I know there really are people who like a prefix but I will always think that a la carte is better. 400 CHF for a 10 CPU license of 8 styles (one family chosen at random) is a great deal if you really are going to use the fonts broadly... but if you only need a few CPUs and you don't need web or app it's a terrible entry level price. It's a question of valuing simplicity to the exclusion of flexibility - which is a reasonable choice I suppose. I will always prefer a balance. Our licensing is simple by the standards of a license that doesn't try to cover everything and the entry level is 45 USD.
B.6. You may not modify the design of the characters contained in the font software, even if converted to outlines with the help of an editing or design software.
Does that mean that in using a font in an Illustrator composition I wouldn't be licensed to, say, add a texture or trace the edges to make it fractionally bolder?
They're probably trying to avoid a situation where some amateur makes a change to one of their fonts in illustrator, thinking it's an improvement, but in fact just butchering the typeface, and making Swiss Typefaces look bad in the process. I agree that this seems quite restrictive, though.
B.6. You may not modify the design of the characters contained in the font software, even if converted to outlines with the help of an editing or design software.
No, that is not a typical font license clause. Quite unusual.
I am sympathetic to the motivations, but it seems awfully restrictive.
B.6. You may not modify the design of the characters contained in the font software, even if converted to outlines with the help of an editing or design software.
Does that mean that in using a font in an Illustrator composition I wouldn't be licensed to, say, add a texture or trace the edges to make it fractionally bolder?
They're probably trying to avoid a situation where some amateur makes a change to one of their fonts in illustrator, thinking it's an improvement, but in fact just butchering the typeface, and making Swiss Typefaces look bad in the process. I agree that this seems quite restrictive, though.
Possibly. But frequently people use typefaces to design logotypes, so this would ask not to do so? And if someone does it nonetheless? Typefaces, especially the more graphic or decorative ones, have always been used in this vein. It doesn’t make much sense.
@Claudio Piccinini if the intent is to prevent logo use it makes much more sense to have a logo clause. I personally think logo clauses are self defeating but at least they are a thing some customers know to look for.
The point of this clause is likely to require that they get custom work for any aestetic changes to the font. I get the impulse but think it's impractical and likely to alienate customers if they try to enforce it.
@Claudio Piccinini if the intent is to prevent logo use it makes much more sense to have a logo clause. I personally think logo clauses are self defeating but at least they are a thing some customers know to look for.
The point of this clause is likely to require that they get custom work for any aestetic changes to the font. I get the impulse but think it's impractical and likely to alienate customers if they try to enforce it.
Thanks for the insightful reply. Yes. by re-reading the clause I believe you’re spot on – but in this case it would have been a lot better to make the limitation explicit, i.e. recommend not to alter/customize the letterforms and/or regenerate the files (a thing which I seem to get is implied in most EULAs).
@Claudio Piccinini I agree... this is a clash of worldviews. I really believe that we can own the font (software) but not the typeface (letterforms). From my worldview flows the idea that if someone alters the letterforms in InDesign they haven't injured me but that if they alter the software they have. If you think a foundry owns the typeface (as some European law would actually assert) then it makes sense to say it the way they did.
From my worldview flows the idea that if someone alters the letterforms in InDesign they haven't injured me but that if they alter the software they have. If you think a foundry owns the typeface (as some European law would actually assert) then it makes sense to say it the way they did.
Yes, that is so. And it’s not subjective. Clearly the design belongs to the realm of intellectual property. It might not be so intuitive to consider the software in this vein as well (well, for the "informatics layman", which in the end is a position widely present). The alteration of letter forms to design logotypes and lettering would not be preventable, anyway. Law, in its essence does not work by constriction.
Comments
Does that mean that in using a font in an Illustrator composition I wouldn't be licensed to, say, add a texture or trace the edges to make it fractionally bolder?
I am sympathetic to the motivations, but it seems awfully restrictive.
And if someone does it nonetheless? Typefaces, especially the more graphic or decorative ones, have always been used in this vein.
It doesn’t make much sense.
The point of this clause is likely to require that they get custom work for any aestetic changes to the font. I get the impulse but think it's impractical and likely to alienate customers if they try to enforce it.
The alteration of letter forms to design logotypes and lettering would not be preventable, anyway. Law, in its essence does not work by constriction.