Wow! Tobias Frere-Jones is/was an "employee". He has every bit of my sympathy.
About Hoefler: No doubt This is the Beginning of the End for Jonathan Hoefler. People should not work with him; Type designers that are working there should go, leave.
Hoefler's press release doesn't explain why he put Frere-Jones's name on the business. I think he needs to give a good explanation, soon, if he's going to preserve his high reputation.
Bill, the press release was written by a lawyer, and I'm sure both Jonathan's lawyer and Tobias' will have advised them not to make any statements or discuss the case with anyone. I doubt very much if Jonathan will be making any kind of explanation about anything.
James, your question implies that the security of a paycheck justifies participating in unfair or harmful enterprise. History is full of debunks/retorts to that idea. People in big modern cities have plenty of alternatives, and are capable of acting on their principles, rather than have their choices forced by limited options of survival. I think the old "Money talks, bullshit walks" line of thinking is cynical, condescending, selfish, and in all likelihood at the root of the mess being discussed here in the first place. I'm quite jaded myself, but I'm still hopeful enough to believe that people are much more than their paycheck.
John, lawyers were involved in drafting both Frere-Jones's and Hoefler's statements. Because H & F-J both as a business and as separate individuals can be hurt or helped by reputation, lawyers in public cases—and this is very public—often also play an outside, non-legal game of framing events in a way that presents their clients to the public in a favorable light.
As narratives to affect public opinion, F-J's complaint is much stronger. It presents a clear, dramatic and shocking story. If F-J looks extremely foolish in the story, he also looks mightily taken advantage of. The immediate reaction to it all over the internet, including by me, was shock, sadness, and intense curiosity about what the real, full story is.
By comparison, Hoefler's statement has no-counter narrative, but just a flat denial, and one that alludes to the key question—why H put F-J's name on the business—without addressing it.
On the internet—and these are present and future customers—in reaction to Frere-Jones's complaint I saw everybody reserving judgment. But after Hoefler's press release, I see some now condemning Hoefler—as for example David H., above, and he is not alone. I have no direct knowledge of the facts of the case, and I don't know the law. But as far as the court of public opinion, which affects reputation, I think Hoefler's response is weak, and, rightly or wrongly, risks losing control of the narrative in the public's mind.
I was remembering this Typeradio from Typo Berlin '04 (part 1) - The two talking about "Why form the partnership now?" ~ 5:40. and echos from the complaint about being 'too busy' for things. Just an interesting listen. So sad.
Partnerships, like marriages, turn on very small things, so small that most are invisible to outsiders, even very close ones.
The more I think about them, the more artless I find both the complaint and the press release. Can a dowry be a dowry without a marriage contract? If a dowry changes hands, but there is no marriage, isn't it just a giveaway or, in this case, a sale for a token ten bucks? You ask, who would be so crazy as to sell such valuable material for ten bucks? Maybe the same person who believes himself to be a 50% partner in a business without an executed agreement saying so.
For now, H looks bad and FL appears to be a victim (of both H and himself), but I wonder how long that will last or matter. H can always say, "Of course I put his name up in lights, just after my own. He's brilliant and I was very proud of the work we did together. But that was creative identity, not business. What he said was a fantasy--perfectly believable to outsiders, I know--but it wasn't true. There were other things, too, but I'm not permitted to talk about them and, depending on how things go, I might never be able to." End of discussion, with just enough ambiguity to salvage H's reputation. (No matter how you slice it, FJ will look like a person who couldn't take care of himself--more undependable than H.)
Maybe it will be shown that, ownership stake notwithstanding, FJ drew more income from the operation than did H. Or maybe the assets of the company are about to be sold, as the owners (Mr. and Mrs H) decide it's time to take the money and run before the whole thing is devalued by libre fonts. Or, in still another version, FJ might come out far and away the winner, though not as much a winner as his attorney, who, with the sad face of a beagle, persuades a jury that FJ deserved the whole pot, or at least the part that's not yet in the Cayman Islands.
I have no idea what the facts are, and I find it hasty to pronounce moral judgments at this stage.
Bill, I don't disagree with your analysis re. the two documents and the public impression they have created. But it is exactly because of the way the Hoefler & Co press release was worded that I doubt if we will see any further public explanation from those quarters: it seems clear that the legal policy there is deny everything and explain nothing. Unless that policy changes, I doubt we'll hear much more until either a settlement is reached (in which case we'll probably hear only that a settlement has been reached, but no details; that's par for the course with most settlements) or the case goes to court. I suppose Jonathan could insist on making some kind of statement, even contrary to the advice of his lawyers, if he felt the damage to his reputation warranted such a response. But now we're speculating, which is second only to gossip and not worth the pixels.
