While I
appreciate the sentiment behind maintaining a fair and equitable royalty rate
for type designers, I think the tone of our current conversation casts font
vendors in an overly negative light. It seems we may be underestimating the
numerous benefits and conveniences they provide, reducing the discourse to
suggest that foundries that use commercial vendors do so out of ignorance or
inability to set up their own sales platform.
There are
manifold reasons why a type foundry might opt for a general font vendor, beyond
simple visibility and promotion. For me, one of the pivotal factors is the
quality of customer service that these platforms offer. I prefer not to delve
into customer installation issues, nor do I wish to hire and manage staff
specifically to deal with font licensing negotiations. To successfully
negotiate custom licenses, one needs a specialized skill set, something which,
as @JoyceKetterer astutely pointed out, is a critical yet often overlooked aspect of our
business. Such expertise is not easily substituted with a simple website
plugin. Moreover, the convenience for customers to purchase from a general font
vendor is undeniable. If they already hold an account, the process of adding
items to their cart, adjusting license options, and completing the purchase can
be incredibly streamlined.
The
diversity among vendors, each with its unique personality and business
approach, fosters a dynamic marketplace. These platforms, even the smaller
ones, are continuously innovating and improving their services to compete with
giants like Monotype. These larger companies, while significant, are not
insurmountable—they carry their own set of challenges, including legacy issues
and inefficiencies associated with their size and age.
In my view,
it's essential not to discredit the free-market nature of font vendors, as this
may inadvertently hamper the growth and evolution of these entities. Our
smaller competitors are engaged in the daily grind, continuously striving to
enhance their offerings.
The other half is getting in visitors, heaps of them, and then turning those visitors into customers. And what type buyers want may not be exactly what type designers want.
From my experience joining forces for the purpose of internet exposure has an exponential impact. In the eyes of the potential marketing and online media partners, a group of ten people is already something, not to mention a hundred or a few hundred.
In 2017 I was part of the campaign run by Fontself. They gathered 5 indie designers who made color fonts with their app back then, and we offered one of our fonts for free during the two weeks. They partnered with Adobe on the occasion of enabling color fonts in Illustrator. The font I was participating with (Popsky) is all time bestseller for me, and the impact is still evident 6 years later.
The marketing part could be outsourced in the form of hiring marketing specialists for a fair share per sale.
But if we manage to show consensus and incentive, and possibly do a part of the job in advance, that would exponentially improve our position, and lead to a powerful organic reach meaning that the platform would start receiving offers from affiliate marketers and media partners. The perceived vitality and expertise of the platform are attractive elements here.
It's not the same if you start your proposal email with "I am John Doe" or "We are IATD, and there are XYZ of industry-leading designers here who joined forces...".
Would there be any gatekeeping in the new shop? Like, would you allow it to be flooded with fonts from people who churn out low-effort fonts on a daily basis? Quality standards? A discovery platform is only attractive to a customer if they get to experience high-quality fonts without digging through piles of junk.
But then, I remember MyFonts being horribly swamped in work to catch up with submissions. Who would do all that work?
I agree with this attitude, leaning toward a significant fee per typeface. Right off the bat (probably wrong): $25 per font family for the review process and an additional $50 if it's approved (combined it's still lower than the main Type Directors Club contest fee i.e.). That could fund the review process, and make foundries submit only the best of their catalog which expects to make sales.
There is always something that interests me. After the designer dies, what happens to the fonts he authored and the profits he gets from them. Can something be done about it?
I think it is a mistake to seek to solve problems caused by economic concentration and abuse of dominance only with technology.
In my view, we first need an international organization that can highlight the production of independent foundries, that defines their identity, that sets good quality standards, that promotes direct contact with type designers, and that could also eventually denounce the actors in our industry that impose disadvantageous conditions.
Of course we need technological initiatives but I think they should be subordinated to a political structure that we must build first.
highlight the production of independent foundries, that defines their identity, that sets good quality standards, that promotes direct contact with type designers, and that could also eventually denounce the actors in our industry that impose disadvantageous conditions
is a kind of lobbying and promotional organisation, which may indeed be a useful thing. This seems to me something essentially independent of technological innovations aimed at decentralisation of distribution, which I would see as a form of asymmetric warfare against a massively capitalised competitor who dominates the marketplace, and who is always going to be able to outspend any promotional organisation of independent foundries. Subordinating those technological initiatives to a political organisation seems to me not only unnecessary but possibly counterproductive, given that creating such a political structure will itself take time and energy, as will the lobbying and promotional activiites of that organisation. In the meantime, opportunities may be lost.
