what is the idea behind modification/customization of existing fonts?
[let’s say I’m the client and I really love Minion — so what the type designer is going to do? “copy” the font? change the strokes? create a new Minion?.......]
Without getting too deep in history, many corporations and countless high-end publishers of books and periodicals had one or several type families customized for their particular use.
It’s the difference between “off-the-rack” fashions and tailor-fit clothing. Generally, “out-of-the-box” solutions need a certain amount of tweaking in order to be really good. By customizing widths, kerning pairs, character shapes, you cut down on the need to tweak and produce quality typesetting with uniformity and consistency.
The purpose is not to create a new variation of the typeface. It’s to improve the output.
———————————————————
Yes, I’m old, but I’m back in style!
I often have to modify a font a bit if I am going to use it for letterpress or if for normal print, to provide for different weighting.
Minion was available as a MM font once upon a time and multiple masters did anticipate user interaction in regard to manipulating a font.
I realize that a lot of type foundryes these days indicate in their terms of contract that you are not to modify a font but hey, I paid for Fontographer and FontLab and the right to use the PostScript or TrueType or OpenType formats just like they did.
You don’t have to go too far back in type technologies to realize that all type design is tied to format or delivery device. And the owner of that has the real say about it all. Prior to 1986 you literally had to “submit” a design to ITC if you wanted your typeface out there (no other options).
Reselling or redistibution of a font is a no no clearly but modification, nonsense. Hell I can modify a font by adjusting the software in my printer.
Don’t you all think modification for design ownability is a little bit of a cop-out? I mean they might as well get new designs. For instance, I respect MSLO (Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia) for their continued use of Hoefler & Frere-Jones. On the other hand, I’m not so sure I understand why UPS did what they did.
On one side, the designer of typefaces.
On the other side, the “expert” user of typefaces, sometimes referred to as typographer and/or type director.
I’ve sat (or sometimes stood in pubs) between typographer and designer as they argued the point. For my part I am closer to being a typographer and have never drawn a single character that was ever released.
The “expert” user is never content to leave alone what irritates them visually. And the type designer simply can’t please everyone.
It’s just one of those relationships that you may not like, but I feel it keeps the art alive.
Other than that, it simply isn’t practical or downright impossible to go back to the original designer for modifications. Once a typeface has moved through one, two or several re-cuts over years or even centuries, the “original” designer’s intent may have been lost completely. That’s why I used to examine earlier specimens of third-iteration typefaces, not to nit-pick but to try and understand the original intent of the designer.
For some people it’s a sin to leave well enough alone.
Hmmm... I think this sauce needs a little more basil. How could that chef miss something so obvious as that?
—————————————————-
Yes, I’m old, but I pick nits too!
Hrant is not quite right. Anyone customizing a digital outline absolutely has an obligation to abide by the license issued by the owner of that digital outline. EULAs differ from one foundry to the next, but most include some express policy regarding what may or may not be done to create “derivative works” from font data.
On a personal note, I agree with Tiffany that modification is indeed a cop-out. The client who wants Helvetica, but “an ownable Helvetica” that’s “unique to our brand” should be dissuaded, since the result inevitably looks like Helvetica wearing a funny nose.
Hrant, I have a problem with this. I recall you posting this opinion here before, that it is okay to ignore an author/creator’s copyright if the author/creator is unreasonable.
My problem is that “unreasonable” is too relative. Just because you, or anyone else deems a person “unreasonable,” that doesn’t automatically make them so. There are many computer users who think that all protection for fonts are unreasonable. Who is to sit judgement of the question of what is reasonable for all cases, and what is not?
There may be designers who find your protection clauses unreasonable. How would you feel if Patria got out, and innumeral derivations of its design, some under other names attributed to other designers, began to circulate? I doubt that you would find it reasonable when others made cash from your efforts.
That is the problem with terms like “reasonable” or “mental”.
Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be dialog within (and outside of) the community about what EULA terms should be. But to say that EULAs which are “unreasonable” may be ignored will lead to big problems.
If users find an EULA unreasonable, they should license type from someone else. Our field is not without competition, or change due to market circumstances. Those with unpopular EULAs will eventually get the message if their licensing numbers drop off drastically.
> Anyone customizing a digital outline absolutely has an obligation
> to abide by the license issued by the owner of that digital outline.
And everyone driving a car is supposed to not exceed the speed limit even by one mile-per-hour. But the cops will never give you a ticket for that, and a court will throw out such a case. So the reality remains that it is unreasonable to expect full de facto adherence to the letter of the law. It’s all psychology, not a box.
Clearly, there is a difference between the letter -or even the spirit- of the law, and how humans are really expected to behave. This discrepancy is natural considering that the law is designed to protect those [already] in power. Please, no hogwash about the law being intended to serve the People.
Human beings are not modules in a computer program.
> “unreasonable” is too relative.
Hey, Life is “too” relative. We have to live with that, quite literally! Every moment of every day we make entirely subjective and personal decisions. This is just another one of them, no matter how much the lawdogs try to intimidate us.
> How would you feel if Patria got out, and innumeral derivations of its design,
> some under other names attributed to other designers, began to circulate?
I have never advocated redistributing fonts, modified or otherwise. That is beyond reasonability; internal modification is not. The attempt at preventing internal modification is a scare tactic that can only backfire on the font house itself, because the main thing it does is place an unreasonable demand on the user, leading to a near-automatic violation of the clause, creating a precedent of de jure “misbehavior” in the user, in turn making him more comfortable carrying out further (less justifiable) violations. It’s bad for everybody, no matter how attractive draconian modernism is (to some people).
> Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t.
Nope, I’m shades of gray, not black or white. You do what you think is right, I do what I think is right. I’m sorry if that’s Bad For Business.
I don’t think anyone objects to what you’re calling “internal modification,” but I don’t think this is what’s being discussed here. Certainly anyone who buys a font to use on a book cover or a CD is welcome to have at the font with hammer and tongs; I’ve certainly seen my fonts adapted in any number of ways, some of them OK, some of them brilliant, and some of them not so brilliant. That’s the bell curve for you.
The issue is “redistribution,” as you put it. The clients who call us beginning with “we love Minion, but...” — as described in the first post in this thread — are the ones who want to populate a large design system with “customized” fonts. In my experience, these include everything from fonts with a few serifs snipped off, to fonts whose only change is the font name and the copyright legend. This is not OK, and it’s not a question of relativism or personal morals: it is against the law.
In the seventeen years I’ve worked in this industry, it has been my consistent experience that organizations understand this without the need for legal intervention. Anyone interested in customizing their typography is serious about branding, and anyone serious about branding has legal counsel familiar with intellectual property law.
The concomitant stipulation is that any modified font can only be installed on a device which is licensed for the original. So the client commissioning the modification pays for licensing the original font, and the modification fee. This is reasonable, because the modification fee is paying for their exclusive custom version of the font.
I’ve had this kind of work done on my fonts, and I’ve done it on fonts designed by others: for instance, for newspapers, headline or agate versions of “standard” fonts. My client could have contacted the original foundry, but was confident in my ability to do the work adequately, on time, and reasonably priced. No doubt the original foundry could have done it just as well, or better, but for my client they are an unknown quantity.
However, I would never mess with the beziers of a font from Font Bureau, or any other foundry that prohibits it in their EULA. They are not being unreasonable, merely setting the terms of a contract which potential users can take or leave, and other font workers are legally bound to observe, no matter what they think of it. It’s not just a question of obeying the law, but of mutual respect amongst designers.
There is a difference between civil disobedience such as speeding (citizen vs. state) and disrespecting the Bureau (citizen vs. citizen), which is a small design firm, not exactly what you’d call “those in power”, Hrant.
And everyone driving a car is supposed to not exceed the speed limit even by one mile-per-hour. But the cops will never give you a ticket for that, and a court will throw out such a case. So the reality remains that it is unreasonable to expect full de facto adherence to the letter of the law.
Hrant,
I got pulled over for going less 2 mph over the limit. I only got a warning, but he seemed close to giving me a real ticket.
Laws (especially regarding traffic) are made... to be broken. The speed limit is 40 because they know people will be driving 45. There is a certain buffer around many American laws with acceptable overages and underages.
However, with contracts and EULA type things there are specific borders that you have to adhere to. They are generally very direct in stating your rights and limitations, and there isn’t room for personal interoperation.
Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be dialog within (and outside of) the community about what EULA terms should be. But to say that EULAs which are “unreasonable” may be ignored will lead to big problems.
What about fonts with really rotten kerning tables, like the early Monotypes? Or those that refer to the standard Symbol-font for currency etcetera?
Modifying those should be considered a work of mercy...
> I don’t think anyone objects to what you’re calling “internal modification,”
I guess you haven’t been looking at EULAs lately. I was guilty of the same some years ago; but I’m not into EULAs. On the other hand, as Tiffany might tell you, there has been a return to more reasonability lately, probably partly because of the bursts of public outrage such as this. But there are still too many font houses that have that clause.
> it’s not a question of relativism or personal morals: it is against the law.
That is not enough.
> Anyone interested in customizing their typography is serious
> about branding, and anyone serious about branding has legal
> counsel familiar with intellectual property law.
What is “serious”? If it’s the ability to make money, I don’t think your argument holds water, since companies richer than the ones you would consider “serious” do that all the time. And if it’s not about money, then is it about typographic integrity? That’s also problematic, because of the cultural deficiencies in the concept of intellectual property, especially in something as inherently derivative as type.
> mutual respect amongst designers.
That doesn’t work either, obviously. Not least because some font houses -who do prohibit any modification- deservedly don’t get any respect from other designers.
The only thing that ever works is Reasonability. And that clause isn’t. Which is why it does more harm than good.
> not exactly what you’d call “those in power”
In the context of the type world, of course there are some entities which have more power than others, for various reasons. If you had sat in Lawrence’s EULA meeting at TC2004, you would have recognized them by the hissy fits they were throwing. You of all people should see that.
> he seemed close to giving me a real ticket.
That’s what he’s trained to make you think. Where do you think all the money goes - donuts?
> The speed limit is 40 because they know people will be driving 45.
Exactly! And EULAs have the no-mod clause to scare a small segment of users into following it; these are equivalent to the few people on the road who do always drive under the speed limit. And it’s notable that these people are usually too old or they’re illegal aliens.
> with contracts and EULA type things there are specific borders that you have to adhere to.
Yes, and this absolutism is what makes it not work. Traffic laws are pragmatically constructed (even though they’re made to control peons). But such a clause is a EULA is either broken or not; and when -not if- it is broken, you’ve broken your best chance at getting cooperation from the user. We need our users more than they need us; let’s not push them to piracy.
> there isn’t room for personal interoperation.
But humans personal-interpret everything, all of the time!
They are not cogs.
You are the one excusing piracy, with your “I hit her because she’s ugly” logic. Manufactured provocation is a self-serving excuse for illegal or bad behavior.
***
I can think of at least two perfectly reasonable arguments for a no-mod clause:
1) To nip in the bud the process of companies doctoring a font, renaming it, and skipping multi-user license fees.
2) Because a foundry doesn’t want to see visually corrupted versions of their fonts in the media, degrading their reputation.
Having said that, I don’t believe that foundries are obligated to explain why they make their EULAs the way they are, in order to justify users not breaking the agreement.
If users find a particular foundry’s licence agreement onerous, they should get their fonts from a different foundry.
The solution is a purchaser better informed about the options in the marketplace, not a piracy exemption for ignorance, as you are suggesting.
Nope. Redistribution is piracy, and I keep having to repeat that I don’t condone it. Internal modification is reasonable human behavior, not piracy. Don’t use “pirate” the way The White House uses “terrorist” - everybody will think you’re an idiot.
> To nip in the bud the process of companies doctoring a
> font, renaming it, and skipping multi-user license fees.
Which of course it doesn’t do very well at all. All it does is make people feel OK about doing really bad things. “Hey, since I broke this Absolute EULA anyway by modifying this font, maybe I should just ignore it outright?” And think of what a person would do if you went after him for internal modification... He’d make it a point to harm your business, and then he really could!
Admittedly, legal formalisms do hold some sway in some corporate circles. So the rich play their little games with their lawyer armies, while the people get trampled. Wow, what a surprise. Hypocritical money grubbers.
> Because a foundry doesn’t want to see visually corrupted versions of their fonts
Tough. It’s a reasonable part of culture.
> I don’t believe that foundries are obligated to explain
Who gives a crap what they’re “obligated” to do or not. I keep talking about Reasonable Human Behavior, all you guys are worried about is the Formal Party Line.
> The solution is a purchaser better informed ....
No, the solution is a font house better informed about:
2) human psychology.
2) The limits on hubris.
There is one case where trying to prevent internal modification might be excused: if the font is free. Like in the case of the MS core fonts. On the other hand, because of the big picture (always at play), it’s quite hard to feel sorry for MS for having to incur a few more support calls...
How clever you must think you are, to draw the specious distinction between a clumsy inference and a plain insult.
Software piracy is the unauthorized use of intellectual property. If a EULA specifies that modification of fonts is not allowed, contravening it is piracy. Why is that so hard to understand?
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the way the font business works.
It’s organized around licence agreements, which are a form of legal contract. Not a perfect system, but it’s what we have.
The person, or company, who writes a licence agreement can put any conditions they like in it. For instance, they could decide that licensees only be allowed to use the font if they’re wearing a paper hat. You might think that’s unreasonable, but if those are the terms of the agreement, and you don’t agree, you should licence your fonts from a different foundry.
Hrant, Gerald, you seem to believe that users should be free to disregard whatever terms of a contract they consider unreasonable. That’s a slippery slope. The system is un-policed as it is (which does little to discourage abuse) so behavior is determined by social contract. Yes, people cheat, but at least let’s try and keep up appearances and not legitimize it, otherwise minority vices become mass habits.
I agree with you that being allowed to modify the fonts which one has licensed is a good idea, which is why I permit it in my EULA, as do many other foundries. However, there are those who don’t, and that’s their prerogative.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the way human nature works.
