Trademark question re: crediting typeface names

marnie's picture

Hi, I'm hoping someone can advise me on this one small question.

In our books, we usually list the typeface(s), and sometimes the designer, such as:

Type set in Typeface
or
Typeface: Typeface by Designer
or
Typeface: Foundry Typeface

This info typically goes in the colophon, or sometimes on the copyright page. Recently, I found this little tidbit in one foundry's EULA:

The names of these typefaces are registered trademarks of [Foundry], and as such may only be used in keeping with accepted trademark practice, including identification of the trademark owner's name and only in conjunction with output produced using this font software.

What is "accepted trademark practice"? (I looked through the Typowiki and didn't find anything.) It seems extreme to do something like:

Typeface: TypefaceTM by Designer
Typeface is a registered trademark of Foundry

How would you handle this? Any advice?

Miss Tiffany's picture

Marnie, you prove my point about end users either caring or not caring. Thanks for that. -- Each foundry probably has what they consider to the the way to identify their typefaces. Does the foundry have any samples? I just googled this, as I'll bet you did first anyway, and it seems several foundries use the same phrase. I'd probably lean toward the second option. I am sure that the foundry will simply appreciate the effort made.

hrant's picture

So one person is Proof... Which means of course that everybody loves Lapsang Souchong, right?

Marnie, unless you have a really unobtrusive place to dump all that trademark stuff, I would simply ignore that clause. After all, any font house is more than happy to see any credit at all; they wouldn't come around and harass you for a technicality, souring a positive precedent with you. And if they do, you come and tell us, and we'll make sure they regret it.

hhp

dan_reynolds's picture

The foundry's website, or MyFonts.com, are good places to start.

Under "Helvetica"

Linotype.com
http://www.linotype.com/13446/helveticaroman-font.html
Helvetica is a Trademark of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, which may be registered in certain jurisdictions, exclusively licensed through Linotype Library GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG.

MyFonts.com
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/helvetica/ (bottom of page)
‘Helvetica’ is a trademark of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, which may be registered in certain jurisdictions, exclusively licensed through Linotype Library GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG.

Many books that reference trademarks list all of the trademarks together at the end of the book somewhere (or maybe at the biginning, on the copyright page). Almost any computer manual or type specimen usually does this, too. Take a look at one of those for guidance…

__
www.typeoff.de

marnie's picture

I guess the question is, do I find out what “accepted trademark practice” means... or just go with the flow?

Here are some credits in books I pulled off my shelf:

- "Set in 12-point Minion by the Perseus Books Group"

- "Text set in Electra"

- "The text of this book is composed in Bauer Bodoni and Helvetica Condensed Light with display in Helvetica Condensed Bold."

- "The text face is Alisal, designed by Matthew Carter from Carter & Cone. The headlines and labeling are set in various weights of Faceplate, designed by Rodrigo Xavier Cavazos from Psy/Ops."

- "Typest [sic] in 10/12pt Palatino by Intype, London"

- "Composed in Scala and Scala Sans, typefaces designed my Martin Majoor in 1994."

Based on these samples I gather that no publisher is putting a little TM or (R) after names of typefaces. The last one is from the Chicago Manual of Style and I tend to defer to them. (Although... the FontFont site does use the (R) registered trademark symbol after Scala, I can't read their EULA without buying anything, so I don't know whether or not it includes any language like the quote in my original post.)

dan_reynolds's picture

- “Text set in Electra”

What I have traditional done is (and this is by no means the norm):

The text in this book is set in Electra and Scala Sans. Electra is a transitional style face designed by the American graphic designer W.A. Dwiggins for Mergenthaler Linotype in 1935. The digital version of this face is available from Linotype Library. Scala Sans is a Dutch humanist sans serif face designed by Martin Majoor of the Netherlands in 1994. The digital font is distributed by FontShop.
__
www.typeoff.de

dan_reynolds's picture

I think that the real question here is a redactionary one. Almost every book mentions trademarks these days (i.e., Coca-Cola, MS-Windows, etc.), and 99% of the time, these are not properly attributed. Ideally, when the text is edited, the copy-editor who flag-down and research every mentioned trademark. Then the very last page of the book could have all of the trademarks listed together in full legalese is six-point condensed light type, or something ridiculous. At least then they are in there, and you have yourself covered, should anything come up (which it wouldn't).

It is mis-uses of big-company trademarks that I would worry about more (i.e., the Coca-Colas and the Microsofts, etc.). Typefaces are trademarked so that others do not make fonts that us the same name (or something deceptively similar). Designing a new font & selling it under the name Ef Ef Metaa ist just asking for trouble.

__
www.typeoff.de

marnie's picture

The text in this book is set in Electra and Scala Sans. Electra is a transitional style face designed by the American graphic designer W.A. Dwiggins for Mergenthaler Linotype in 1935. The digital version of this face is available from Linotype Library. Scala Sans is a Dutch humanist sans serif face designed by Martin Majoor of the Netherlands in 1994. The digital font is distributed by FontShop.