This is not to say that such political organisation should not be undertaken by the people who want to do that, and who have an inclination and a talent for it. Some of us have other inclinations and other talents, and we should find ways to work in tandem, rather than insisting that one path take priority or that the other be subordinate.
Yes! That's what I've been saying the past few years and I'm kind of being serious. I had a webring waaay back in the day called Blue Vinyl's Ring of Meloncholy (so goth) for my aol homepage, lol.
Bring back RSS Feeds also.
When I ran fontlover.com (1998-2008) I tried to make a news portal controlled by foundries. Hoping that foundries would sign up to join me and post their news freely. I invited any foundry that wanted to be an editor to have an account and post. It was free advertising and the website was quite popular but I could only get a small pool of foundries interested in posting. I even gave anyone who posted a rotating banner ad. Twitter came along and...
1. Opening a crowdfunding page. The one who manages the campaign, money, and later steps gets rewarded for that effort (with the part of collected money or the shares in the future organization. Amount to be discussed).
2. Type designers are called to fund $10 (amount to be discussed). By that, they become members of the new association and get membership numbers by the order of funding. As an award for supporting this incentive, those who fund will get special shares of the future organization, but which are activated only if they buy paid shares from Step 5).
3. The association representative from Step 1 opens a call for one legal and one business person with experience in type business (but who are not currently and directly connected with the big players). The association commissions a feasibility study to work out the financial and legal aspects of the new platform. The study is funded with the collected money.
4. Members of the association participate in developing a model, via Discord channel.
5. The essential aspect of the study is defining the amount of total money needed for developing the platform, and the optimal number of shares—taking into account initial shares given to the members from Step 2, and estimated numbers of shares left for new members.
Shares would be non-transferable (in general; maybe they could be sold to the other member, but with a limit on the possible number of shares one member could have).
Once the share price is defined by the study, the members are called to buy shares via the same crowdfunding process.
6. With the collected money association representative hires developers to build the platform.
7. Once it's done representative hires platform marketing and maintenance staff. Costs are defined by the feasibility study. The representative should get reasonable but attractive financial compensation for her/his new position.
8. The platform would be funded by the percentage of sales.
9. Once the classic model of font selling is solidified, the platform could start to talk with the people from the "tech stream" mentioned in this thread about implementing new advanced tools and technologies (blockchain) as an addition to the classic model.
Thanks for mapping out a possible roadmap, Igor. One of the things to consider is the level of membership of an organisation, which in turn determines whom the organisation can claim to represent, and may affect whom it actually represents. [This is one of the issues that I always felt made ATypI’s sometime claim to be a ‘professional association’ untenable: what was the profession it represented?]
Your item #2 identifies membership at the individual type designer level. What about foundries? In terms of much of the concerns driving current discussions re. distributor practices, these affect foundries that may in some cases be an individual type designer selling his or her work, but may also be partnerships, collectives, incorporated share-based entities, selling things they produce themselves but also perhaps work by external designers under royalty arrangements, etc.
The type business is complex, and I think we should be looking at structures that enable all people of goodwill to contribute to making the things we need—where ‘goodwill’ implies caring about the collective health of our industry and, I would say, ensuring that important rights remain with, and rewards flow to, the people who design the typefaces and make the fonts. So how does one structure an organisation—accepting the premise, for the sake of discussion, that an organisation is what is wanted or needed—in a way that enables that kind of collaboration between individual and super-individual entitites?
In my humble opinion, I think the better formula for all people (all workers of any distributor, and any independent foundry) to be represented is a trade union (labor union? I'm not sure about the good translation of "sindicato"), and not a new platform.
A trade union could deal with the big platforms to negotiate better conditions. Ok, it needs a lot of lawyers of the globe that get to the bottom of the big platforms contracts & have a deep knowledge of copyright laws and work laws.