> That’s a slippery slope.
Hey, Life is a slippery slope.
If you try to control it too much, it backfires.
> let’s try and keep up appearances
I guess I’m not good at being fake.
> that’s their prerogative.
Yes, and in the same way, it’s every individual’s prerogative to ignore unreasonable demands (especially when they’re presented so arrogantly). It’s really that simple, and no amount of legalistic posturing is going to fool everybody into giving you what you want. And you know that.
Sorry, Hrant, I have to agree with the other Nick.
Rules, laws, conventions...whatever you want to call them...make civilized life possible. To claim immunity or special exception, for whatever self-important reason, is to forfeit the protections that civilized life affords. I don’t know that happened while you were growing up, but I was told (repeatedly) that “everyone does it” isn’t an excuse, either.
Do I obey speed-limit laws scrupulously? No: I am fairly confident that I can “get away” with doing 5 mph over the limit (especially when most of the people around me are doing 15 or more mph over) but...if I get “caught” and cited for speeding, I will take my lumps, no argument and no excuses (especially “everyone does it”). Does that make me a dope, or a sucker? Probably, but at least I can retain some modicum of self-respect.
> Rules, laws, conventions…whatever you want to call them…make civilized life possible.
While I think reasonable human behavior makes civilized life possible. Formal laws are an aspect of that, but so are things like compassion, sincerity, candor, etc. that I’m sure you were told were Good Things while you were growing up too. So it’s a balance, and a pragmatic, nebulous, human balance. The over-reliance on formal law benefits those in power; it is designed to keep us peons. And this overt formalism is perhaps the single greatest flaw of western culture. It is inhuman. And pretending that we expect people to follow an unreasonable clause in a EULA is counter to how I was personally brought up. And if you ignore that society is made up of individuals with different desires/needs, you trade in Culture for Capital.
Hrant, you’ve got your humanity schtick backwards.
Most foundries are small businesses owned by fontmakers, not shareholders, and they have different views on things like how to word a EULA.
Don’t treat them all like impersonal manifestations of Big Bad Capital.
That’s a very convenient attitude for people who want to cynically take advantage of moral relativism by pirating whatever they feel like. Don’t fall into that trap, it’s bad for your karma.
While I’m not a professional type designer, this debate to me seems to be very similar to the war that is currently being waged in the music industry.
Metallica stood up and decided that Napster and other file sharing programs were illegal and stole profits from the artist and the music industry. What this did was ruin a huge potential (and might I add “free” marketing tool) to be utilized by both artists and record companies. Many of us who downloaded songs for free had the full intention of making actual music purchases. Song downloads could have been seen as “samples.”
When Metallica “banned” myself and many others from Napster, (their songs I downloaded to see whether I was going to purchase their back catalogue of albums) I vowed never to purchase ANYTHING by Metallica as long as I live, and I still haven’t.
Artists that are on major labels are getting raped by record companies because they’re stealing money from artists that they attribute to loss by illegal downloading. Consumers on the other hand (now I believe more than ever) pirate music as a backlash against record companies for putting out crap music and/or charging too much for it. Record companies are still losing money...
Coming from “let’s keep up appearances”, yeah, right. Who is being more convenient? We both make and sell fonts. And you probably use fonts more than me; I really don’t use fonts very much, so you can keep your “piracy”/”terrorist” propaganda to yourself. You’re siding 100% with the font house position, I’m trying to strike a balance, to be reasonable.
Terry, good point.
The problem is the all-or-nothing absolutism.
>very similar to the war that is currently being waged in the music industry.
There’s nothing like the issue of font modification in the music business.
Except perhaps the use of songs in commercials.
Anyway, you can’t really compare the font business to the music business, because there is no mass consumer market for fonts, thanks to bundling.
>Consumers on the other hand (now I believe more than ever) pirate music as a backlash against record companies for putting out crap music and/or charging too much for it.
That’s disingenuous. People pirate music because they are greedy and they won’t get caught. The “anti-establishment” rationale is a gloss.
Terry - While I agree with your main point, please be careful when comparing the font industry to the music industry. One is in far better shape economically, with very little to fear.
“I think reasonable human behavior makes civilized life possible”
I would like to agree with you, but I see precious little “reasonable human behavior” in my everyday life (try driving on the Washington, DC Beltway at rush hour, for instance), which is why “formal rules,” repugnant as they are and serving only the interests of Evil and Oppressive Capitalism, are unfortunate necessities. Thinking oneself “beyond” such things is one of the distinguishing characteristics of sociopaths, criminals, career politicians and CEOs.
And Nick, the smaller you are (and you and I are both small) the more it’s plain dumb to blindly bend over for the system. Speaking of plain dumb, pragmatically, in the end it’s plain dumb to put a no-mods clause in a EULA. If your hubris or confusion about human nature cause you to be plain dumb*, hey, the most -and least- others should do is feel sorry; but just know that you’re the one who will suffer most for it.
* Nevermind that you totally ignore the question of why you don’t have such a clause while some other houses do. Certainly the products and clientele aren’t always totally different. Is it too much to think about? Or perhaps the results of your thoughts would put a hole right through your formal legal absolutist facade... People can sense what not to think about - it’s called a coping mechanism. Some of us are lousy at that though; we feel dirty about looking the other way.
Most tellingly, let’s try to figure out why font houses have gone back and forth about putting such a clause, while their product and clientele hasn’t changed. When were they right, when were they wrong? Oh, I forgot, A Business Is Never Wrong - it’s always the customer’s fault (since his lawyers are worse). What’s histerical of course is that this goes against a central tenet of Capitalism: The Customer Is Always Right. In the end, it’s neither. The truth is, The Customer Is Always Duped, And Made To Never Even Realize It.
>That’s disingenuous. People pirate music because they are greedy and they won’t get caught. The “anti-establishment” rationale is a gloss.<
Isn’t this a forum for differing viewpoints and points of view? Anywho, I completely disagree with that. While that may be true in some cases, I think “people are greedy and they won’t get caught” is also a gloss. While I’m guilty of this as well, its best not to speak in broad generalizations.
I’m not claiming to be anti-establishment. All I offered was food for thought.
While I agree the profits that stand to be gained from fonts and music is definitely astronomically different, my comparison was based more on a consumer perspective.
We designers often forget about regular consumers and that’s something that should certainly not be underestimated. Like it or not, there is nothing that’s going stop regular Joe’s from thinking that fonts cost too darn much.
On the otherhand...Nick has a point in that if you don’t like the rules, when you make your own fonts, tailor them specifically to what you think is reasonable. I don’t really see why there’s so much bickering.
Oh, yes, Good versus Evil. The few bad apples ruin things for everybody. Gol’ dang it.
Nick, you should write the president’s speeches.
Terry, if I’m in a bitchy mood, it’s because I see this small affair as a facet of the culture -using the term loosely- that’s destroying humanity. And I get especially angry when I see slaves licking the boots of the master that’s kicking them in the head.
>keep your “piracy”/”terrorist” propaganda to yourself.
If this kind of inflamatory statement is you “trying to be reasonable”, perhaps you could try a little harder?
I know you’re upset about your government, but why don’t you go on a few protest marches or something, rather than keep bringing it up on Typophile? — that would be useful and help get it out of your system.
Hrant, you seem to be confusing disregard for the law with civil disobedience. To follow your line of reasoning, there is no difference between Martin Luther King and Oliver North. The former openly challenged what he considered to be unjust laws, and accepted the consequences for his actions. The later conducted a secret war from the basement of the White House and, when he was caught, wrapped himself in the flag and declared his supralegal patriotism. The former, for all his personal faults, was a true hero; the latter, a simple criminal...but, of course, they were both lousy peons.
Here is (as I see it) reason number one for foundries have no-mod clauses in EULAs:
It has to do with branding. Not the foundry’s branding, but what people tend to do with brands. Like was said above, a modified font-x looks like font-x with a funny nose, but big companies want that anyway.
So big company goes to a designer (or to a branding agency, who then goes to a type designer). They say, we want to license font-x from foundry-y. We are going to buy a 10,000 seat license. Since foundry-y allows font modifications, we want to pay you to modify font-x so that it represents our new “branding goals.”
Suddenly, the designer, or branding agency and designer, are making a lot of extra modification money. Most type designers/foundries would prefer to do that modification themselves, and get that money instead of letting it go to a third-party. Sure, they are still getting the licensing fees, but they want to control all money made with their products.
Since this is in large part about money, I’m sure that any foundry with a no-mod clause would, for an extra licensing fee, sell a modification license to the licensee. If you want to modify font-x, but foundry-y doesn’t allow it in their EULA, you can get a EULA upgrade for a fee.
Or you can go to foundry-z, and license font-w. Foundry-z has a different EULA. That is the way our market works. Some people would rather criticize the market in general than talking about real solutions.
I will “get it out of my system” if/when the West backs off.
> you seem to be confusing disregard for the law with civil disobedience.
I don’t like to direct my thoughts based on terminology.
Also:
1) I don’t think any such line can be totally clear.
2) I don’t advocate ignoring laws. I advocate deciding which laws are bad, deciding to break them or not, while being prepared to face the consequences.
I also advocate striking down people who want to keep peons tied to the oars.
> Some people would rather criticize the market
> in general than talking about real solutions.
Here’s my solution:
Money-grubbers, forget about supressing culture. Humanity will shame you.
Parallel universe fiction is provocative — what if the South had won the Civil War? — but I’ve never seen something as fantastic as this: a portrayal of this industry in which type foundries wear the black hats. Please.
Dan Reynolds’ assessment is a good one; let me continue the story. Big Company, having contacted Foundry Y, finds that Foundry Y is indeed interested in doing the customization of their fonts. However, having only a vague understanding of intellectual property law — doubtless informed by reading unmoderated posts on Typophile — they turn to Some Dude X to inquire about having a cheap imitation made. This is where your relativism leads, Hrant: Big Company gets to cheap out, at the expense of the fine people of Foundry Y.
Similar to Foundry Y is a small outfit called Hoefler & Frere-Jones. Unlike the sinister corporations that terrorize Hrant’s bizarro universe, we are not entirely cruel and avaricious, and we try not to spend more than 20% of the day thinking up new ways to screw people (except orphans — we hate orphans.) What we are is a five person company specializing in the development of new typefaces, and our biggest thrill of the year will be scraping together enough cash to give another typeface designer a full-time job. We work our asses off, Hrant, and I’ll thank you to remember that next time you generalize about “font houses.”
I don’t have the philosophical chops to get into a lofty discussion about capitalism, let alone “destroying humanity” or “keeping people peons.” (These items rarely come up in our weekly meetings.) I’m just happy to have a business that allows me to invest my resources wholly in design, and I’m really grateful to the people who make this possible by buying our fonts, EULA and all. We don’t find it especially hard to treat people respectably, and we do our best to accommodate their wishes, but sometimes we do have to tell people that they can’t just change the lowercase “a” in Gotham and call it their own. So be it. It’s a small price to pay for being able to keep drawing typefaces.
I think I should have stuck with a response like Gerald’s.
—
BTW, Jonathan, you know what would make a bunch of people happy?
If you didn’t jump in just once a year, and only to protect your business.
Here’s a quote I like to bring up now and again:
“I hold every man a debtor to his profession, from the which,
as men do of course seek to receive countenance and profit,
so ought they of duty to endeavor themselves by way of
ammends to be a help and an ornament thereunto.”
-Lord Bacon
But I guess if you think about it, it all fits...
The thing is, making good fonts is not good enough.
started nice, moved fine — then “my way or the highway”
”....what would make a bunch of people happy?
If you didn’t jump in just once a year, and only to protect your business.”
well i don’t know you (both of you - Hrant & Jonathan) but i don’t think this is fair to ask just Jonathan - where are you or why you are not here.in that case we/you can ask where is:
Matthew Carter?
Akira Kobayashi ?
Jean Porchez?
Zuzana Licko?
Erik Spiekermann?
Jeremy Tankard?
Robert Slimbach?
David Berlow?
and many others....
let’s get back on topic and keep it simple: let’s say a client is going to call me — “I like the font Gotham and I want a custom font like Gotham. can you do it? “
and i’m not talking about EULA, Shmula, Momo or Mula , but about DIGNITY, the ability to go to work with an AIM, GOAL; that you’re/we doing something — Designing Typefaces.
and then — when we/you are going to TypeCon you have the Dignity to stand in front of other people and educate them about your work!!!
Hrant, I’m sorry to deny bunches of people their happiness. I try to contribute only when I have both the time to follow the discussion and something relevant to say, two commodities which are regrettably hard to come by.
If “making good fonts is not enough,” I’m really not sure what you expect of people who make fonts. I try to comport myself honorably, which for me means not publishing ripoffs of other people’s designs (no matter how much I’d love to digitize half of ATF’s back catalog), not cutting corners in my work (even if I know nobody’s ever going to use the ’stfj’ ligature in Requiem Italic), and providing jobs for as many other type designers as I can. I also support public radio and the ASPCA, and I generally remember to recycle tin foil.
In closing, I really didn’t understand the Bacon quote at all.
Actually, Erik Spiekermann, David Berlow, and Jean-François Porchez all participate relatively often on Typophile. As do Thomas Phinney, Mark Simonson, and John Hudson… in addition to quite a few other professional type designers. In short, it all comes down to time and ability, Parker. All of the designers whose names you mentioned do attend design conferences, though. So I wouldn’t say that they are unapproachable.
I really don’t think that the type designers who don’t participate on Typophile should be criticized for not doing so. If the forums become interesting and relevant enough, I suspect that more might show up. I also don’t see how anyone can fault type designers for designing fonts…
“If the forums become interesting and relevant enough, I suspect that more might show up”
I think this is relevant enough ( and just few samples):
“Mon, 2005-04-04 23:36
i don’t like my fonts, but i am not sure where the problems are?
Can you give me some suggestion?
Thanks.”