I wish I had that much room! :)

Two software books I looked at basically said "there are words in this book that are trademarks." One said "there are words in this book that are trademarks, and we capitalized them." Essentially. That's it. The book I'm working on now refers to many trademarked names, including products from big companies like Xerox, Kodak, Adobe. We did double-check all the names to make sure they were all spelled, capitalized, and punctuated correctly, but there isn't any sort of "legalese" section that says "iGen3 is a registered trademark of Xerox" etc.

hrant's picture

I think I've just come up with a good rule of thumb: Announce the trademark only if you're going to say something bad about the product.

hhp

jupiterboy's picture

That's funny Hrant.

I would say this is an editorial issue to start with. Hopefully there is an established style and text provided and the designer isn't trying to work out permissions issues.

If I was brought in early enough on a project to address this I would suggest that the editor contact the trademark holder and get them to provide the text as they prefer.

I recently overheard someone express the idea that it was pretentious to talk about the pedigree of the type.

Personally I like to figure out what was used and why, but I also don't mind being spoon fed either.

Thomas Phinney's picture

Despite his implications to the contrary, I don't think Hrant is speaking for all users of this board when he suggests that you should violate a license, and that everyone will rally round you if the foundry attempts to give you a hard time for violating the license terms you (or your company, anyway) agreed to. Even if the terms are really dumb.

If you don't like the license terms, use a typeface from somebody else.

That being said, it's great that you want to credit typefaces, designers and even foundries.

Cheers,

T

hrant's picture

> I don’t think Hrant is speaking for all users of this board

Anybody who ever thinks that has to be completely bonkers. What I did imply is that enough people here are willing and able to help you confront preposterous demands by font houses that such font houses will end up regretting the public relations fallout. For example, why did Adobe back off persecuting that Russian programmer? Because it ended up becoming bad for its image. We can use the typical corporate obsession of preserving a good image (like can you believe those new McDonalds commercials?!) against them with good effect.

hhp

marcox's picture

I'm no lawyer, but here are my two cents:

Don't be so cowed by corporations and their marketing preferences that you cede your First Amendment rights*. Spell the names right, avoid libelous or defamatory remarks, and you'll be fine. You're under no obligation to include a TM, or R, or to set the company/product name in ALL CAPS, or InterCaps, or whatever other ridiculous mannerisms a company's marketers affect.

In other words, set the type credits the way you want to. Give them as little or as much space as you deem appropriate, or omit them altogether. You're the publisher.

*Assuming you're a U.S. citizen/publisher.

oldnick's picture

I would have to agree with marcox: as far as I know, colophons are a courtesy, not a legal requirement. What I believe the EULA referenced does not say is that you are obliged to acknowledge every instance of the typeface's use. What it does say is, if you choose to credit use of this typeface, please spell our name correctly and completely (including any trademark designations affixed thereunto), and make sure you actually used the typeface you said you used.

hrant: Anybody who ever thinks that has to be completely bonkers.

Sigh...H-man, when are you gonna learn: punctuating your arguments with insults doesn't make them more persuasive arguments; if anything, it makes them less persuasive, because you seem compelled to add a spurious ad hominem element to them.

And it might also be productive for you to stop for a moment to consider the possible consequences of your continuing campaign against EULAs. As things currently stand, although a EULA is a legally binding contract, virtually all foundries treat them as gentlemen's agreements. The rest of the world is not so understanding. Assume for a moment that you wanted to purchase an automobile on time, as most folks do. You go to the dealership, select an auto to your liking, and are handed a purchase contract. If, at this point, you were to say, "I do not accept this contract because it exploits the working man," do you think for an instant that you would drive out of that lot in that car? Even if you were to keep silent and sign the contract, with the intent of ignoring it once you got what you wanted, it wouldn't take long for the repo man to show up and reclaim the car.

Thankfully, font foundries do not employ such measures against people who fail to live up to their end of the contract...but what if they did? Consider for a moment this scenario which, unless I have a gift for clairvoyance of which I was hitherto unaware, is purely hypothetical:

A major distributor of fonts who is also a major player in professional imaging decides that your attitude toward EULAs is actually the one which prevails in the marketplace. In response to this scofflaw attitude, a new font format (for argument's sake, let's call it OpenType 2) and a new imaging protocol (let's call it Postscript 4) are developed which require the purchaser to register a font online before it can be installed, much like the registration systems now employed by other software manufacturers. In order to install the font, you must accept the EULA; if you attempt to install the font on more machines than the number for shich you have purchased a license, you will be unable to. To round out the picture, let's say that our hypothetical Postscript 4 will only accept this new font format and will only allow you to image the fonts which have been registered in this manner. And every time you upgrade computers, you will have to go through a process of unregistering and verifying delection all of the fonts on your old computer, and installing and reregistering them on your new box.

Probable? Likely? Even possible? It doesn't matter. If the major players became convinced that their economic interests are being threatened, they will take measures to protect themselves. Well, think again. Let's keep the agreements gentlemanly...and while, we're at it, let's keep the debate here gentlemanly, as well.

Syndicate content Syndicate content