And the last point, a trade union helps support small businesses as independent foundries, maybe as legal support (I'm thinking about how to write EULAs or legal documents) or as prevention of occupational hazards, etc.
And yes, don't care if you are the owner of an independent foundry, you are a worker too. Typographic world has a long tradition of trade unions.
Remember, this is only my opinion. And could be wrong.
A trend that I observe with concern in this forum is that of addressing issues related to labor and legal relations, antitrust laws, and copyrights, exclusively from the perspective of US law.
An association like the one I am proposing I think should be based on progressive, global and democratic standards and have the clear aim of defending the independent foundries collective against monopolistic abuses by companies that do not care about the prestige of our activity or the conditions in which we develop it.
I also believe that individuals who are on the staff of such monopolistic companies should be excluded, because 1) they do not represent an independent foundry 2) they work for corporations whose interests and objectives are in contradiction to those of the independent foundries.
In my humble opinion, I think the better formula for all people (all workers of any distributor, and any independent foundry) to be represented is a trade union (labor union? I'm not sure about the good translation of "sindicato"), and not a new platform.
Labour unions* specifically represent workers in some form of wage employment relationship. Independent foundries, as such, cannot form or join a labour union; indeed, in many cases, the independent foundry is the employer. A syndicate at the foundry level is liable to be viewed in law as a cartel, and either prohibited or severely restricted in what it is able to do. In order for independent foundries to collectively organise in a way that would enable them to do things like collectively negotiate with a distributor, they would have to cease to be independent and actually merge into a corporative arrangement of some kind à la ATF in the 1890s.
The individuals who design and make fonts could certainly join or form a labour union, but the role of that union would be at the employer-employee relationship level, i.e. where the individual works, not in the relationship between that employer (the foundry) and other business entitities such as a distributor.
An individual type designer who makes fonts and licenses them for sale through e.g. MyFonts or Fontspring is not an employee of either of those companies, and I doubt if a labour union would be of any help in negotiating with such distributors. The individual in this instance is an independent small business, making and selling things under distribution licenses or terms of service with another business.
* I use the term labour union to avoid having to get into the distinction between trade and industrial unions, but that is an important difference for anyone actually thinking of joining or forming a union.
I also believe that individuals who are on the staff of such monopolistic companies should be excluded...
How do you define ‘monopolistic companies’? How do you survive a legal challenge against exclusion from an individual or company that claims it is not a monopoly?
[Note, also, that if we consider a major distributor’s treatment of foundries to be of concern, then the concern is monopsony not monopoly (they may be monopolistic too, e.g. in aggressive accumulation of other companies and their IP, but a distributor dictating pricing and terms to foundries by e.g. unilaterally changing royalty rates and demanding fonts be made available across all its platforms, is monopsonic).]
It is clear from comments earlier in this thread that at least some people consider any large company to be a problem, regardless of their varying business models or activities. Nick Shinn, for instance, proposed
that anyone who has designed and published four typefaces be eligible for membership, except present employees or contractors of Monotype, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Adobe.
Nick apparently doesn’t like any company that bundles or otherwise distributes fonts with hardware or software or as a service, regardless of whether that company pays appropriate license fees and respects the rights of foundries, type designers and font makers.
[Disclosure: Nick’s criteria would exclude me, as I have made fonts for four of those five companies, and currently have active contracts with two of those companies.]
Nick apparently doesn’t like any company that bundles or otherwise distributes fonts with hardware or software or as a service, regardless of whether that company pays appropriate license fees and respects the rights of foundries, type designers and font makers.
It’s not about likes or dislikes, regardless of whatever. I like those companies—especially Apple and Myfonts—they made my career possible. That’s not to say that I support monopsony and chokepoint capitalism.
I made a proposal to get this thread started, and identified companies that are not owned by type designers (John, you have also mentioned ownership by type designers as a key consideration in this matter).
Conflict of interest is why the criteria I proposed would exclude you, should you continue to accept work from the monopsonists. If a person is receiving salary or contract income from a company, they have a vested interest in that company. (If companies are selling licences for my fonts, with income driven by the market, that’s different, they are working for me.) How could one take issue with the monopsonists, when one’s contract income is at their discretion, without being in a conflict of interest?