Mon, 2005-04-04 18:47
greetings everyone. i just started designing a display font for my typography class. it’s based on my handwriting (thought it might be nice to have for a personal identification package) and it is comprised of just capital letters.
i don’t have a name for it yet nor have i designed all the letters. but, i just wanted to see if anyone had some feedback for me. thanks a lot!
-k”
i don’t know if they’re still looking for feedback
“I also don’t see how anyone can fault type designers for designing fonts…”
I hink modding a font is like remixing a song. If it’s done well, it can really re-invent the whole song, give it a new groove, make it fresh. A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done. FF Bau and GalaxiePolaris are, imo, Remixes of Helvetica, whichinteself remixes different influences and templates. It’s an ongoing cultural evolutionary process and as such it is not a bad one. We have the same stuff in music. The Dandy Warhols and/or The Hives are remixes of The Rolling Stones.
Now, Mick and the gang could either be pissed at the fact that someone is «stealings their style or take it as a compliment or at least a inherent element of any artistic field.
Even when it comes down to remixing a font I bought for my own uses or for a client, I think that is fairly okay. Binary designs are moldable and should be treated as such. If I need a Franklin Gothic with a differnt design in the «Umlaute» (ÄÖÜ) for a job, I’ll go ahead and do it in FontLab (IF I have the time :-). If I need a Font with real Small Caps and OSFs, I’ll try to find a way to get it done myself or from a font service provider. I think this is a smaller scale than coming up wih a whole new font and in the most cases it’s just following the acute demands of a certain job. <
I still think some ogf Alex Branczyks remixes of comercial fonts such as OCR or Syntax were a lot of fun and I actually like his Syntax (used for the Philip Morris design shop catalogue by moniteurs, IIRC) a lot better than the new Syntax released by Linotype, merging the somewhat clumsier old Syntax with clean and neat OSFs. Same goes for Luc(as) Remix of Futura or Volkswagen. I don’t know about the erspective of the guy whose fonts GET remixed, and I think credit (and licenses bought beforehand) are due as a remix does not really give us an entirely NEW song or font (well, sometimes, but mostly not), but from the perspective of the end-user, I like font modding a lot :-D.
1) I do ask others. But I’ve never wanted to make it some sort of campaign.
2) Some others -including some probably busier than Jonathan- in fact do participate. Not much, but more than once in a blue moon. Looking at your list I’d include Carter, JFP, Spiekermann and Tankard (although not all on Typophile). Heck, even Berlow the Quiet :-) chimes in more.
3) When they do participate, it’s not exclusively to promote/protect their business. It would be nice to get more discourse about the craft. Or even just font jokes.
4) Jonathan was one of the founders of Typophile.
I don’t enjoy pointing the finger at individuals - it tends to distract from the bigger problems. But in the context of this thread I think it’s relevant to point out that not participating and insisting on servile respect for one’s EULA are related.
> I really didn’t understand the Bacon quote at all.
I guess it means “give back”. Honorable behavior is great, and I think you manage better than most. But then there is graciousness, selflessness. And the craft can benefit from more of that, from everybody.
—
> let’s get back on topic ....
If I were to give one reason why Jonathan’s and Nick’s attitude is too draconian, it’s that type design is never done in a vacuum. We owe a lot to precedent. The Law is not sensitive to this, and a EULA can take undue advantage of that. Trying to force a company to come exclusively to you for a mod on your humanist sans is indecent.
This should be especially pertinent to people like Jonathan who rely so heavily on revivalism. It seems to me that the criterion for good behavior among some people is in fact equivalent to not getting sued, to playing the games of the letter of the law. This shuts out the world of moral behavior, and that’s inhuman.
I’m working on a Baskerville revival. But the fact that JB can’t sue me does not reduce my unease, an unease that comes from issues relating to craft, not lawyers.
> It’s an ongoing cultural evolutionary process and as such it is not a bad one.
Exactly.
The trick is striking a balance between that and the practical needs ot designers.
Hrant, NOTHING is ever done in a vacuum, nor is anything done that doesn’t depend on something that came before. So freaking what?
There’s a basic problem with dime-store revolutionaries like yourself: they’re hypocrites. Let me give you an example from my own life: I have a sister-in-law who is a self-professed 70s anti-establishment radical. She attended medical school and became a practicing physician but, somewhere along the way, she decided that working for a living sucked big time. So, she undertook some research and found a wondrous malady: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. No known cause, no known cure. So, she got herself diagnosed with this particular malady, and has been (thanks to well-thought-out insurance) on medical disability for the past ten years. She doesn’t have the energy to work, but somehow she manages the energy for at least a month-long vacation to Europe or Africa or the Near East every year. And she gets paid rather well for NOT working in between her sojourns abroad.
She, like you, despises THE MAN, and she seems convinced and vindicated that she has come up with a perfect scam to screw THE MAN. But, guess what: THE MAN covers his posterior very well; when excessive claims cut into THE MAN’s bottom line, he simply raises the rates that EVERYONE else pays. So, THE MAN makes his money no matter what, and EVERYONE ELSE gets screwed. Somehow or another, my sister-in-law fails to see it this way and, evidently, you don’t get this very simple fact, either.
So, please, spare us your flaming rhetoric. The fact that you are the most prolific poster on this website indicates to me that you have WAY too much time on your hands. Rather than pontificating on these premises, why don’t you use some of that free time to go out and actually DO something to make the world a better place? And do it in a way that IS socially responsible to the rest of us...people who are “too smart” to play by the rules end up costing the rest of us dearly.
1) I don’t care about your sister-in-law. I barely care about you, and only to the extent of your relevance to type design. And you shouldn’t care much about me, or worry about my flaws. Worry about yourself.
2) For every middle-aged anglo male who doesn’t like me, there’s somebody who isn’t who does. Know this.
3) I’m Armenian. We have bigger problems than milking the last dimes out of corporations, and I very much am involved in trying to solve them. One way is by formulating ideas, giving talks, writing articles and making fonts that address the ills of Latinization in Armenian type design. What have you done for your script/culture? Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question - it’s meant for you to answer to yourself, and think about.
4) No matter how you or I use our time, it remains that your stance, which is a central part of your culture, is making the world a worse place.
Hrant, it’s your ability to turn any Typophile thread into a pissing match in which you arrogantly insult anyone who disagrees with you, that’s dissuading a lot of type professionals from posting.
I’m not “a founder of Typophile.” This is Jared & Joe’s ballgame; I’m just an occasional reader. I lent a small cup of content for the initial release (which is perhaps what you meant by “giving back”), and I was delighted to contribute the Mercury and Gotham fonts that are used in the current Typophile identity. That’s all.
It’s extremely mean-spirited to say that I participate here “exclusively to promote or protect my business.” (If you’d like more professionals to be engaged in Typophile, perhaps you should be a little less inexplicably antagonistic toward the profession.) I avoid most discussions precisely because I think I’d have obvious and self-serving things to say, and I don’t think anyone reading the “Quintessential American Font” topic especially needs to hear my thoughts about Gotham or Knockout. I posted earlier that I try to join the conversation only when I’ve got something to say, and the font business happens to be something that I have a lot to say about. So what’s your problem? You seem content to lambast me for either participation or absenteeism, which is incomprehensible. (If you’re just looking for someone to spar with, I’m really not interested.) At any rate, since I’m apparently going to be criticized whether I stay or go, I think I’ll go. It’s a shame, because it took me twenty minutes to make my icon.
> that’s dissuading a lot of type professionals from posting.
That convenient escapism has already been put to the test on the ground on Typo-L, and has failed the test. Most “professionals” who don’t post wouldn’t post no matter what; they simply use me as a convenient excuse. This isn’t conjecture, the evidence is there.
But since I’m not a bully, and want to show that I’m not, and since I believe that a healthy forum is good for the craft, me, and everybody else, that old offer still stands: http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/72/4694.html
So no more excuses. I am not the problem. At most, I am the messenger. And judging by what happened on Typo-L (nothing) I’m not even that. Demonize individuals, and you will be a textbook peon - you will dig yourself deeper in your trench.
> It’s extremely mean-spirited to say that I participate
> here “exclusively to promote or protect my business.”
No, it’s candid. I’m not a mean person, I just have different standards of behavior. Appreciate the difference, and mind the content instead of being eager to feel insulted. And my intent is not to make you look bad (I actually value you quite a bit) but to give you a view from the outside, and maybe, just maybe help you improve yourself, and as a result improve the craft, and me. And I’m open to the same from you, and anybody else. That’s why I’ve tolerated being called a “troll”, “parasite”, etc. and have even endured a defamation campaign or two - without running away.
> I avoid most discussions precisely because I think
> I’d have obvious and self-serving things to say
?
Please, please, talk self-servingly about craft, instead of only about the law! We can handle it.
> I’m apparently going to be criticized whether I stay or go
It’s not where you are, but what you are trying to be.
You are a lot already, but don’t hate me if I push you to be more.
—
And I’ll even go the extra mile for you (plural):
When Tina starts that new thread asking Jonathan her direct questions, I won’t make a single post to it. Now, if Jonathan doesn’t make a post to it, that doesn’t mean he’s a bad person; but it does make me not the problem. And forget me anyway. Just improve your own behavior.
BTW, Nick, Jonathan:
Would you care to address the content of my post of 16:14?
Do you feel for example that the inability of the legal world to take into account the inherently derivative nature of any type design effort (especially revivals, Jonathan) is completely moot? Do you really think the only thing that matters is the interplay of the law and money? If so, do you expect everybody else to play along?
Yes, Hrant-bashing is the ultimate party game, but we wouldn’t want it to distract from some hope of fruitful discourse... Well, I wouldn’t.
Hrant, I’ve addressed the content of this thread quite a bit, and for my pains you have called me an idiot, a servile boot-licker, a George Bush speech-writer, a “terrorist” propagandist, etc. As a middle-aged Anglo male with my own business (glorified self-employment, actually), I am also a money-grubbing capitalist complicit in my culture’s ongoing agenda of making the world a worse place. Sorry, what was the topic?
Oh yes, your post is bigger than mine.
>I think I should have stuck with a response like Gerald’s.
Well...
I was wondering if there is another product other than software that when you buy it you actually haven’t bought it, you’ve only leased it. Seriously.
It seems to me like something concocted so that products can be easily sold on the internet. It doesn’t correspond to contract law though. You actually need signatures for that. Implication by purchase is nonsense.
Also, I don’t know of another product where you are not allowed, once you have purchased it, to do whatever the hell you want with it. Campbell’s doesn’t tell me I can’t add ingrediants to their soup.
>another product where you are not allowed, once you have purchased it, to do whatever the hell you want with it.
Ideas about copyright and intellectual properrty were introduced into law from a sense of fair play towards content producers. For visual images, this goes back to Hogarth’s “A Harlot’s Progress” series of etchings. The rage of the day, it was set to music, used as decorations for fans and teacups, and so on; yet Hogarth lost much of the benefit of this popularity because of a flood of pirated copies of his prints issued by Grub Street booksellers. He and his friends petitioned Parliament to correct this abuse, and in 1735 an Act was passed vesting in designers and engravers an exclusive right to their own works, and restraining the multiplication of copies without their consent.
The principle is that the creator of a work has the right to derive the major benefit from it, not the copyist or plagiarist.
It is this principle which must be weighed against the right of buyers to do as they please with their purchases. For font software, license agreements define the relative rights of the two parties
One aspect of the topic is the necessarily derivative nature of any type design*, and the conflict this causes between morals and the law. You haven’t addressed that, and it’s a central question. It takes two to engage in a pissing match, after all.
* Especially revivals. But please don’t use your non-revivalist nature to distract from the main question.
Here was the real question, which I’ve just reread: let’s say I’m the client and I really love Minion — so what the type designer is going to do? “copy” the font? change the strokes? create a new Minion?…….
If you are the type designer in this case you say: “If you really love Minion, that is great! Minion is a sweet font that Robert Slimbach at Adobe designed. Go to http://www.adobe.com/type and license one copy of the font for each of your workstations.”
If the client says, “I want my own similar-Minion,” see the above discussion. If Adobe allows modifications, the client still needs to license all of the necessary copies before the type designer could do any changes. If Adobe doesn’t allow modifications, the designer should recommend another font from another foundry.
If the client says, “yeah, but I just want you to design me a typeface that looks just like Minion, because you are cheaper than Adobe,” then the type designer should walk away. What goes around, comes around…
>>A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done. <<<
1) This is an interesting point. (I also COMPLETELY agree with the musical comparison as well, but that’s another matter :) Many different typefaces have been derived from calligraphic forms like Edward Johnston’s Foundation and Humanist Miniscule for example. Do we then pay royalties to the estates of the individuals responsible for creating this. (An extreme point I know, but one that is important in determining exactly where to draw the line in legal terms.)
Except if you’re Apple (Chalkboard) or MS (Segoe) or {virtually any large corporation}?...
You see, only the little people lacking lawyer-armies are adversely affected in the end.
And to me at least that’s enough reason to treat such laws with contempt.
The formalistics you elaborate are admittedly needed; I’m glad somebody finally went to that trouble, instead of just barking “follow my laws, peon”. However, a parallel moral discussion is also needed.
Dan, you were steering this thread in the right direction with your earlier post... this is very much about money. That should be out in the middle of the table right now — a giant centerpiece of fragrant banknotes.
EULAs are about money, not usage or modification. We all want to make a buck doing this stuff. That’s why no-mod clauses are drafted: to protect fiscal (as well as creative) interests. That’s also why Hrant wants to argue these prohibitions away... to exercise this Objectivist greed without remorse, reprimand or justification. While I am certain that Hrant’s argument strikes a chord in all our greedy hearts, it seems he speaks the ’reasonable’ logic that pressed the capitalist bootprint into his forehead. Greed is good, but not good at justifying its goodness with words.
But I’m glad Hrant has the ballz to spit fury. If he’s not entertaining, he’s speaking from the depths of his psyche (even the insults).
