Widespread misunderstanding of AdobeType's license causing foundries to loose revenue.

Miles Newlyn

JoyceKetterer said:

@Christopher Slye. You'll remember that, back in the day when you were the head of Adobe fonts, I asked for an edit to the Adobe terms of use?  That edit would have expressly empowered foundries to enforce this exact kind of violative use, rather than Adobe being the only party with standing to do so.  I still think that would be a good idea.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL. IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

Johannes Neumeier

Miles Newlyn said:
I don't know where these font files come from. They are often anonymised with names like font.woff or 7ascn328gfh.woff.

The opentype files that Adobe CC saves on your computer are not located or named super obviously, but they are neither hidden well. Adobe's syncher assigns them numeric file names, but aside from that they are on disk as plain otf files for anybody savy enough to find. It's pretty simple stupid.

JoyceKetterer

@Christopher Slye this was a long time ago and both our memories could be wrong.  My recollection is that adobe stopped  allowing agencies to host their clients’ websites when they switched from the pay for traffic model to the current model. It’s possible I invented this explanation because it’s very intuitive.  By my logic, the old typekit system made more money when an agency was incentivized to push all clients to typekit.  But, by the time Adobe switched to the new model they had realized that large companies mostly were not going to use hosted fonts, and they pivoted to using typekit for cloud subscription retention. At that point, anything that allows companies to not have a subscription is bad.  No?  I don't remember hearing anything about piracy. 

JoyceKetterer

@k.l. and @Miles Newlyn The reason not to do my edit is that it's complicated to implement in exactly the kind of way that makes lawyers nervous.  It would have had to say something like the following, which I have written in plain english (the translation to legalese would be hard).

You agree and understand that if you use these fonts outside of the Adobe system, by accessing the font files directly, you have an obligation to obtain a license to do so from an authorised seller.  Failure to do so is not only a breach of the Adobe terms of service but also a breach of the End User License Agreement issued by the owner of the font, which can be enforced by either.  

So, it would cost Adobe stress... Lawyers would worry that it would open up liability.  There's two kinds of lawyers.  The really good ones are in private practice.  The mediocre ones are direct employees of corporations.  You can tell because if you've ever had a dispute with a large company you've probably noticed that they bring in outside council.  The in-house council mostly consider their job to keep as many things from happening as possible, because they know they are in over their heads.  These are the same people who refuse to look at a EULA for a license purchase under a threshold amount, because they don't understand that the less you pay for the license the more violations you can have.  

Edit:  I have encountered a few really agile thinkers who are in-house council. They're usually women with young families who want a sane work schedule.  They are few and far between. 

John Hudson

Joyce: 

they don't understand that the less you pay for the license the more violations you can have.  

Can you expand on that thought? I’m not sure I understand it.

JoyceKetterer

@John Hudson I'm sorry for starting an off topic tangent.  If this explanation isn't enough, lets start a new thread.  

Essentially, the risk of violation is reverse correlated to the size of your license.  If you buy a big license to cover all possible uses for a large company there's not much mischief you can get up to.  However, if you buy a one cpu basic license of one style for internal pitching purposes there's a good chance that by the time it's gone through all the approvals the team has forgotten that they need to upgrade their permissions.  That's how a lot of companies get into trouble.  If the legal team looked at the licensing when it's a $45 purchase (or whatever) instead of saying they only look at licensing when the purchase is over $10,000 (or whatever) they would introduce another set of safeguards.  

I've given the most dramatic examples, but probably you get the idea?  

I mentioned this analogy in the first place because it's exactly the kind of self defeating triage you'd expect from a person who is in over their head.  They are trying not to waste anyone's time with this rule but they have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and made the situation worse.

Miles Newlyn

JoyceKetterer said:

Regarding agencies giving the css link to their clients, why should we as foundries care?  

For us it's an opportunity to sell a license to someone that's already decided to use our fonts.

JoyceKetterer

@Miles Newlyn That's not the answer I expected given how angry you seemed about it.  Maybe I misunderstood.  Text communication can do that. 

Christopher Slye

JoyceKetterer said:

... It would have had to say something like ...

You agree and understand that if you use these fonts outside of the Adobe system, by accessing the font files directly, you have an obligation to obtain a license to do so from an authorised seller.  Failure to do so is not only a breach of the Adobe terms of service but also a breach of the End User License Agreement issued by the owner of the font, which can be enforced by either.  

I have no specific memory of this (beyond it ringing a bell), but looking at what you wrote I can see a problem with “if you use these fonts outside of the Adobe system”. Altogether, it would result in something like “You are prohibited from moving or copying the font data, but if you do ...”

But in any case, you’re right, this would make corporate lawyers nervous. At Adobe these days, the Terms of Use are a huge amalgam of different apps and services, and so it’s very, very hard to insert something like this about fonts that wouldn’t have the threat of some ripple effect outside the font service scope. (All personal speculation/opinions on my part!)

I had an incredibly valuable relationship with one person on Adobe’s legal staff for nearly my whole 22+ years there. She had been through most of Adobe’s great legal adventures with fonts, but was as smart, practical, and generous with all of it as you could imagine. I learned a lot from her, and her willingness to contemplate very reasonable suggestions made life better for all Adobe’s foundry partners, even if she couldn’t say yes to everything.

Thomas Phinney

I know exactly who you mean, Christopher. I second your last paragraph: she was fabulous! Presumably still is, in her latest role elsewhere.