I think the first step is to talk to a labor lawyer. I agree that something like a union is the best idea but also agree that foundries can't join. Anything else is doomed to fail, by being ineffectual in the same way as AtypI without the long history to make it useful in some way. There may be a creative solution and a lawyer is the one to ask. Possibly a European lawyer, maybe France? I'm sure there are countries with trade associations that do collective bargaining and maybe it's possible to form one even though the members wouldn't all be in that country. I don't know. But anything else is just a dead end.
That's the first hurdle to clear but the hurdles keep getting higher after that.
Conflict of interest is why the criteria I proposed would exclude you, should you continue to accept work from the monopsonists.
What monopsonists? Of the companies you identified, only one is dictating terms and unilaterally changing what it pays to foundries by rearranging its licensing model, and that is the one for which I don’t do work and with which I don’t have a contract. [You, however, do have a contract with them, so where does the conflict of interest lie?]
But thank you for further illustrating the problem of defining what constitutes monopolistic or monopsonic companies for the purpose of exclusion, which is the point that I was making to Ramiro. You persist in grouping together a bunch of different companies with very different business models and behaviours.
…grouping together a bunch of different companies with very different business models and behaviours.
They are very large companies, not owned by type designers, which distribute fonts and dominate our industry. That is their commonality. Their economic interests are not the same as ours. That is the crux of the issue.
where does the conflict of interest lie?
True, I do have contracts with Adobe and Monotype. Nonetheless, I feel that there is a significant difference between royalties and work for fee, and that in accepting commissioned work from the monopsonists, we are undermining our economic position—supporting their broad goals in software development, rather than ours, focused on type design.
Again, your characterisation of all these companies as ‘monopsonist’ is what I take issue with, and where the whole notion of excluding people on the basis of their employment or business relations with companies defined as monopolies or monopsonies, as suggested by Ramiro, runs into problems: defined by whom?
Nonetheless, I feel that there is a significant difference between royalties and work for fee, and that in accepting commissioned work from the monopsonists, we are undermining our economic position
And I would suggest that precisely the opposite is the case: that willingly entering into distribution contracts with a company that is now in a position to dictate terms to foundries (e.g. ‘you must make all your fonts available through all our platforms’) and/or unilaterally change royalty rates by reclassifying license types and tiers (e.g. ‘we have invented a new special class of fonts within our subscription model and what you will get paid for them is different from what you will get paid for other font activations’), is acquiescing to and rewarding what may reasonably be viewed as monopsonic behaviour.
Agreed that model contracts and legal critique of contract terms and plain language explication of what they mean for foundries and designers are needed things. These are among the initiatives discussed in sessions at ATypI Paris.
I really don't see what the problem is in starting a group that represents foundries and individuals who consider themselves harmed by the policies of some companies in our industry.
Aphabettes is a good example of a closed group that effectively denounces injustice and abuse, exercises activism, and AFAIK it only accepts women / gender dissidents who recognize themselves as feminists. Despite this, the companies in our sector seem to have acknowledge the group and apparently try to adapt to their claims.
As I see it, ATypI was founded as an organization supporting the major type producing companies and left the independent type designer out in the cold (at least according to Adrian Frutiger). The Type Directors Club (TDC) was formed to allow Type Directors to meet and discuss where they were getting their kickbacks from the (Mostly NYC) typesetting companies. The TDC tried to pivot to serve the independent type design universe, but was never able to really have an impact, and now is a meaningless extension of the One Club.
Where does this proposed organization fit in this history?
Where does this proposed organization fit in this history?
My opinion is that independent type community failed to give the proper answer to the globalization of the market which came with the internet (widely spread fast internet; around 2006 that enabled doing business on a large scale online, freelancing platforms, social networks, YouTube, etc.)
Font stores gained tremendous power during this era because of how internet marketing and social networks work. Established indie foundries were focused on their sales, not on bigger-picture trends (which is not smart but is natural and understandable).
On the other thread, you mentioned your proposition in 1998 which get no support from then-established designers. That was the moment to prevent the problems but they—unfortunately—weren't aware of the "dialectical swings", as anyone in power rarely is.