Civil disobedience was mentioned. Complete lunacy. No lives are being taken in the font industry; just livelihoods. Ethically, if you must prepare your closing arguments before committing the offence, you should perhaps petition to change the law before breaking it. The least you nay-sayers could do is license from another distributor/foundry that caters to your philosophy, as Nick has valiantly been restating, rather than rail against the efforts of our contemporaries, however adverse you may be to them.
So what of respect? What about respecting/protecting creative and fiscal interests? What about reasonable compensation for services provided? Are we all to go it alone... dog eat dog ripping off each other’s software as we commiserate in forums about the lack of money to be made in type design?
And terminology aside, I think we can all agree that a thief and a pirate are equal. Let’s not split hairs about taking money in breach of EULA clauses.
2) A portion of this discussion that I’m surprised hasn’t been fully addressed is what everyone thinks of using a purchased typeface for modification in a logo, logotype, or masthead.
3) I am very new and inexperienced in the realms of type design and this forum. While I’ll point no fingers I think its best that we a) don’t take things too personally and b) don’t resort to personal attacks.
4)Tina brought up some good points about certain topics NOT being addressed by frequent users of this site. It often creates a climate of a) people apprehensive about joining and b) feeling like this is an exclusive club for only certain selected individuals.
A portion of this discussion that I’m surprised hasn’t been fully addressed is what everyone thinks of using a purchased typeface for modification in a logo, logotype, or masthead.
99% of the time, if a designer makes a logo or masthead by setting the text in Illustrator or Photoshop, and then converts the image to paths or pixels, and then changes the letters that way, it is fair use*, because it does not change the font data. Some type designers get peeved by this, but it is permitted.
* Unless of course, it was written in the EULA that you could NOT do that. I know of no EULAs that do just that. A few foundries (just two or three small ones, I think) may not allow you to set entirely typographic logos with their fonts, without a special license
__ www.typeoff.de
sorry, my posts aren’t showing up properly for whatever reason...the beginning was:
>>>A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done.
1) This is an interesting point. (I also COMPLETELY agree with the musical comparison as well, but that’s another matter :) Many different typefaces have been derived from calligraphic forms like Edward Johnston’s Foundation and Humanist Miniscule for example. Do we then pay royalties to the estates of the individuals responsible for creating this. (An extreme point I know, but one that is important in determining exactly where to draw the line in legal terms.)
> What about reasonable compensation for services provided?
Silas, I’ll resist the urge to pick apart the many elements of your arguments that I disagree with, but I will [re]state this: I am in fact trying to strike a balance. Otherwise I would advocate free-wheeling appropriation, like making direct derivatives of a design without the client buying a commensurate license of the original. That extreme and the other extreme (Thou Must Not Breathe Without My Express Written Permission) are ubiquitous, and easy cop-outs. While I’m trying to tread the nebulous, slippery path of “reasonability”; because I think that’s what’s most important. And anybody who thinks the letter of the law is more important has my pity.
So my problem is with the hypocrisy of being obsessively protective of things that don’t really totally belong to us. Like Adobe getting a design patent on a Garamond. It’s indecent. That to me over-rides the legal considerations.
I repeat: Your strict formalistics are at odds with human nature.
Hmmm, maybe if you tried your hand at grayscale pixelfont design...
Speaking of type design, what happened to that “challenge” of ours?
I remember it was your idea, but then you said you became too busy.
Since you’re now the 4th most prolific poster, maybe the other Nick
would appreciate you spend the time delving into the craft instead...
Not that a half-dozen or so posts a day -and most just a few lines in
my own case at least- are all that a normal human should be able
to manage in one working day.
Hrant: I stand corrected. Your arguments led me to believe things you did not explicitly state.
This is precicely the importance of having every intention set in stone - in a EULA - to avoid conflict of interpretation and to make one’s position plain and simple. If Jonathan doesn’t want you to breathe without written consent, that’s his perogative and with good reason... in order to limit the exponential degradation of his work and income. He has a right to protect his published work and wallet.
Letter and spirit of the law is a balancing act, yes, but when the letter is as clear as prohibiting modification, what difference in spirit is there to deduce? Go ahead and break the EULA. Nobody has the money to sue you anyway.
I’m making broader strokes here, and in that motion I’d like to spell out my stance...
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
If you mod a font in breach of EULA, you’re working in a deficit of ethics and morality. To attempt to justify a lack of respect in such behavior with popular opinion and superior reasoning, you’re denying the EULA’s author any attempt at conducting business in the manner he/she deems fit.
I still say there is hope for your logic though. You just need to deliver a more inviting argument and not scare Nick with anti-American slander. Knowing your intention, I would gladly allow you to craft a derivative of anything I have done so long as you shared the process and/or profit.
I’m still up in the air about this particular subject so it’s good to see it in the forums. It is one of the factors holding me back from my publishing debut. (I focus on private commissions.) I don’t see any of the larger distributors protecting the designers as vigilantly as we can protect ourselves when it comes to aftermarket life of the software. I’m content in working closely with respectable clients that respect my services. If everyone conducted themselves with such respect, we would perhaps have no need for EULAs at all. Sadly, that’s not the case, and you’re trying to make it all seem so sane. Do go on.
>Your strict formalistics are at odds with human nature.
Type is a formal affair. A large part of human nature may think “it’s all derivative”, but when one looks deeper, one finds that there are varying degrees of derivation, and some categories which are quite distinct. Your buddy John Downer explored some of these distinctions: http://www.emigre.com/EFoITrbF.php
There is a huge difference in quality between original work done from scratch (ie drawn with bezier tools, without the benefit of tracing scans) and fonts made by tweaking someone else’s data.
>what happened to that “challenge” of ours?
Sorry, that was round about the time I moved to the UK, and everything just piled up on me and I couldn’t squeeze it into my schedule, then it seemed like the time had passed.
> If you mod a font in breach of EULA, you’re
> working in a deficit of ethics and morality.
While I feel that a EULA with a no-mod clause is such. To me that is what’s disrespectful.
> there are varying degrees of derivation
Indeed. But always some. And this conflicts with your absolutism.
> Are you still interested in my having a go at it?
Even though it was your idea (or at least you liked it back when somebody proposed it - I remember being myself reluctant, at first) I’d feel bad if you went to the trouble just for me. If somebody could find that old thread, maybe we could ask if the broader interest remains.
BTW, Nick, please know that there are a lot of things about you -not to mention some of your fonts, like Panoptica- that I like. Like I remember you explaining the reasoning behind Oneleigh to me at ATypI-99, and my thinking highly of it. Maybe I’m strange, but the fact that I think you are so wrong about so many important things doesn’t sour things for me at all. Maybe because I think you are right about enough other things in type, or maybe more important things outside of type.
Hrant: Sometimes you just make me sad. I appreciate your comments on many of my fonts in the critique forums, and I even enjoy the bomb throwing from time to time. But here you’ve gone to far with the personal insults, and just plain rudeness. Oddly, however, in this instance I find myself agreeing with you on this point: no-mod clauses are no fun for anyone. “No mod for resale” clauses make more sense. At the same time the practice of “mod to skinny out of buying licenses” is no good either.
As for the idea of remix: It can be good or it can be cheap and lousy. There is also the concept of “re-perform”, which is better in my mind. It’s one thing to sample someone’s song and add very little. It’s another thing to perform it and add your own touch. There’s a fine line that must be drawn. No one likes cheap font cd’s filled with cheap, slightly altered and renamed fonts. At the same time, I would love to see Jonathan interpret Frutiger or Zapf, just as he interprets the work of designers whose work has now entered the public domain. Maybe works need to enter the public domain much more quickly. What if all works became public domain after 10 years? It would make more sense to me. That being said, I may be reticent to release my fonts into the public domain when they turn 10 if they are still making me money :)
Silas, I don’t know. But one of the things I really hate is “covering legal liability”. It’s a pervasive and growing cancer that creates a regressive, petty society.
Christian, different things make each of us sad. You think this is some kind of cheery thread for me? But if we care about Typophile it’s very important not to let the behavior of others dampen our participation. I value candor as much as you seem to value civility; but most of all I value tolerance, and not just of content, but of expressive style. What else could hope to work in such a heterogenous environment?
It’s not about fun. It’s about protecting investments and interests.
There’s a fine line that must be drawn.
...or loads of them all over the place according to the situations you’ve listed, Christian. A no-mod clause saves the trouble and discussion, not to mention a potential loss of profits.
And how far does one have to tweak an existing design for it to be a respectable reinterpretation? Who is to judge? I’d say the licensor/designer of the original has 51% say. Even in the music industry, remixes require the approval of the original artist/publisher prior to release.
This is an extremely valuable issue... and I use the term ’valuable’ in the most literal sense. There’s a lot of easy money to be made in aftermarket modification. We all need to know where each other stand.
Another thing I’m neglecting to mention — but will at this point for the side of the pro-mod camp — is the eduacational value of decompiling a font. There is a lot to learn of metrics by reverse engineering a professionally tuned design... things that printed specimens will never explain so plainly. A no-mod-for-resale clause is certainly more reasonable taking this into consideration.
i think that Nick is simple and clear:
“Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.”
It certainly isn’t type design, but it can be a lucrative service. Pep Boys isn’t in the business of putting wheels on your car, but they sure can replace them with shinier ones.
Through the hazy ethics of modding a font, there is still the monetary exchange.
NO MOD FOR PROFIT seems fair enough to me. If you have the time and skill to mod a font, why would you be willing to work pro bono? If you’re modding for personal use, you must be doing something valuable.
> A no-mod clause saves the trouble and discussion,
> not to mention a potential loss of profits.
Huh, the same is achieved on the other end by... piracy! My point remains that in looking for a good balance, you cannot divorce humans morals from this, or from anything else for that matter. “Who is to judge?” The same as always: the individual. This isn’t The Borg or something where we defer our decisions to some central “server”; we have no choice but to exercise our judgment, our reasonability, in everything. Any other view can only cater to the powers that be (not us), channeled by the ideological lethargy of some.
> “Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.”
I found that laughably over-simple.
Simple things are cute. For 5 minutes.
Sure, we aren’t the Borg and surely there is no Secret Font Police. And who is to judge, you ask? The Licensor of the work... not the End User! The End User enters into the Agreement when the license is purchased. The End User must RESPECT that Agreement. There’s no subjectivity in that! There’s not autonomy in the interpretation! Deal with it!
we have no choice but to exercise our judgment, our reasonability, in everything. Any other view can only cater to the powers that be (not us), channeled by the ideological lethargy of some.
In Johnathan’s case, he is the powers that be, and more power to him. His End Users “have no choice” but to go elsewhere for their fonts, not to “exercise their judgment” on matters of abiding by his EULA once they have entered into it!
A round of rum shots! Let’s see which way Hrant’s judgment and reasonability sways. Raise the Jolly Roger! How many of your designs are publicly licensable? Where do you bury your pirate’s booty?
Another thing I’m neglecting to mention — but will at this point for the side of the pro-mod camp — is the eduacational value of decompiling a font. There is a lot to learn of metrics by reverse engineering a professionally tuned design…
Please don’t take me as a pro-no-mod but...
What EULA is stopping anyone from opening any font they own and looking at the metrics if they want to? Not doing so, just because the EULA forbids you to do so seems a bit too much (to me). After all, it doesn’t “harm other designer’s means of living”, does it?
Matey, let me tell you my favorite tale from the high sees, one that will shiver the timbers of any salty rapscallion, arrr!
I had just finished what was then -and remained for 10 years- the typeface I had spent the most time on (about 800 hours). It was a serif Armenian font, a niche market then quite thirsty (but now no longer). I released it, sold a number, and was glad to see it used anywhere and everywhere. Most users had certainly not paid for it. But being the pragmatist, I could simply not get angry. Which isn’t to say I don’t like/need money - I’m human too. In fact, the sales and commissions I made in the last quarter of that year financed my “famed” 6-month sojourn in Barcelona; I only left for LA -via Beirut- when I ran out of money (and missed my Armenian community too much). Anyway. What happened is one day I saw a CD cover with a sans version of my darling design! I tracked it down, and found out it was done by an old buddy of mine from back home!! Yes, I was a bit angry at that appropriation, but it subsided quickly, and required no action, even though the guy was about 15 minutes away from me. You know what peeved me the most? That he chopped off the serifs but didn’t alter the spacing... That’s a strong aspect of the relationship I have -and I’d like to keep as much as possible- with my work. Note that I didn’t have a EULA. And THAT DIDN’T MATTER ONE DIDDLY, not to him, not even to me! Now, I don’t expect -or even want- everybody else to be like me, trust me. But I’m not some alien. What I felt, and what I still feel, is an aspect of humanity, and like any aspect of humanity, it can’t be conveniently ignored.
A more “glorious” anecdote along these lines:
Legend has it that when the barbarian hordes were pillaging Constantinople, a Byzantine noble sighed: “If only they knew what they were destroying, I wouldn’t mind one bit.” To me, this is the sort of thing that elevates us above mere animals.
Hrant, you’re more human than human. That’s perhaps what irks your detractors.
Your testimonial brings up another of my thoughts... thanks for the segue...
Had your friend been required (or politely asked) to at least contact you regarding derivatives in a EULA, you would have at least been able to advise him on the spacing issue. You probably could have arranged a subsequent licensing arrangement for the derivative. A better product would have been delivered and compensation could have been spread around.
Human or not, poor behavior is poor behavior as determined by environment. A bull in a china shop is still going to destroy the goods. The type biz environment is fragile and delicate, and a lot of items aren’t packaged with enough foam peanuts and crumpled newspaper. A no-mod clause is an attempt at padding against breakage, but then these items sit on the same shelves as your open-box wares. The bull is ignorant of the packaging... he’ll smash them both the same.
The balance of extremes which you are striving for will only be attainable if type designers and modders and users work in concert and in good faith... to tame those bulls or at least keep them in the pasture. There must be a network of trust and respect and conditioning in business matters for your ideal market to emerge. Naturally, communication and respect is the crux of this dreamland, and some animals will never learn the language.