John, you seem to be assuming that both lawyers are equally effective. I don't know, but if I had to face F-J's lawyer in court, judging by his looks and bio I'd bring a change of underpants: http://www.hnrklaw.com/our-attorneys/FREDRIC_NEWMAN/
Scott-Martin, by F-J's own account, I sure wouldn't want him negotiating a business deal. But when it comes to delivering great type, judging by the body of his work from Font Bureau and H & F-J, he is fantastically reliable.
you seem to be assuming that both lawyers are equally effective
No, I'm just assuming that both will have advised their clients to make no public statements, for fear that they will say something that will jeopardise the case that the lawyers are trying to make. That's pretty standard.
I feel sorry for the staff of the new Hoefler & Co. It must be a miserable place. And as James M and James P note, type design jobs don't grow on trees.
John, I agree that we are unlikely to hear more. And your scenario of a settlement and no further word is a likely one. However, my point is that Hoefler's initial statement by itself is not enough to restore his reputation, given the accusations in Frere-Jones's complaint.
Scott-Martin, I don't agree that, lacking other explanation, people will generally give Hoefler a pass on the whole thing. Some will, but many won't. If that's all Hoefler has got, I think he's in more trouble than your scenario indicates.
There is a good chance that whatever damage control may be needed to repair a reputation, will wait until after the legal proceedings are finished. We cannot confuse legal-speak for brand polishing. Lawyers and spin-doctors have different jobs.
There is a good chance that whatever damage control may be needed to repair a reputation, will wait until after the legal proceedings are finished.
That seems to be the case. Tobias seems to have caught PR übermensch Jonathan off-guard and grabbed control of the narrative. Unless Hoefler & Co. respond with a point-by-point counter claim Tobias’ story is the only story to be presented.
According to the article, litigation public relations has two purposes. One is to bring the case to an earlier or more favorable conclusion for the client. This purpose it seems to me could be abused to undermine justice, though not necessarily so. The second purpose is " to protect the client’s reputation before and during the trial." And the reason for this is that "Negative publicity about a litigant can cause damage to an individuals reputation that a courtroom win years later may not salvage." This second purpose seems to me pretty benign and important.
And what seems to me is that so far F-J's lawyer is doing a much better job on litigation public relations. How this relates to the underlying facts of the case, I don't know.
Bill, just because something appears in a complaint doesn't mean that it's true. That's what the court does: determine the validity and value of claims. Much will depend on the evidence and testimony, and the effectiveness of the attorneys.
Just because FJ's complaint is long and specific and H's brief statement is the opposite, doesn't confer factuality on the longer one. (It's a sad story, for sure.) FJ's case, as presented so far, makes no reference to documentary evidence. It's hard to tell from it whether the quotations are from verbal or written sources. (I tend to think they are verbal.) As such, the complaint doesn't look so strong. Furthermore, it cites no statutes that have been violated, depending instead on moral rights.
Here's what we know: From 1999 to 2014, a working relationship existed between H and FJ that was never expressed in a legally binding agreement. In 2004, FJ signed a Sale and Assignment agreement for some fonts he had developed earlier, independent of H. That's it--the only parts that resemble facts.
Presumably, FJ was not fifteen years a slave, working without pay. Why did he sign the 2004 agreement if there was no 50-50 partnership agreement--five years after it was supposed to have come into existence? Why did it take a decade after that to reach the level of a complaint filing?
It seems more than a bit strange. The more I think about it the flimsier it appears.
Scott-Martin, you don't mention what to me is a crucial fact: that H. put F-J's name on the company. Nobody has pointed to another company with an employee on the nameplate, and by doing this it indicates to the public a presumptive co-ownership. I certainly assumed that, and I would bet that almost everyone else has. If F-J's name were not on the company, I would take the plausibility of the complaint quite differently.
I should probably say that I've always been a huge fan of Frere-Jones's type, but of Hoefler's not so much, though he is a great craftsman. That no doubt also colors my view of this. I also certainly hope that Frere-Jones can continue to be productive, and is happy in his new ventures.
On a frivolous note, I'd add to Si's excellent casting Tommy Lee Jones as F-J's attorney.
Comments
Oh, also - Go Niners.
About Hoefler:
No doubt This is the Beginning of the End for Jonathan Hoefler. People should not work with him; Type designers that are working there should go, leave.
The lawyers.
And well, the Packers are out, so go Patriots!
As narratives to affect public opinion, F-J's complaint is much stronger. It presents a clear, dramatic and shocking story. If F-J looks extremely foolish in the story, he also looks mightily taken advantage of. The immediate reaction to it all over the internet, including by me, was shock, sadness, and intense curiosity about what the real, full story is.
By comparison, Hoefler's statement has no-counter narrative, but just a flat denial, and one that alludes to the key question—why H put F-J's name on the business—without addressing it.