But corporations that choke type industry for the last 15 years are now at the end of their "thesis" and they are not aware of the "anti-thesis" they are triggering with their recent insolent actions. That's how power influences people (which is not smart but is natural and understandable)
To try to answer, as I can see ATypI and TDC were made for different eras, and I guess they played their role then. But for the last 15 years, we have had no proper answer, we waited until the point wherr things became pretty ugly which only postponed the new solution (that is inevitable). In other words:
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.
As I see it, that new solution will emerge whether we talk here about it or not. Talking about it is just a trial that we take part in that new solution
Igor Petrovic said: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.
2 months later, I wonder, if any progress has been made
This year's closing session of TypeCon announced a new SoTA led type recognition competition, that seemed to me from what I heard in the session to be similar to the one TDC has run for many years. But nothing seemed related to the topics discussed in this thread.
My impression is that still nothing concrete happened, but that many people talk and think about it in smaller groups, gradually shaping the possible solutions. This summer I met some type designers in person and got the impression that all of them are pretty updated about the situation, and they talk with others.
Forming groups of 5-10 seems like a good strategy at this stage. For example, 5-10 related foundries might find it useful to establish their joint channel of marketing or common interest depending on their position in the industry. Other members proposed that strategy earlier in this thread, and seems that they were right.
At last but not least, I find this announcement from Font Bros ( @Stuart Sandler ) immensely important at this point. And I believe it's made in the context of this ongoing discourse.
While Nick frames GF as a monopoly, I can't grasp it:
I suggest you hire a web site developer in anytown, and ask them to design a web site for a small business or hobby. They will likely use WordPress and Google/Adobe fonts.
That is the effect that the corporate concentration of Big Tech has on the marketplace. It has shut out the community at large of type designers from earning money from font licence sales to the vast majority of 800 million web sites that use WordPress. By paying a few a small fee.
And who decides what those GF fonts will be, designed by whom? Isn’t it you?
That’s the exclusive control that “monopoly” means (although I use the term incorrectly, rather than oligopoly, which is a bit of a mouthful).
The bold emphasis above is mine, proving my point, I think
But even if not proven, the problem I see with this framing is that $0-free type options have always been widely available in every type technology I'm aware of; typesetting machinery has always been bundled with type, the cost of which is built into the cost of the machine, and then other typefaces were up sold extras.
Typekit launched with (and adobe fonts continues to have) a $0 tier. If it wasn't them, there has since they launched been Font Squirrel as the $0 tier for FontSpring. If it wasn't them, it would have been someone. Possibly even Monotype, since their edge is scale, so they can afford (and can profit from) a loss-leader strategy.
The first 15 years of the web went without widespread adoption of web fonts nor much clamor for it from type designers, and there remain many articles by latency sensitive web developers today still advocating to avoid web fonts altogether and stick with the $0 "system fonts" of that era that have 0ms latency.
I do believe most font license sellers make a good portion of their annual revenue from the near ubiquitous use of web fonts, and I believe that ubiquitousness was never a foregone conclusion; lots of web technologies fail to stick, and given the first 15 years, where the "web site developer in anytown" seemed entirely satisfied with the lack of typographic choices. I think anyone on this forum would be seriously self-aggrandized to be completely sure that web font ubiquity was indeed foregone conclusion.
I do believe most font license sellers make a good portion of their annual revenue from the near ubiquitous use of web fonts
Well I certainly don’t, it’s still mostly good old desktop licences. Do you have statistics to support your belief? And even if I did subsist mostly on web font royalties, would that make it OK for Google to give away for free what I make my living from? Also, Google fonts have made significant incursions into Desktop usage.
Many type designers rely on commissions, consulting or teaching etc. for their main income—but why should one be penalized for producing original designs of one’s own choice, for the open market?
Anyway, please address the point I was making about Chokepoint Capitalism: Who gets to decide which are the ubiquitous fonts that Google distributes, who controls that? It’s you, isn’t it?
The argument that people have always used free fonts provided by OEMs etc. is no justification for it in the present circumstances.
As for boldfacing Adobe, thank goodness they pay royalties and I am fortunate enough to have them as a distributor. Not every indie foundry does.