What can be learned from the Open Source Initiative? Has this been discussed at any conferences or forums with respect to font licensing?
With What EULA’s stopping anyone... I meant to say that no EULA will ever be able to stop anyone from opening a font and looking into it for fun or for education or whatever else. In fact, no law can stop anyone from doing something that isn’t public or doesn’t affect others. So the “open for education” argument doesn’t really influence EULAs, mod, no-mod, or no-mod-for-profit.
Also, I wasn’t stating that just because something has no victim it’s right to do it. I just thought that since “it hurts the type designer” is so used to justify EULAs, it should be possible to use the opposite to justify not following them. It was all one big question, really, but I guess my point was lost in my bad english.
I understood your post. I just took it to the rhetorical extreme for the sake of analogy.
True, no written word will control free will. They may influence people’s thinking though, which in turn affects their behavior (sometimes to a reactiona
15.Jun.2005 6.41am
Without getting too deep in history, many corporations and countless high-end publishers of books and periodicals had one or several type families customized for their particular use.
It’s the difference between “off-the-rack” fashions and tailor-fit clothing. Generally, “out-of-the-box” solutions need a certain amount of tweaking in order to be really good. By customizing widths, kerning pairs, character shapes, you cut down on the need to tweak and produce quality typesetting with uniformity and consistency.
The purpose is not to create a new variation of the typeface. It’s to improve the output.
———————————————————
Yes, I’m old, but I’m back in style!
16.Jun.2005 7.57pm
Parker
I often have to modify a font a bit if I am going to use it for letterpress or if for normal print, to provide for different weighting.
Minion was available as a MM font once upon a time and multiple masters did anticipate user interaction in regard to manipulating a font.
I realize that a lot of type foundryes these days indicate in their terms of contract that you are not to modify a font but hey, I paid for Fontographer and FontLab and the right to use the PostScript or TrueType or OpenType formats just like they did.
You don’t have to go too far back in type technologies to realize that all type design is tied to format or delivery device. And the owner of that has the real say about it all. Prior to 1986 you literally had to “submit” a design to ITC if you wanted your typeface out there (no other options).
Reselling or redistibution of a font is a no no clearly but modification, nonsense. Hell I can modify a font by adjusting the software in my printer.
Gerald
17.Jun.2005 1.04pm
devil’s advocate
Don’t you all think modification for design ownability is a little bit of a cop-out? I mean they might as well get new designs. For instance, I respect MSLO (Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia) for their continued use of Hoefler & Frere-Jones. On the other hand, I’m not so sure I understand why UPS did what they did.
/devil’s advocate
17.Jun.2005 1.30pm
that is my point, Tiffany.
“The purpose is not to create a new variation of the typeface. It’s to improve the output.”
what do you mean? why not to contact the designer “to improve the output”? to design a new font?
where is the creative work? the original work?
“...why UPS did what they did.” — what they did?
17.Jun.2005 1.33pm
what UPS did
17.Jun.2005 2.39pm
Parker
“why not to contact the designer ’to improve the output’”
Good idea. What is in your wallet?
Gerald
17.Jun.2005 3.02pm
Getting the original designer to do the modification is one good option, yes.
But that’s all it is; there can be no de facto “obligation”.
hhp
17.Jun.2005 3.06pm
And if the original designer resides 6 feet under?
ChrisL
17.Jun.2005 3.09pm
Or more problematic still, what if he’s mental?
hhp
17.Jun.2005 3.21pm
Here is where old battle lines have been drawn.
On one side, the designer of typefaces.
On the other side, the “expert” user of typefaces, sometimes referred to as typographer and/or type director.
I’ve sat (or sometimes stood in pubs) between typographer and designer as they argued the point. For my part I am closer to being a typographer and have never drawn a single character that was ever released.
The “expert” user is never content to leave alone what irritates them visually. And the type designer simply can’t please everyone.
It’s just one of those relationships that you may not like, but I feel it keeps the art alive.
Other than that, it simply isn’t practical or downright impossible to go back to the original designer for modifications. Once a typeface has moved through one, two or several re-cuts over years or even centuries, the “original” designer’s intent may have been lost completely. That’s why I used to examine earlier specimens of third-iteration typefaces, not to nit-pick but to try and understand the original intent of the designer.
For some people it’s a sin to leave well enough alone.
Hmmm... I think this sauce needs a little more basil. How could that chef miss something so obvious as that?
—————————————————-
Yes, I’m old, but I pick nits too!
17.Jun.2005 3.27pm
“And if the original designer resides 6 feet under?”
did you meausre? :)
I’m not talking about revivals or old old fonts such as Centaur, Caslon, Bembo....
”...What is in your wallet?”
not Capital One :)
18.Jun.2005 9.03am
“did you meausre? :)”
Yes I did, the measure was actually 432 picas :-)
ChrisL
18.Jun.2005 9.04am
...and it was a lead lined coffin too :-)
ChrisL
19.Jun.2005 6.35am
Hrant is not quite right. Anyone customizing a digital outline absolutely has an obligation to abide by the license issued by the owner of that digital outline. EULAs differ from one foundry to the next, but most include some express policy regarding what may or may not be done to create “derivative works” from font data.
On a personal note, I agree with Tiffany that modification is indeed a cop-out. The client who wants Helvetica, but “an ownable Helvetica” that’s “unique to our brand” should be dissuaded, since the result inevitably looks like Helvetica wearing a funny nose.
19.Jun.2005 7.07am
…and it was a lead lined coffin too :-)
That was indeed a grave accent!
19.Jun.2005 7.49am
Or more problematic still, what if he’s mental?
Hrant, I have a problem with this. I recall you posting this opinion here before, that it is okay to ignore an author/creator’s copyright if the author/creator is unreasonable.
My problem is that “unreasonable” is too relative. Just because you, or anyone else deems a person “unreasonable,” that doesn’t automatically make them so. There are many computer users who think that all protection for fonts are unreasonable. Who is to sit judgement of the question of what is reasonable for all cases, and what is not?
There may be designers who find your protection clauses unreasonable. How would you feel if Patria got out, and innumeral derivations of its design, some under other names attributed to other designers, began to circulate? I doubt that you would find it reasonable when others made cash from your efforts.
That is the problem with terms like “reasonable” or “mental”.
Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be dialog within (and outside of) the community about what EULA terms should be. But to say that EULAs which are “unreasonable” may be ignored will lead to big problems.
If users find an EULA unreasonable, they should license type from someone else. Our field is not without competition, or change due to market circumstances. Those with unpopular EULAs will eventually get the message if their licensing numbers drop off drastically.
__
www.typeoff.de
19.Jun.2005 8.24am
“That was indeed a grave accent!”
Nice dig Steve:-)
ChrisL
19.Jun.2005 10.05am
> Anyone customizing a digital outline absolutely has an obligation
> to abide by the license issued by the owner of that digital outline.
And everyone driving a car is supposed to not exceed the speed limit even by one mile-per-hour. But the cops will never give you a ticket for that, and a court will throw out such a case. So the reality remains that it is unreasonable to expect full de facto adherence to the letter of the law. It’s all psychology, not a box.
Clearly, there is a difference between the letter -or even the spirit- of the law, and how humans are really expected to behave. This discrepancy is natural considering that the law is designed to protect those [already] in power. Please, no hogwash about the law being intended to serve the People.
Human beings are not modules in a computer program.
> “unreasonable” is too relative.
Hey, Life is “too” relative. We have to live with that, quite literally! Every moment of every day we make entirely subjective and personal decisions. This is just another one of them, no matter how much the lawdogs try to intimidate us.
> How would you feel if Patria got out, and innumeral derivations of its design,
> some under other names attributed to other designers, began to circulate?
I have never advocated redistributing fonts, modified or otherwise. That is beyond reasonability; internal modification is not. The attempt at preventing internal modification is a scare tactic that can only backfire on the font house itself, because the main thing it does is place an unreasonable demand on the user, leading to a near-automatic violation of the clause, creating a precedent of de jure “misbehavior” in the user, in turn making him more comfortable carrying out further (less justifiable) violations. It’s bad for everybody, no matter how attractive draconian modernism is (to some people).
> Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t.
Nope, I’m shades of gray, not black or white. You do what you think is right, I do what I think is right. I’m sorry if that’s Bad For Business.
hhp
20.Jun.2005 6.21am
I don’t think anyone objects to what you’re calling “internal modification,” but I don’t think this is what’s being discussed here. Certainly anyone who buys a font to use on a book cover or a CD is welcome to have at the font with hammer and tongs; I’ve certainly seen my fonts adapted in any number of ways, some of them OK, some of them brilliant, and some of them not so brilliant. That’s the bell curve for you.
The issue is “redistribution,” as you put it. The clients who call us beginning with “we love Minion, but...” — as described in the first post in this thread — are the ones who want to populate a large design system with “customized” fonts. In my experience, these include everything from fonts with a few serifs snipped off, to fonts whose only change is the font name and the copyright legend. This is not OK, and it’s not a question of relativism or personal morals: it is against the law.
In the seventeen years I’ve worked in this industry, it has been my consistent experience that organizations understand this without the need for legal intervention. Anyone interested in customizing their typography is serious about branding, and anyone serious about branding has legal counsel familiar with intellectual property law.
20.Jun.2005 7.19am
According to Tiffany’s chart (Type Foundry EULAs: who allows what), most foundries allow modifications.
http://fontlab.wikidev.net/The_Case_for_a_User-Friendly_EULA
The concomitant stipulation is that any modified font can only be installed on a device which is licensed for the original. So the client commissioning the modification pays for licensing the original font, and the modification fee. This is reasonable, because the modification fee is paying for their exclusive custom version of the font.
I’ve had this kind of work done on my fonts, and I’ve done it on fonts designed by others: for instance, for newspapers, headline or agate versions of “standard” fonts. My client could have contacted the original foundry, but was confident in my ability to do the work adequately, on time, and reasonably priced. No doubt the original foundry could have done it just as well, or better, but for my client they are an unknown quantity.
However, I would never mess with the beziers of a font from Font Bureau, or any other foundry that prohibits it in their EULA. They are not being unreasonable, merely setting the terms of a contract which potential users can take or leave, and other font workers are legally bound to observe, no matter what they think of it. It’s not just a question of obeying the law, but of mutual respect amongst designers.
There is a difference between civil disobedience such as speeding (citizen vs. state) and disrespecting the Bureau (citizen vs. citizen), which is a small design firm, not exactly what you’d call “those in power”, Hrant.
20.Jun.2005 7.31am
And everyone driving a car is supposed to not exceed the speed limit even by one mile-per-hour. But the cops will never give you a ticket for that, and a court will throw out such a case. So the reality remains that it is unreasonable to expect full de facto adherence to the letter of the law.
Hrant,
I got pulled over for going less 2 mph over the limit. I only got a warning, but he seemed close to giving me a real ticket.
Laws (especially regarding traffic) are made... to be broken. The speed limit is 40 because they know people will be driving 45. There is a certain buffer around many American laws with acceptable overages and underages.
However, with contracts and EULA type things there are specific borders that you have to adhere to. They are generally very direct in stating your rights and limitations, and there isn’t room for personal interoperation.
Either we are going to respect coppyright and EULAs or we aren’t. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be dialog within (and outside of) the community about what EULA terms should be. But to say that EULAs which are “unreasonable” may be ignored will lead to big problems.
agreed
r.k
20.Jun.2005 9.13am
Dan,
What about fonts with really rotten kerning tables, like the early Monotypes? Or those that refer to the standard Symbol-font for currency etcetera?
Modifying those should be considered a work of mercy...
20.Jun.2005 9.29am
> I don’t think anyone objects to what you’re calling “internal modification,”
I guess you haven’t been looking at EULAs lately. I was guilty of the same some years ago; but I’m not into EULAs. On the other hand, as Tiffany might tell you, there has been a return to more reasonability lately, probably partly because of the bursts of public outrage such as this. But there are still too many font houses that have that clause.
> it’s not a question of relativism or personal morals: it is against the law.
That is not enough.
> Anyone interested in customizing their typography is serious
> about branding, and anyone serious about branding has legal
> counsel familiar with intellectual property law.
What is “serious”? If it’s the ability to make money, I don’t think your argument holds water, since companies richer than the ones you would consider “serious” do that all the time. And if it’s not about money, then is it about typographic integrity? That’s also problematic, because of the cultural deficiencies in the concept of intellectual property, especially in something as inherently derivative as type.
> mutual respect amongst designers.
That doesn’t work either, obviously. Not least because some font houses -who do prohibit any modification- deservedly don’t get any respect from other designers.
The only thing that ever works is Reasonability. And that clause isn’t. Which is why it does more harm than good.
> not exactly what you’d call “those in power”
In the context of the type world, of course there are some entities which have more power than others, for various reasons. If you had sat in Lawrence’s EULA meeting at TC2004, you would have recognized them by the hissy fits they were throwing. You of all people should see that.
> he seemed close to giving me a real ticket.
That’s what he’s trained to make you think. Where do you think all the money goes - donuts?
> The speed limit is 40 because they know people will be driving 45.
Exactly! And EULAs have the no-mod clause to scare a small segment of users into following it; these are equivalent to the few people on the road who do always drive under the speed limit. And it’s notable that these people are usually too old or they’re illegal aliens.
> with contracts and EULA type things there are specific borders that you have to adhere to.
Yes, and this absolutism is what makes it not work. Traffic laws are pragmatically constructed (even though they’re made to control peons). But such a clause is a EULA is either broken or not; and when -not if- it is broken, you’ve broken your best chance at getting cooperation from the user. We need our users more than they need us; let’s not push them to piracy.
> there isn’t room for personal interoperation.
But humans personal-interpret everything, all of the time!
They are not cogs.
hhp
20.Jun.2005 10.24am
>let’s not push them to piracy
You are the one excusing piracy, with your “I hit her because she’s ugly” logic. Manufactured provocation is a self-serving excuse for illegal or bad behavior.