On the internet—and these are present and future customers—in reaction to Frere-Jones's complaint I saw everybody reserving judgment. But after Hoefler's press release, I see some now condemning Hoefler—as for example David H., above, and he is not alone. I have no direct knowledge of the facts of the case, and I don't know the law. But as far as the court of public opinion, which affects reputation, I think Hoefler's response is weak, and, rightly or wrongly, risks losing control of the narrative in the public's mind.
Q: > Are you hiring?
A: "A good name is better than precious oil..."
Ecclesiastes 7, 1 (Koheleth, קֹהֶלֶת )
typeradio.org/#/find/Hoefler Frere-Jones
The more I think about them, the more artless I find both the complaint and the press release. Can a dowry be a dowry without a marriage contract? If a dowry changes hands, but there is no marriage, isn't it just a giveaway or, in this case, a sale for a token ten bucks? You ask, who would be so crazy as to sell such valuable material for ten bucks? Maybe the same person who believes himself to be a 50% partner in a business without an executed agreement saying so.
For now, H looks bad and FL appears to be a victim (of both H and himself), but I wonder how long that will last or matter. H can always say, "Of course I put his name up in lights, just after my own. He's brilliant and I was very proud of the work we did together. But that was creative identity, not business. What he said was a fantasy--perfectly believable to outsiders, I know--but it wasn't true. There were other things, too, but I'm not permitted to talk about them and, depending on how things go, I might never be able to." End of discussion, with just enough ambiguity to salvage H's reputation. (No matter how you slice it, FJ will look like a person who couldn't take care of himself--more undependable than H.)
Maybe it will be shown that, ownership stake notwithstanding, FJ drew more income from the operation than did H. Or maybe the assets of the company are about to be sold, as the owners (Mr. and Mrs H) decide it's time to take the money and run before the whole thing is devalued by libre fonts. Or, in still another version, FJ might come out far and away the winner, though not as much a winner as his attorney, who, with the sad face of a beagle, persuades a jury that FJ deserved the whole pot, or at least the part that's not yet in the Cayman Islands.
I have no idea what the facts are, and I find it hasty to pronounce moral judgments at this stage.
Maybe I should just shut up and call HBO.
Scott-Martin, by F-J's own account, I sure wouldn't want him negotiating a business deal. But when it comes to delivering great type, judging by the body of his work from Font Bureau and H & F-J, he is fantastically reliable.
B? Seth Rogan and Ashton Krutcher will never go for it.
Scott-Martin, I don't agree that, lacking other explanation, people will generally give Hoefler a pass on the whole thing. Some will, but many won't. If that's all Hoefler has got, I think he's in more trouble than your scenario indicates.
Chris, since 1980 that traditional view has changed, according to this wikipedia article on 'litigation public relations': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_public_relations
According to the article, litigation public relations has two purposes. One is to bring the case to an earlier or more favorable conclusion for the client. This purpose it seems to me could be abused to undermine justice, though not necessarily so. The second purpose is " to protect the client’s reputation before and during the trial." And the reason for this is that "Negative publicity about a litigant can cause damage to an individuals reputation that a courtroom win years later may not salvage." This second purpose seems to me pretty benign and important.
And what seems to me is that so far F-J's lawyer is doing a much better job on litigation public relations. How this relates to the underlying facts of the case, I don't know.
I would cast Justin Long and John Hodgman as the leads, but that's just me.
Do not take it too-too literally.
--------------
I wish Tobias Frere-Jones THE BEST with this case and his new foundry.
This is my last word on the subject. Thank you.
Just because FJ's complaint is long and specific and H's brief statement is the opposite, doesn't confer factuality on the longer one. (It's a sad story, for sure.) FJ's case, as presented so far, makes no reference to documentary evidence. It's hard to tell from it whether the quotations are from verbal or written sources. (I tend to think they are verbal.) As such, the complaint doesn't look so strong. Furthermore, it cites no statutes that have been violated, depending instead on moral rights.
Here's what we know: From 1999 to 2014, a working relationship existed between H and FJ that was never expressed in a legally binding agreement. In 2004, FJ signed a Sale and Assignment agreement for some fonts he had developed earlier, independent of H. That's it--the only parts that resemble facts.
Presumably, FJ was not fifteen years a slave, working without pay. Why did he sign the 2004 agreement if there was no 50-50 partnership agreement--five years after it was supposed to have come into existence? Why did it take a decade after that to reach the level of a complaint filing?
It seems more than a bit strange. The more I think about it the flimsier it appears.
I should probably say that I've always been a huge fan of Frere-Jones's type, but of Hoefler's not so much, though he is a great craftsman. That no doubt also colors my view of this. I also certainly hope that Frere-Jones can continue to be productive, and is happy in his new ventures.
On a frivolous note, I'd add to Si's excellent casting Tommy Lee Jones as F-J's attorney.