting to control mods because of technical/support concerns. But others are concerned about the aesthetic integrity of their typeface. In that latter case, adding a logo or the like is not really so much an issue as modifying existing glyphs, or adding language support—and doing it in ways that the designer feels make their typeface look bad. I can understand wanting to maintain some control over your creation.

There is a moderately prominent logo that uses my Hypatia Sans typeface, and the designer created an alternate single-story “a” for the logo, only they kind of botched it (in my opinion). In this case, it was particularly notable because the typeface actually already had an alternate single-story “a” included. In a perfect world, I would have liked it if the designer had to contact me, and I could have pointed out these things.

(At the same time, I like letting people make mods in general. And I like having freedom to do so myself, to third-party fonts.)

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

Thomas Phinney said:
I would have liked it if the designer had to contact me

Note my suggestion above that modifying should require alerting you (not seeking permission). This doesn't mean they have to give you the job. But you're given a due opportunity to help, maybe give them a better price than they expected, or maybe simply provide a free critique of their effort, benefiting both parties.

Christopher Slye

Jens Kutilek said:

How do you modify font files you don’t have access to? (The Creative Cloud subscription puts the fonts in a hidden place on your computer and you are probably not supposed to find them and install them permanently)

I was referring to Adobe's traditional desktop EULA (which one currently gets via Fontspring these days). Adobe Fonts (née Typekit) has a different license (what we call its service terms, not a EULA) and definitely does not allow one to modify, copy, move, or otherwise touch font data.

Jens Kutilek

Ah, right, I didn’t remember you can buy permanent licenses via Fontspring.

Cory Maylett

Thomas Phinney said:

Cory, note that your examples of changes are mods that do not really affect the look and feel of your work.

Some type designers are wanting to control mods because of technical/support concerns. But others are concerned about the aesthetic integrity of their typeface.

Type design has always been an interest of mine, but I have only started spending much time on it over the past two or three years. I'm primarily a graphic designer and art director — websites, corporate branding, magazines, newspapers and things like that.

I've been a consumer of type for far longer than I've been a maker of it. This background might give me a different perspective in a couple of different ways.

First, I've routinely needed to modify outlined glyphs from commercial fonts to meet the needs of the project at hand, so I'm more inclined to see fonts as raw elements in a design project rather than finished products themselves.

Second, my design work is almost always created in the context of contracted or for-hire situations where the work product typically meets the requirements of the clients and will ultimately be turned over to them to use as they wish. When I design a logo, it's theirs. I will provide branding guidelines, but in the end, it's their logo. When I design a website, I'll turn it over to the client and, at that point, I cease having control over the design, the content or the quality. Invariably, as months go by, the website changes in ways I don't like, but again, it's their website.

I suppose I look at my type designs in similar ways. It's legally different, of course, when all that's sold is a license to use a font, but I still tend to let go of emotional attachments in regards to what people subsequently do with what they've purchased. I might roll my eyes or cringe at what someone has done with a logo I designed, or a newspaper design I once art directed or a typeface I created, but as long as I'm paid and the other contractual agreements are met, my part ends. What they build with it or how they customize it is, to me, their business.

John Savard

Of course, if operating systems permitted one to create "virtual fonts" with characters taken from various other fonts... part of the issue would go away. Not all of it, since often modified fonts make use of the vector data of existing characters to modify the shape, of course.

ValKalinic

Paulo Goode said:

I will see how it pans out for a little while, but my inclination is to remove all my work too. 

In the past year, how did this situation pan out? Those of you who had their work on Creative Market, was this situation with bad licensing practices resolved or did you indeed bail -- and don't recommend anyone joining them?

I'm thinking about expanding my vendor list (beyond MyFonts+Monotype+Fontspring), so I'm considering if I should give Creative Market a shot. Any other suggestions are welcome as well.

Paulo Goode

ValKalinic said:

In the past year, how did this situation pan out? Those of you who had their work on Creative Market, was this situation with bad licensing practices resolved or did you indeed bail -- and don't recommend anyone joining them?

Yes, I closed my shop and I have no regrets. The licences have not been adjusted since the change in 2019. Also, they increased their take from 30% to 40% across the board since then too, so bear that in mind when joining. It takes a long time for a shop to get established – up to a year to get traffic, followers, sales, etc., but you might drop lucky.

ValKalinic

Paulo Goode said:

ValKalinic said:

In the past year, how did this situation pan out? Those of you who had their work on Creative Market, was this situation with bad licensing practices resolved or did you indeed bail -- and don't recommend anyone joining them?

Yes, I closed my shop and I have no regrets. The licences have not been adjusted since the change in 2019. Also, they increased their take from 30% to 40% across the board since then too, so bear that in mind when joining. It takes a long time for a shop to get established – up to a year to get traffic, followers, sales, etc., but you might drop lucky.

Thanks a lot for letting me know! Seems I won't be joining then unless circumstances change. If anyone can recommend better options they're satisfied with, it's more than welcome.