***
I can think of at least two perfectly reasonable arguments for a no-mod clause:
1) To nip in the bud the process of companies doctoring a font, renaming it, and skipping multi-user license fees.
2) Because a foundry doesn’t want to see visually corrupted versions of their fonts in the media, degrading their reputation.
Having said that, I don’t believe that foundries are obligated to explain why they make their EULAs the way they are, in order to justify users not breaking the agreement.
If users find a particular foundry’s licence agreement onerous, they should get their fonts from a different foundry.
The solution is a purchaser better informed about the options in the marketplace, not a piracy exemption for ignorance, as you are suggesting.
20.Jun.2005 10.57am
> You are the one excusing piracy
Nope. Redistribution is piracy, and I keep having to repeat that I don’t condone it. Internal modification is reasonable human behavior, not piracy. Don’t use “pirate” the way The White House uses “terrorist” - everybody will think you’re an idiot.
> To nip in the bud the process of companies doctoring a
> font, renaming it, and skipping multi-user license fees.
Which of course it doesn’t do very well at all. All it does is make people feel OK about doing really bad things. “Hey, since I broke this Absolute EULA anyway by modifying this font, maybe I should just ignore it outright?” And think of what a person would do if you went after him for internal modification... He’d make it a point to harm your business, and then he really could!
Admittedly, legal formalisms do hold some sway in some corporate circles. So the rich play their little games with their lawyer armies, while the people get trampled. Wow, what a surprise. Hypocritical money grubbers.
> Because a foundry doesn’t want to see visually corrupted versions of their fonts
Tough. It’s a reasonable part of culture.
> I don’t believe that foundries are obligated to explain
Who gives a crap what they’re “obligated” to do or not. I keep talking about Reasonable Human Behavior, all you guys are worried about is the Formal Party Line.
> The solution is a purchaser better informed ....
No, the solution is a font house better informed about:
2) human psychology.
2) The limits on hubris.
hhp
20.Jun.2005 11.00am
There is one case where trying to prevent internal modification might be excused: if the font is free. Like in the case of the MS core fonts. On the other hand, because of the big picture (always at play), it’s quite hard to feel sorry for MS for having to incur a few more support calls...
hhp
20.Jun.2005 3.25pm
>Don’t use “pirate” the way The White House uses “terrorist” - everybody will think you’re an idiot.
Hrant, that rhetorical flourish is a little over the top. What do you hope to achieve by comparing me to George Bush and calling me an idiot?
20.Jun.2005 5.31pm
I didn’t call you an idiot. I was pulling you back from
the precipice of calling internal modification “piracy”.
You’re welcome.
hhp
20.Jun.2005 6.36pm
>I didn’t call you an idiot.
How clever you must think you are, to draw the specious distinction between a clumsy inference and a plain insult.
Software piracy is the unauthorized use of intellectual property. If a EULA specifies that modification of fonts is not allowed, contravening it is piracy. Why is that so hard to understand?
20.Jun.2005 7.38pm
“You’re Either With Us Or Against Us.”™
Your “clever” is more of an insult -via that trademark
Western avoidance of directness- than anything I said.
hhp
20.Jun.2005 11.28pm
>If a EULA specifies that modification of fonts is not allowed, contravening it is piracy.
Horse shit.
Gerald
21.Jun.2005 3.10am
>Horse ——.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the way the font business works.
It’s organized around licence agreements, which are a form of legal contract. Not a perfect system, but it’s what we have.
The person, or company, who writes a licence agreement can put any conditions they like in it. For instance, they could decide that licensees only be allowed to use the font if they’re wearing a paper hat. You might think that’s unreasonable, but if those are the terms of the agreement, and you don’t agree, you should licence your fonts from a different foundry.
Hrant, Gerald, you seem to believe that users should be free to disregard whatever terms of a contract they consider unreasonable. That’s a slippery slope. The system is un-policed as it is (which does little to discourage abuse) so behavior is determined by social contract. Yes, people cheat, but at least let’s try and keep up appearances and not legitimize it, otherwise minority vices become mass habits.
I agree with you that being allowed to modify the fonts which one has licensed is a good idea, which is why I permit it in my EULA, as do many other foundries. However, there are those who don’t, and that’s their prerogative.
21.Jun.2005 9.26am
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the way human nature works.
> That’s a slippery slope.
Hey, Life is a slippery slope.
If you try to control it too much, it backfires.
> let’s try and keep up appearances
I guess I’m not good at being fake.
> that’s their prerogative.
Yes, and in the same way, it’s every individual’s prerogative to ignore unreasonable demands (especially when they’re presented so arrogantly). It’s really that simple, and no amount of legalistic posturing is going to fool everybody into giving you what you want. And you know that.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 9.56am
Sorry, Hrant, I have to agree with the other Nick.
Rules, laws, conventions...whatever you want to call them...make civilized life possible. To claim immunity or special exception, for whatever self-important reason, is to forfeit the protections that civilized life affords. I don’t know that happened while you were growing up, but I was told (repeatedly) that “everyone does it” isn’t an excuse, either.
Do I obey speed-limit laws scrupulously? No: I am fairly confident that I can “get away” with doing 5 mph over the limit (especially when most of the people around me are doing 15 or more mph over) but...if I get “caught” and cited for speeding, I will take my lumps, no argument and no excuses (especially “everyone does it”). Does that make me a dope, or a sucker? Probably, but at least I can retain some modicum of self-respect.
21.Jun.2005 10.06am
> Rules, laws, conventions…whatever you want to call them…make civilized life possible.
While I think reasonable human behavior makes civilized life possible. Formal laws are an aspect of that, but so are things like compassion, sincerity, candor, etc. that I’m sure you were told were Good Things while you were growing up too. So it’s a balance, and a pragmatic, nebulous, human balance. The over-reliance on formal law benefits those in power; it is designed to keep us peons. And this overt formalism is perhaps the single greatest flaw of western culture. It is inhuman. And pretending that we expect people to follow an unreasonable clause in a EULA is counter to how I was personally brought up. And if you ignore that society is made up of individuals with different desires/needs, you trade in Culture for Capital.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 10.17am
Hrant, you’ve got your humanity schtick backwards.
Most foundries are small businesses owned by fontmakers, not shareholders, and they have different views on things like how to word a EULA.
Don’t treat them all like impersonal manifestations of Big Bad Capital.
That’s a very convenient attitude for people who want to cynically take advantage of moral relativism by pirating whatever they feel like. Don’t fall into that trap, it’s bad for your karma.
21.Jun.2005 10.17am
While I’m not a professional type designer, this debate to me seems to be very similar to the war that is currently being waged in the music industry.
Metallica stood up and decided that Napster and other file sharing programs were illegal and stole profits from the artist and the music industry. What this did was ruin a huge potential (and might I add “free” marketing tool) to be utilized by both artists and record companies. Many of us who downloaded songs for free had the full intention of making actual music purchases. Song downloads could have been seen as “samples.”
When Metallica “banned” myself and many others from Napster, (their songs I downloaded to see whether I was going to purchase their back catalogue of albums) I vowed never to purchase ANYTHING by Metallica as long as I live, and I still haven’t.
Artists that are on major labels are getting raped by record companies because they’re stealing money from artists that they attribute to loss by illegal downloading. Consumers on the other hand (now I believe more than ever) pirate music as a backlash against record companies for putting out crap music and/or charging too much for it. Record companies are still losing money...
Moral of the story: “dogma can destroy you.”
21.Jun.2005 10.36am
> That’s a very convenient attitude
Coming from “let’s keep up appearances”, yeah, right. Who is being more convenient? We both make and sell fonts. And you probably use fonts more than me; I really don’t use fonts very much, so you can keep your “piracy”/”terrorist” propaganda to yourself. You’re siding 100% with the font house position, I’m trying to strike a balance, to be reasonable.
Terry, good point.
The problem is the all-or-nothing absolutism.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 10.40am
>very similar to the war that is currently being waged in the music industry.
There’s nothing like the issue of font modification in the music business.
Except perhaps the use of songs in commercials.
Anyway, you can’t really compare the font business to the music business, because there is no mass consumer market for fonts, thanks to bundling.
>Consumers on the other hand (now I believe more than ever) pirate music as a backlash against record companies for putting out crap music and/or charging too much for it.
That’s disingenuous. People pirate music because they are greedy and they won’t get caught. The “anti-establishment” rationale is a gloss.
21.Jun.2005 10.41am
Terry - While I agree with your main point, please be careful when comparing the font industry to the music industry. One is in far better shape economically, with very little to fear.
21.Jun.2005 10.51am
“I think reasonable human behavior makes civilized life possible”
I would like to agree with you, but I see precious little “reasonable human behavior” in my everyday life (try driving on the Washington, DC Beltway at rush hour, for instance), which is why “formal rules,” repugnant as they are and serving only the interests of Evil and Oppressive Capitalism, are unfortunate necessities. Thinking oneself “beyond” such things is one of the distinguishing characteristics of sociopaths, criminals, career politicians and CEOs.
21.Jun.2005 10.57am
And Nick, the smaller you are (and you and I are both small) the more it’s plain dumb to blindly bend over for the system. Speaking of plain dumb, pragmatically, in the end it’s plain dumb to put a no-mods clause in a EULA. If your hubris or confusion about human nature cause you to be plain dumb*, hey, the most -and least- others should do is feel sorry; but just know that you’re the one who will suffer most for it.
* Nevermind that you totally ignore the question of why you don’t have such a clause while some other houses do. Certainly the products and clientele aren’t always totally different. Is it too much to think about? Or perhaps the results of your thoughts would put a hole right through your formal legal absolutist facade... People can sense what not to think about - it’s called a coping mechanism. Some of us are lousy at that though; we feel dirty about looking the other way.
Most tellingly, let’s try to figure out why font houses have gone back and forth about putting such a clause, while their product and clientele hasn’t changed. When were they right, when were they wrong? Oh, I forgot, A Business Is Never Wrong - it’s always the customer’s fault (since his lawyers are worse). What’s histerical of course is that this goes against a central tenet of Capitalism: The Customer Is Always Right. In the end, it’s neither. The truth is, The Customer Is Always Duped, And Made To Never Even Realize It.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 10.58am
>That’s disingenuous. People pirate music because they are greedy and they won’t get caught. The “anti-establishment” rationale is a gloss.<
Isn’t this a forum for differing viewpoints and points of view? Anywho, I completely disagree with that. While that may be true in some cases, I think “people are greedy and they won’t get caught” is also a gloss. While I’m guilty of this as well, its best not to speak in broad generalizations.
I’m not claiming to be anti-establishment. All I offered was food for thought.
While I agree the profits that stand to be gained from fonts and music is definitely astronomically different, my comparison was based more on a consumer perspective.
We designers often forget about regular consumers and that’s something that should certainly not be underestimated. Like it or not, there is nothing that’s going stop regular Joe’s from thinking that fonts cost too darn much.
On the otherhand...Nick has a point in that if you don’t like the rules, when you make your own fonts, tailor them specifically to what you think is reasonable. I don’t really see why there’s so much bickering.
21.Jun.2005 11.00am
> Thinking oneself “beyond” such things is one of the distinguishing
> characteristics of sociopaths, criminals, career politicians and CEOs.
And revolutionaries.
The French and American Revolutions, after all, were illegal.
Some of us are just lousy peons.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 11.05am
> People pirate music because they are greedy
Oh, yes, Good versus Evil. The few bad apples ruin things for everybody. Gol’ dang it.
Nick, you should write the president’s speeches.
Terry, if I’m in a bitchy mood, it’s because I see this small affair as a facet of the culture -using the term loosely- that’s destroying humanity. And I get especially angry when I see slaves licking the boots of the master that’s kicking them in the head.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 11.07am
>keep your “piracy”/”terrorist” propaganda to yourself.
If this kind of inflamatory statement is you “trying to be reasonable”, perhaps you could try a little harder?
I know you’re upset about your government, but why don’t you go on a few protest marches or something, rather than keep bringing it up on Typophile? — that would be useful and help get it out of your system.
21.Jun.2005 11.10am
Hrant, you seem to be confusing disregard for the law with civil disobedience. To follow your line of reasoning, there is no difference between Martin Luther King and Oliver North. The former openly challenged what he considered to be unjust laws, and accepted the consequences for his actions. The later conducted a secret war from the basement of the White House and, when he was caught, wrapped himself in the flag and declared his supralegal patriotism. The former, for all his personal faults, was a true hero; the latter, a simple criminal...but, of course, they were both lousy peons.
21.Jun.2005 11.11am
Let’s get back on topic.
Here is (as I see it) reason number one for foundries have no-mod clauses in EULAs:
It has to do with branding. Not the foundry’s branding, but what people tend to do with brands. Like was said above, a modified font-x looks like font-x with a funny nose, but big companies want that anyway.
So big company goes to a designer (or to a branding agency, who then goes to a type designer). They say, we want to license font-x from foundry-y. We are going to buy a 10,000 seat license. Since foundry-y allows font modifications, we want to pay you to modify font-x so that it represents our new “branding goals.”
Suddenly, the designer, or branding agency and designer, are making a lot of extra modification money. Most type designers/foundries would prefer to do that modification themselves, and get that money instead of letting it go to a third-party. Sure, they are still getting the licensing fees, but they want to control all money made with their products.
Since this is in large part about money, I’m sure that any foundry with a no-mod clause would, for an extra licensing fee, sell a modification license to the licensee. If you want to modify font-x, but foundry-y doesn’t allow it in their EULA, you can get a EULA upgrade for a fee.
Or you can go to foundry-z, and license font-w. Foundry-z has a different EULA. That is the way our market works. Some people would rather criticize the market in general than talking about real solutions.
__
www.typeoff.de
21.Jun.2005 11.22am
> why don’t you go on a few protest marches
Bujeezus. Talk about peonic.
I will “get it out of my system” if/when the West backs off.