The statistic for Wordpress is that 42% of all web sites use that service! Shinntype does, too. Have you looked at how Wordpress provides fonts? It recommends Google and Adobe, and makes it much more technically difficult to use indie fonts. That may be convenient, but is it fair? Kind of shuts us out of the main market.
And indeed it is a market, even if most of the products in it are provided free by Google. What Google has done is to create a huge contingent of free-font users, diminishing the market share of designer-owned foundries that derive passive income from licence sales.
For instance, my Bellefair, which you were kind enough to commission, is presently used on a mere 24,000 web sites. If 0.01% of those users paid a typical basic annual web licence fee, that would still be more than the design fee I received. Is that fair?
And for fonts more popular, those used in millions of sites…
(By the way, I’m not resentful, I’ve done OK. The argument is against Chokepoint Capitalism in principle.)
Comments
While I appreciate the sentiment behind maintaining a fair and equitable royalty rate for type designers, I think the tone of our current conversation casts font vendors in an overly negative light. It seems we may be underestimating the numerous benefits and conveniences they provide, reducing the discourse to suggest that foundries that use commercial vendors do so out of ignorance or inability to set up their own sales platform.
There are manifold reasons why a type foundry might opt for a general font vendor, beyond simple visibility and promotion. For me, one of the pivotal factors is the quality of customer service that these platforms offer. I prefer not to delve into customer installation issues, nor do I wish to hire and manage staff specifically to deal with font licensing negotiations. To successfully negotiate custom licenses, one needs a specialized skill set, something which, as @JoyceKetterer astutely pointed out, is a critical yet often overlooked aspect of our business. Such expertise is not easily substituted with a simple website plugin. Moreover, the convenience for customers to purchase from a general font vendor is undeniable. If they already hold an account, the process of adding items to their cart, adjusting license options, and completing the purchase can be incredibly streamlined.
The diversity among vendors, each with its unique personality and business approach, fosters a dynamic marketplace. These platforms, even the smaller ones, are continuously innovating and improving their services to compete with giants like Monotype. These larger companies, while significant, are not insurmountable—they carry their own set of challenges, including legacy issues and inefficiencies associated with their size and age.
In my view, it's essential not to discredit the free-market nature of font vendors, as this may inadvertently hamper the growth and evolution of these entities. Our smaller competitors are engaged in the daily grind, continuously striving to enhance their offerings.
This is not to say that such political organisation should not be undertaken by the people who want to do that, and who have an inclination and a talent for it. Some of us have other inclinations and other talents, and we should find ways to work in tandem, rather than insisting that one path take priority or that the other be subordinate.
1. Opening a crowdfunding page. The one who manages the campaign, money, and later steps gets rewarded for that effort (with the part of collected money or the shares in the future organization. Amount to be discussed).
2. Type designers are called to fund $10 (amount to be discussed). By that, they become members of the new association and get membership numbers by the order of funding. As an award for supporting this incentive, those who fund will get special shares of the future organization, but which are activated only if they buy paid shares from Step 5).
3. The association representative from Step 1 opens a call for one legal and one business person with experience in type business (but who are not currently and directly connected with the big players). The association commissions a feasibility study to work out the financial and legal aspects of the new platform. The study is funded with the collected money.
4. Members of the association participate in developing a model, via Discord channel.
5. The essential aspect of the study is defining the amount of total money needed for developing the platform, and the optimal number of shares—taking into account initial shares given to the members from Step 2, and estimated numbers of shares left for new members.
Shares would be non-transferable (in general; maybe they could be sold to the other member, but with a limit on the possible number of shares one member could have).
Once the share price is defined by the study, the members are called to buy shares via the same crowdfunding process.
6. With the collected money association representative hires developers to build the platform.
7. Once it's done representative hires platform marketing and maintenance staff. Costs are defined by the feasibility study. The representative should get reasonable but attractive financial compensation for her/his new position.
8. The platform would be funded by the percentage of sales.
9. Once the classic model of font selling is solidified, the platform could start to talk with the people from the "tech stream" mentioned in this thread about implementing new advanced tools and technologies (blockchain) as an addition to the classic model.
Your item #2 identifies membership at the individual type designer level. What about foundries? In terms of much of the concerns driving current discussions re. distributor practices, these affect foundries that may in some cases be an individual type designer selling his or her work, but may also be partnerships, collectives, incorporated share-based entities, selling things they produce themselves but also perhaps work by external designers under royalty arrangements, etc.