> you seem to be confusing disregard for the law with civil disobedience.
I don’t like to direct my thoughts based on terminology.
Also:
1) I don’t think any such line can be totally clear.
2) I don’t advocate ignoring laws. I advocate deciding which laws are bad, deciding to break them or not, while being prepared to face the consequences.
I also advocate striking down people who want to keep peons tied to the oars.
> Some people would rather criticize the market
> in general than talking about real solutions.
Here’s my solution:
Money-grubbers, forget about supressing culture. Humanity will shame you.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 11.31am
Ummm...maybe it’s time to set up a separate forum department, and call it “Hrant and Hrave.”
21.Jun.2005 11.39am
I love puns. :)
21.Jun.2005 12.49pm
Parallel universe fiction is provocative — what if the South had won the Civil War? — but I’ve never seen something as fantastic as this: a portrayal of this industry in which type foundries wear the black hats. Please.
Dan Reynolds’ assessment is a good one; let me continue the story. Big Company, having contacted Foundry Y, finds that Foundry Y is indeed interested in doing the customization of their fonts. However, having only a vague understanding of intellectual property law — doubtless informed by reading unmoderated posts on Typophile — they turn to Some Dude X to inquire about having a cheap imitation made. This is where your relativism leads, Hrant: Big Company gets to cheap out, at the expense of the fine people of Foundry Y.
Similar to Foundry Y is a small outfit called Hoefler & Frere-Jones. Unlike the sinister corporations that terrorize Hrant’s bizarro universe, we are not entirely cruel and avaricious, and we try not to spend more than 20% of the day thinking up new ways to screw people (except orphans — we hate orphans.) What we are is a five person company specializing in the development of new typefaces, and our biggest thrill of the year will be scraping together enough cash to give another typeface designer a full-time job. We work our asses off, Hrant, and I’ll thank you to remember that next time you generalize about “font houses.”
I don’t have the philosophical chops to get into a lofty discussion about capitalism, let alone “destroying humanity” or “keeping people peons.” (These items rarely come up in our weekly meetings.) I’m just happy to have a business that allows me to invest my resources wholly in design, and I’m really grateful to the people who make this possible by buying our fonts, EULA and all. We don’t find it especially hard to treat people respectably, and we do our best to accommodate their wishes, but sometimes we do have to tell people that they can’t just change the lowercase “a” in Gotham and call it their own. So be it. It’s a small price to pay for being able to keep drawing typefaces.
21.Jun.2005 1.33pm
I think I should have stuck with a response like Gerald’s.
—
BTW, Jonathan, you know what would make a bunch of people happy?
If you didn’t jump in just once a year, and only to protect your business.
Here’s a quote I like to bring up now and again:
“I hold every man a debtor to his profession, from the which,
as men do of course seek to receive countenance and profit,
so ought they of duty to endeavor themselves by way of
ammends to be a help and an ornament thereunto.”
-Lord Bacon
But I guess if you think about it, it all fits...
The thing is, making good fonts is not good enough.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 3.15pm
started nice, moved fine — then “my way or the highway”
”....what would make a bunch of people happy?
If you didn’t jump in just once a year, and only to protect your business.”
well i don’t know you (both of you - Hrant & Jonathan) but i don’t think this is fair to ask just Jonathan - where are you or why you are not here.in that case we/you can ask where is:
Matthew Carter?
Akira Kobayashi ?
Jean Porchez?
Zuzana Licko?
Erik Spiekermann?
Jeremy Tankard?
Robert Slimbach?
David Berlow?
and many others....
let’s get back on topic and keep it simple: let’s say a client is going to call me — “I like the font Gotham and I want a custom font like Gotham. can you do it? “
and i’m not talking about EULA, Shmula, Momo or Mula , but about DIGNITY, the ability to go to work with an AIM, GOAL; that you’re/we doing something — Designing Typefaces.
and then — when we/you are going to TypeCon you have the Dignity to stand in front of other people and educate them about your work!!!
21.Jun.2005 3.26pm
Hrant, I’m sorry to deny bunches of people their happiness. I try to contribute only when I have both the time to follow the discussion and something relevant to say, two commodities which are regrettably hard to come by.
If “making good fonts is not enough,” I’m really not sure what you expect of people who make fonts. I try to comport myself honorably, which for me means not publishing ripoffs of other people’s designs (no matter how much I’d love to digitize half of ATF’s back catalog), not cutting corners in my work (even if I know nobody’s ever going to use the ’stfj’ ligature in Requiem Italic), and providing jobs for as many other type designers as I can. I also support public radio and the ASPCA, and I generally remember to recycle tin foil.
In closing, I really didn’t understand the Bacon quote at all.
21.Jun.2005 3.38pm
Actually, Erik Spiekermann, David Berlow, and Jean-François Porchez all participate relatively often on Typophile. As do Thomas Phinney, Mark Simonson, and John Hudson… in addition to quite a few other professional type designers. In short, it all comes down to time and ability, Parker. All of the designers whose names you mentioned do attend design conferences, though. So I wouldn’t say that they are unapproachable.
I really don’t think that the type designers who don’t participate on Typophile should be criticized for not doing so. If the forums become interesting and relevant enough, I suspect that more might show up. I also don’t see how anyone can fault type designers for designing fonts…
__
www.typeoff.de
21.Jun.2005 3.51pm
“If the forums become interesting and relevant enough, I suspect that more might show up”
I think this is relevant enough ( and just few samples):
“Mon, 2005-04-04 23:36
i don’t like my fonts, but i am not sure where the problems are?
Can you give me some suggestion?
Thanks.”
Mon, 2005-04-04 18:47
greetings everyone. i just started designing a display font for my typography class. it’s based on my handwriting (thought it might be nice to have for a personal identification package) and it is comprised of just capital letters.
i don’t have a name for it yet nor have i designed all the letters. but, i just wanted to see if anyone had some feedback for me. thanks a lot!
-k”
i don’t know if they’re still looking for feedback
“I also don’t see how anyone can fault type designers for designing fonts…”
Dan — what do you mean?
21.Jun.2005 4.07pm
I hink modding a font is like remixing a song. If it’s done well, it can really re-invent the whole song, give it a new groove, make it fresh. A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done. FF Bau and GalaxiePolaris are, imo, Remixes of Helvetica, whichinteself remixes different influences and templates. It’s an ongoing cultural evolutionary process and as such it is not a bad one. We have the same stuff in music. The Dandy Warhols and/or The Hives are remixes of The Rolling Stones.
Now, Mick and the gang could either be pissed at the fact that someone is «stealings their style or take it as a compliment or at least a inherent element of any artistic field.
Even when it comes down to remixing a font I bought for my own uses or for a client, I think that is fairly okay. Binary designs are moldable and should be treated as such. If I need a Franklin Gothic with a differnt design in the «Umlaute» (ÄÖÜ) for a job, I’ll go ahead and do it in FontLab (IF I have the time :-). If I need a Font with real Small Caps and OSFs, I’ll try to find a way to get it done myself or from a font service provider. I think this is a smaller scale than coming up wih a whole new font and in the most cases it’s just following the acute demands of a certain job. <
I still think some ogf Alex Branczyks remixes of comercial fonts such as OCR or Syntax were a lot of fun and I actually like his Syntax (used for the Philip Morris design shop catalogue by moniteurs, IIRC) a lot better than the new Syntax released by Linotype, merging the somewhat clumsier old Syntax with clean and neat OSFs. Same goes for Luc(as) Remix of Futura or Volkswagen. I don’t know about the erspective of the guy whose fonts GET remixed, and I think credit (and licenses bought beforehand) are due as a remix does not really give us an entirely NEW song or font (well, sometimes, but mostly not), but from the perspective of the end-user, I like font modding a lot :-D.
HD Schellnack
21.Jun.2005 4.14pm
> i don’t think this is fair to ask just Jonathan
1) I do ask others. But I’ve never wanted to make it some sort of campaign.
2) Some others -including some probably busier than Jonathan- in fact do participate. Not much, but more than once in a blue moon. Looking at your list I’d include Carter, JFP, Spiekermann and Tankard (although not all on Typophile). Heck, even Berlow the Quiet :-) chimes in more.
3) When they do participate, it’s not exclusively to promote/protect their business. It would be nice to get more discourse about the craft. Or even just font jokes.
4) Jonathan was one of the founders of Typophile.
I don’t enjoy pointing the finger at individuals - it tends to distract from the bigger problems. But in the context of this thread I think it’s relevant to point out that not participating and insisting on servile respect for one’s EULA are related.
> I really didn’t understand the Bacon quote at all.
I guess it means “give back”. Honorable behavior is great, and I think you manage better than most. But then there is graciousness, selflessness. And the craft can benefit from more of that, from everybody.
—
> let’s get back on topic ....
If I were to give one reason why Jonathan’s and Nick’s attitude is too draconian, it’s that type design is never done in a vacuum. We owe a lot to precedent. The Law is not sensitive to this, and a EULA can take undue advantage of that. Trying to force a company to come exclusively to you for a mod on your humanist sans is indecent.
This should be especially pertinent to people like Jonathan who rely so heavily on revivalism. It seems to me that the criterion for good behavior among some people is in fact equivalent to not getting sued, to playing the games of the letter of the law. This shuts out the world of moral behavior, and that’s inhuman.
I’m working on a Baskerville revival. But the fact that JB can’t sue me does not reduce my unease, an unease that comes from issues relating to craft, not lawyers.
> It’s an ongoing cultural evolutionary process and as such it is not a bad one.
Exactly.
The trick is striking a balance between that and the practical needs ot designers.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 4.49pm
Hrant, NOTHING is ever done in a vacuum, nor is anything done that doesn’t depend on something that came before. So freaking what?
There’s a basic problem with dime-store revolutionaries like yourself: they’re hypocrites. Let me give you an example from my own life: I have a sister-in-law who is a self-professed 70s anti-establishment radical. She attended medical school and became a practicing physician but, somewhere along the way, she decided that working for a living sucked big time. So, she undertook some research and found a wondrous malady: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. No known cause, no known cure. So, she got herself diagnosed with this particular malady, and has been (thanks to well-thought-out insurance) on medical disability for the past ten years. She doesn’t have the energy to work, but somehow she manages the energy for at least a month-long vacation to Europe or Africa or the Near East every year. And she gets paid rather well for NOT working in between her sojourns abroad.
She, like you, despises THE MAN, and she seems convinced and vindicated that she has come up with a perfect scam to screw THE MAN. But, guess what: THE MAN covers his posterior very well; when excessive claims cut into THE MAN’s bottom line, he simply raises the rates that EVERYONE else pays. So, THE MAN makes his money no matter what, and EVERYONE ELSE gets screwed. Somehow or another, my sister-in-law fails to see it this way and, evidently, you don’t get this very simple fact, either.
So, please, spare us your flaming rhetoric. The fact that you are the most prolific poster on this website indicates to me that you have WAY too much time on your hands. Rather than pontificating on these premises, why don’t you use some of that free time to go out and actually DO something to make the world a better place? And do it in a way that IS socially responsible to the rest of us...people who are “too smart” to play by the rules end up costing the rest of us dearly.
21.Jun.2005 5.11pm
1) I don’t care about your sister-in-law. I barely care about you, and only to the extent of your relevance to type design. And you shouldn’t care much about me, or worry about my flaws. Worry about yourself.
2) For every middle-aged anglo male who doesn’t like me, there’s somebody who isn’t who does. Know this.
3) I’m Armenian. We have bigger problems than milking the last dimes out of corporations, and I very much am involved in trying to solve them. One way is by formulating ideas, giving talks, writing articles and making fonts that address the ills of Latinization in Armenian type design. What have you done for your script/culture? Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question - it’s meant for you to answer to yourself, and think about.
4) No matter how you or I use our time, it remains that your stance, which is a central part of your culture, is making the world a worse place.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 7.05pm
Hrant, it’s your ability to turn any Typophile thread into a pissing match in which you arrogantly insult anyone who disagrees with you, that’s dissuading a lot of type professionals from posting.
21.Jun.2005 7.38pm
Hrant:
I’m not “a founder of Typophile.” This is Jared & Joe’s ballgame; I’m just an occasional reader. I lent a small cup of content for the initial release (which is perhaps what you meant by “giving back”), and I was delighted to contribute the Mercury and Gotham fonts that are used in the current Typophile identity. That’s all.
It’s extremely mean-spirited to say that I participate here “exclusively to promote or protect my business.” (If you’d like more professionals to be engaged in Typophile, perhaps you should be a little less inexplicably antagonistic toward the profession.) I avoid most discussions precisely because I think I’d have obvious and self-serving things to say, and I don’t think anyone reading the “Quintessential American Font” topic especially needs to hear my thoughts about Gotham or Knockout. I posted earlier that I try to join the conversation only when I’ve got something to say, and the font business happens to be something that I have a lot to say about. So what’s your problem? You seem content to lambast me for either participation or absenteeism, which is incomprehensible. (If you’re just looking for someone to spar with, I’m really not interested.) At any rate, since I’m apparently going to be criticized whether I stay or go, I think I’ll go. It’s a shame, because it took me twenty minutes to make my icon.
21.Jun.2005 7.45pm
“I think I’ll go”
wait a minute i have couple things to ask you (I’ll start a new thread ) :)
21.Jun.2005 9.00pm
> that’s dissuading a lot of type professionals from posting.
That convenient escapism has already been put to the test on the ground on Typo-L, and has failed the test. Most “professionals” who don’t post wouldn’t post no matter what; they simply use me as a convenient excuse. This isn’t conjecture, the evidence is there.
But since I’m not a bully, and want to show that I’m not, and since I believe that a healthy forum is good for the craft, me, and everybody else, that old offer still stands:
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/72/4694.html
So no more excuses. I am not the problem. At most, I am the messenger. And judging by what happened on Typo-L (nothing) I’m not even that. Demonize individuals, and you will be a textbook peon - you will dig yourself deeper in your trench.