The type business is complex, and I think we should be looking at structures that enable all people of goodwill to contribute to making the things we need—where ‘goodwill’ implies caring about the collective health of our industry and, I would say, ensuring that important rights remain with, and rewards flow to, the people who design the typefaces and make the fonts. So how does one structure an organisation—accepting the premise, for the sake of discussion, that an organisation is what is wanted or needed—in a way that enables that kind of collaboration between individual and super-individual entitites?
A trade union could deal with the big platforms to negotiate better conditions. Ok, it needs a lot of lawyers of the globe that get to the bottom of the big platforms contracts & have a deep knowledge of copyright laws and work laws.
And the last point, a trade union helps support small businesses as independent foundries, maybe as legal support (I'm thinking about how to write EULAs or legal documents) or as prevention of occupational hazards, etc.
And yes, don't care if you are the owner of an independent foundry, you are a worker too. Typographic world has a long tradition of trade unions.
Remember, this is only my opinion. And could be wrong.
The individuals who design and make fonts could certainly join or form a labour union, but the role of that union would be at the employer-employee relationship level, i.e. where the individual works, not in the relationship between that employer (the foundry) and other business entitities such as a distributor.
An individual type designer who makes fonts and licenses them for sale through e.g. MyFonts or Fontspring is not an employee of either of those companies, and I doubt if a labour union would be of any help in negotiating with such distributors. The individual in this instance is an independent small business, making and selling things under distribution licenses or terms of service with another business.
* I use the term labour union to avoid having to get into the distinction between trade and industrial unions, but that is an important difference for anyone actually thinking of joining or forming a union.
[Note, also, that if we consider a major distributor’s treatment of foundries to be of concern, then the concern is monopsony not monopoly (they may be monopolistic too, e.g. in aggressive accumulation of other companies and their IP, but a distributor dictating pricing and terms to foundries by e.g. unilaterally changing royalty rates and demanding fonts be made available across all its platforms, is monopsonic).]
It is clear from comments earlier in this thread that at least some people consider any large company to be a problem, regardless of their varying business models or activities. Nick Shinn, for instance, proposed
[Disclosure: Nick’s criteria would exclude me, as I have made fonts for four of those five companies, and currently have active contracts with two of those companies.]
It’s not about likes or dislikes, regardless of whatever.
I like those companies—especially Apple and Myfonts—they made my career possible.
That’s not to say that I support monopsony and chokepoint capitalism.
I made a proposal to get this thread started, and identified companies that are not owned by type designers (John, you have also mentioned ownership by type designers as a key consideration in this matter).
Conflict of interest is why the criteria I proposed would exclude you, should you continue to accept work from the monopsonists.
If a person is receiving salary or contract income from a company, they have a vested interest in that company. (If companies are selling licences for my fonts, with income driven by the market, that’s different, they are working for me.)
How could one take issue with the monopsonists, when one’s contract income is at their discretion, without being in a conflict of interest?
That's the first hurdle to clear but the hurdles keep getting higher after that.
But thank you for further illustrating the problem of defining what constitutes monopolistic or monopsonic companies for the purpose of exclusion, which is the point that I was making to Ramiro. You persist in grouping together a bunch of different companies with very different business models and behaviours.
Nonetheless, I feel that there is a significant difference between royalties and work for fee, and that in accepting commissioned work from the monopsonists, we are undermining our economic position—supporting their broad goals in software development, rather than ours, focused on type design.
And I would suggest that precisely the opposite is the case: that willingly entering into distribution contracts with a company that is now in a position to dictate terms to foundries (e.g. ‘you must make all your fonts available through all our platforms’) and/or unilaterally change royalty rates by reclassifying license types and tiers (e.g. ‘we have invented a new special class of fonts within our subscription model and what you will get paid for them is different from what you will get paid for other font activations’), is acquiescing to and rewarding what may reasonably be viewed as monopsonic behaviour.
Here is what the RGD provides for its members.
My opinion is that independent type community failed to give the proper answer to the globalization of the market which came with the internet (widely spread fast internet; around 2006 that enabled doing business on a large scale online, freelancing platforms, social networks, YouTube, etc.)
Font stores gained tremendous power during this era because of how internet marketing and social networks work. Established indie foundries were focused on their sales, not on bigger-picture trends (which is not smart but is natural and understandable).
On the other thread, you mentioned your proposition in 1998 which get no support from then-established designers. That was the moment to prevent the problems but they—unfortunately—weren't aware of the "dialectical swings", as anyone in power rarely is.
But corporations that choke type industry for the last 15 years are now at the end of their "thesis" and they are not aware of the "anti-thesis" they are triggering with their recent insolent actions. That's how power influences people (which is not smart but is natural and understandable)
To try to answer, as I can see ATypI and TDC were made for different eras, and I guess they played their role then. But for the last 15 years, we have had no proper answer, we waited until the point wherr things became pretty ugly which only postponed the new solution (that is inevitable). In other words:
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.
As I see it, that new solution will emerge whether we talk here about it or not. Talking about it is just a trial that we take part in that new solution
Forming groups of 5-10 seems like a good strategy at this stage. For example, 5-10 related foundries might find it useful to establish their joint channel of marketing or common interest depending on their position in the industry. Other members proposed that strategy earlier in this thread, and seems that they were right.
At last but not least, I find this announcement from Font Bros ( @Stuart Sandler ) immensely important at this point. And I believe it's made in the context of this ongoing discourse.
But even if not proven, the problem I see with this framing is that $0-free type options have always been widely available in every type technology I'm aware of; typesetting machinery has always been bundled with type, the cost of which is built into the cost of the machine, and then other typefaces were up sold extras.
Typekit launched with (and adobe fonts continues to have) a $0 tier. If it wasn't them, there has since they launched been Font Squirrel as the $0 tier for FontSpring. If it wasn't them, it would have been someone. Possibly even Monotype, since their edge is scale, so they can afford (and can profit from) a loss-leader strategy.
The first 15 years of the web went without widespread adoption of web fonts nor much clamor for it from type designers, and there remain many articles by latency sensitive web developers today still advocating to avoid web fonts altogether and stick with the $0 "system fonts" of that era that have 0ms latency.
I do believe most font license sellers make a good portion of their annual revenue from the near ubiquitous use of web fonts, and I believe that ubiquitousness was never a foregone conclusion; lots of web technologies fail to stick, and given the first 15 years, where the "web site developer in anytown" seemed entirely satisfied with the lack of typographic choices. I think anyone on this forum would be seriously self-aggrandized to be completely sure that web font ubiquity was indeed foregone conclusion.
Well I certainly don’t, it’s still mostly good old desktop licences.
Do you have statistics to support your belief?
And even if I did subsist mostly on web font royalties, would that make it OK for Google to give away for free what I make my living from? Also, Google fonts have made significant incursions into Desktop usage.
Many type designers rely on commissions, consulting or teaching etc. for their main income—but why should one be penalized for producing original designs of one’s own choice, for the open market?
Anyway, please address the point I was making about Chokepoint Capitalism: Who gets to decide which are the ubiquitous fonts that Google distributes, who controls that? It’s you, isn’t it?
The argument that people have always used free fonts provided by OEMs etc. is no justification for it in the present circumstances.
As for boldfacing Adobe, thank goodness they pay royalties and I am fortunate enough to have them as a distributor. Not every indie foundry does.
The statistic for Wordpress is that 42% of all web sites use that service!
Shinntype does, too.
Have you looked at how Wordpress provides fonts? It recommends Google and Adobe, and makes it much more technically difficult to use indie fonts. That may be convenient, but is it fair? Kind of shuts us out of the main market.
And indeed it is a market, even if most of the products in it are provided free by Google. What Google has done is to create a huge contingent of free-font users, diminishing the market share of designer-owned foundries that derive passive income from licence sales.
For instance, my Bellefair, which you were kind enough to commission, is presently used on a mere 24,000 web sites. If 0.01% of those users paid a typical basic annual web licence fee, that would still be more than the design fee I received. Is that fair?
And for fonts more popular, those used in millions of sites…
(By the way, I’m not resentful, I’ve done OK. The argument is against Chokepoint Capitalism in principle.)