> It’s extremely mean-spirited to say that I participate
> here “exclusively to promote or protect my business.”
No, it’s candid. I’m not a mean person, I just have different standards of behavior. Appreciate the difference, and mind the content instead of being eager to feel insulted. And my intent is not to make you look bad (I actually value you quite a bit) but to give you a view from the outside, and maybe, just maybe help you improve yourself, and as a result improve the craft, and me. And I’m open to the same from you, and anybody else. That’s why I’ve tolerated being called a “troll”, “parasite”, etc. and have even endured a defamation campaign or two - without running away.
> I avoid most discussions precisely because I think
> I’d have obvious and self-serving things to say
?
Please, please, talk self-servingly about craft, instead of only about the law! We can handle it.
> I’m apparently going to be criticized whether I stay or go
It’s not where you are, but what you are trying to be.
You are a lot already, but don’t hate me if I push you to be more.
—
And I’ll even go the extra mile for you (plural):
When Tina starts that new thread asking Jonathan her direct questions, I won’t make a single post to it. Now, if Jonathan doesn’t make a post to it, that doesn’t mean he’s a bad person; but it does make me not the problem. And forget me anyway. Just improve your own behavior.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 9.30pm
BTW, Nick, Jonathan:
Would you care to address the content of my post of 16:14?
Do you feel for example that the inability of the legal world to take into account the inherently derivative nature of any type design effort (especially revivals, Jonathan) is completely moot? Do you really think the only thing that matters is the interplay of the law and money? If so, do you expect everybody else to play along?
Yes, Hrant-bashing is the ultimate party game, but we wouldn’t want it to distract from some hope of fruitful discourse... Well, I wouldn’t.
hhp
21.Jun.2005 11.54pm
Hrant, I’ve addressed the content of this thread quite a bit, and for my pains you have called me an idiot, a servile boot-licker, a George Bush speech-writer, a “terrorist” propagandist, etc. As a middle-aged Anglo male with my own business (glorified self-employment, actually), I am also a money-grubbing capitalist complicit in my culture’s ongoing agenda of making the world a worse place. Sorry, what was the topic?
Oh yes, your post is bigger than mine.
22.Jun.2005 12.33am
>I think I should have stuck with a response like Gerald’s.
Well...
I was wondering if there is another product other than software that when you buy it you actually haven’t bought it, you’ve only leased it. Seriously.
It seems to me like something concocted so that products can be easily sold on the internet. It doesn’t correspond to contract law though. You actually need signatures for that. Implication by purchase is nonsense.
Also, I don’t know of another product where you are not allowed, once you have purchased it, to do whatever the hell you want with it. Campbell’s doesn’t tell me I can’t add ingrediants to their soup.
Gerald
22.Jun.2005 3.02am
>another product where you are not allowed, once you have purchased it, to do whatever the hell you want with it.
Ideas about copyright and intellectual properrty were introduced into law from a sense of fair play towards content producers. For visual images, this goes back to Hogarth’s “A Harlot’s Progress” series of etchings. The rage of the day, it was set to music, used as decorations for fans and teacups, and so on; yet Hogarth lost much of the benefit of this popularity because of a flood of pirated copies of his prints issued by Grub Street booksellers. He and his friends petitioned Parliament to correct this abuse, and in 1735 an Act was passed vesting in designers and engravers an exclusive right to their own works, and restraining the multiplication of copies without their consent.
The principle is that the creator of a work has the right to derive the major benefit from it, not the copyist or plagiarist.
It is this principle which must be weighed against the right of buyers to do as they please with their purchases. For font software, license agreements define the relative rights of the two parties
22.Jun.2005 9.16am
> Sorry, what was the topic?
One aspect of the topic is the necessarily derivative nature of any type design*, and the conflict this causes between morals and the law. You haven’t addressed that, and it’s a central question. It takes two to engage in a pissing match, after all.
* Especially revivals. But please don’t use your non-revivalist nature to distract from the main question.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 10.37am
I’m going to go back on topic now.
Here was the real question, which I’ve just reread:
let’s say I’m the client and I really love Minion — so what the type designer is going to do? “copy” the font? change the strokes? create a new Minion?…….
If you are the type designer in this case you say: “If you really love Minion, that is great! Minion is a sweet font that Robert Slimbach at Adobe designed. Go to http://www.adobe.com/type and license one copy of the font for each of your workstations.”
If the client says, “I want my own similar-Minion,” see the above discussion. If Adobe allows modifications, the client still needs to license all of the necessary copies before the type designer could do any changes. If Adobe doesn’t allow modifications, the designer should recommend another font from another foundry.
If the client says, “yeah, but I just want you to design me a typeface that looks just like Minion, because you are cheaper than Adobe,” then the type designer should walk away. What goes around, comes around…
__
www.typeoff.de
22.Jun.2005 11.28am
>>A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done. <<<
1) This is an interesting point. (I also COMPLETELY agree with the musical comparison as well, but that’s another matter :) Many different typefaces have been derived from calligraphic forms like Edward Johnston’s Foundation and Humanist Miniscule for example. Do we then pay royalties to the estates of the individuals responsible for creating this. (An extreme point I know, but one that is important in determining exactly where to draw the line in legal terms.)
22.Jun.2005 11.32am
> ... then the type designer should walk away.
Except if you’re Apple (Chalkboard) or MS (Segoe) or {virtually any large corporation}?...
You see, only the little people lacking lawyer-armies are adversely affected in the end.
And to me at least that’s enough reason to treat such laws with contempt.
The formalistics you elaborate are admittedly needed; I’m glad somebody finally went to that trouble, instead of just barking “follow my laws, peon”. However, a parallel moral discussion is also needed.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 11.42am
Dan, you were steering this thread in the right direction with your earlier post... this is very much about money. That should be out in the middle of the table right now — a giant centerpiece of fragrant banknotes.
EULAs are about money, not usage or modification. We all want to make a buck doing this stuff. That’s why no-mod clauses are drafted: to protect fiscal (as well as creative) interests. That’s also why Hrant wants to argue these prohibitions away... to exercise this Objectivist greed without remorse, reprimand or justification. While I am certain that Hrant’s argument strikes a chord in all our greedy hearts, it seems he speaks the ’reasonable’ logic that pressed the capitalist bootprint into his forehead. Greed is good, but not good at justifying its goodness with words.
But I’m glad Hrant has the ballz to spit fury. If he’s not entertaining, he’s speaking from the depths of his psyche (even the insults).
Civil disobedience was mentioned. Complete lunacy. No lives are being taken in the font industry; just livelihoods. Ethically, if you must prepare your closing arguments before committing the offence, you should perhaps petition to change the law before breaking it. The least you nay-sayers could do is license from another distributor/foundry that caters to your philosophy, as Nick has valiantly been restating, rather than rail against the efforts of our contemporaries, however adverse you may be to them.
So what of respect? What about respecting/protecting creative and fiscal interests? What about reasonable compensation for services provided? Are we all to go it alone... dog eat dog ripping off each other’s software as we commiserate in forums about the lack of money to be made in type design?
And terminology aside, I think we can all agree that a thief and a pirate are equal. Let’s not split hairs about taking money in breach of EULA clauses.
22.Jun.2005 11.49am
2) A portion of this discussion that I’m surprised hasn’t been fully addressed is what everyone thinks of using a purchased typeface for modification in a logo, logotype, or masthead.
3) I am very new and inexperienced in the realms of type design and this forum. While I’ll point no fingers I think its best that we a) don’t take things too personally and b) don’t resort to personal attacks.
4)Tina brought up some good points about certain topics NOT being addressed by frequent users of this site. It often creates a climate of a) people apprehensive about joining and b) feeling like this is an exclusive club for only certain selected individuals.
22.Jun.2005 12.11pm
A portion of this discussion that I’m surprised hasn’t been fully addressed is what everyone thinks of using a purchased typeface for modification in a logo, logotype, or masthead.
99% of the time, if a designer makes a logo or masthead by setting the text in Illustrator or Photoshop, and then converts the image to paths or pixels, and then changes the letters that way, it is fair use*, because it does not change the font data. Some type designers get peeved by this, but it is permitted.
* Unless of course, it was written in the EULA that you could NOT do that. I know of no EULAs that do just that. A few foundries (just two or three small ones, I think) may not allow you to set entirely typographic logos with their fonts, without a special license
__
www.typeoff.de
22.Jun.2005 12.16pm
sorry, my posts aren’t showing up properly for whatever reason...the beginning was:
>>>A lot of typeface history, I think, is about such remixes. There is very little of actually coming up with a completely new design and a lot of tweaking, modding, remixing, solve et coagula done.
1) This is an interesting point. (I also COMPLETELY agree with the musical comparison as well, but that’s another matter :) Many different typefaces have been derived from calligraphic forms like Edward Johnston’s Foundation and Humanist Miniscule for example. Do we then pay royalties to the estates of the individuals responsible for creating this. (An extreme point I know, but one that is important in determining exactly where to draw the line in legal terms.)
22.Jun.2005 12.23pm
> What about reasonable compensation for services provided?
Silas, I’ll resist the urge to pick apart the many elements of your arguments that I disagree with, but I will [re]state this: I am in fact trying to strike a balance. Otherwise I would advocate free-wheeling appropriation, like making direct derivatives of a design without the client buying a commensurate license of the original. That extreme and the other extreme (Thou Must Not Breathe Without My Express Written Permission) are ubiquitous, and easy cop-outs. While I’m trying to tread the nebulous, slippery path of “reasonability”; because I think that’s what’s most important. And anybody who thinks the letter of the law is more important has my pity.
So my problem is with the hypocrisy of being obsessively protective of things that don’t really totally belong to us. Like Adobe getting a design patent on a Garamond. It’s indecent. That to me over-rides the legal considerations.
> Greed is good
You see, I don’t even believe that.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 12.46pm
>derivative nature of any type design
(I would argue that, but not here)
I don’t think that has anything to do with this thread, which is about “font software’ as it is described in EULAs.
Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.
22.Jun.2005 12.54pm
I repeat: Your strict formalistics are at odds with human nature.
Hmmm, maybe if you tried your hand at grayscale pixelfont design...
Speaking of type design, what happened to that “challenge” of ours?
I remember it was your idea, but then you said you became too busy.
Since you’re now the 4th most prolific poster, maybe the other Nick
would appreciate you spend the time delving into the craft instead...
Not that a half-dozen or so posts a day -and most just a few lines in
my own case at least- are all that a normal human should be able
to manage in one working day.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 1.04pm
Hrant: I stand corrected. Your arguments led me to believe things you did not explicitly state.
This is precicely the importance of having every intention set in stone - in a EULA - to avoid conflict of interpretation and to make one’s position plain and simple. If Jonathan doesn’t want you to breathe without written consent, that’s his perogative and with good reason... in order to limit the exponential degradation of his work and income. He has a right to protect his published work and wallet.
Letter and spirit of the law is a balancing act, yes, but when the letter is as clear as prohibiting modification, what difference in spirit is there to deduce? Go ahead and break the EULA. Nobody has the money to sue you anyway.
I’m making broader strokes here, and in that motion I’d like to spell out my stance...
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
If you mod a font in breach of EULA, you’re working in a deficit of ethics and morality. To attempt to justify a lack of respect in such behavior with popular opinion and superior reasoning, you’re denying the EULA’s author any attempt at conducting business in the manner he/she deems fit.
I still say there is hope for your logic though. You just need to deliver a more inviting argument and not scare Nick with anti-American slander. Knowing your intention, I would gladly allow you to craft a derivative of anything I have done so long as you shared the process and/or profit.
I’m still up in the air about this particular subject so it’s good to see it in the forums. It is one of the factors holding me back from my publishing debut. (I focus on private commissions.) I don’t see any of the larger distributors protecting the designers as vigilantly as we can protect ourselves when it comes to aftermarket life of the software. I’m content in working closely with respectable clients that respect my services. If everyone conducted themselves with such respect, we would perhaps have no need for EULAs at all. Sadly, that’s not the case, and you’re trying to make it all seem so sane. Do go on.
22.Jun.2005 2.06pm
>Your strict formalistics are at odds with human nature.
Type is a formal affair. A large part of human nature may think “it’s all derivative”, but when one looks deeper, one finds that there are varying degrees of derivation, and some categories which are quite distinct. Your buddy John Downer explored some of these distinctions: http://www.emigre.com/EFoITrbF.php
There is a huge difference in quality between original work done from scratch (ie drawn with bezier tools, without the benefit of tracing scans) and fonts made by tweaking someone else’s data.
>what happened to that “challenge” of ours?
Sorry, that was round about the time I moved to the UK, and everything just piled up on me and I couldn’t squeeze it into my schedule, then it seemed like the time had passed.
Are you still interested in my having a go at it?
22.Jun.2005 3.03pm
Silas, again, I will try to focus on one thing.
> If you mod a font in breach of EULA, you’re
> working in a deficit of ethics and morality.
While I feel that a EULA with a no-mod clause is such. To me that is what’s disrespectful.
> there are varying degrees of derivation
Indeed. But always some. And this conflicts with your absolutism.
> Are you still interested in my having a go at it?
Even though it was your idea (or at least you liked it back when somebody proposed it - I remember being myself reluctant, at first) I’d feel bad if you went to the trouble just for me. If somebody could find that old thread, maybe we could ask if the broader interest remains.
BTW, Nick, please know that there are a lot of things about you -not to mention some of your fonts, like Panoptica- that I like. Like I remember you explaining the reasoning behind Oneleigh to me at ATypI-99, and my thinking highly of it. Maybe I’m strange, but the fact that I think you are so wrong about so many important things doesn’t sour things for me at all. Maybe because I think you are right about enough other things in type, or maybe more important things outside of type.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 3.41pm
So, Hrant, what do you charge per hour to modify a third-party font? Enough to cover legal liability?
22.Jun.2005 4.37pm
Hrant: Sometimes you just make me sad. I appreciate your comments on many of my fonts in the critique forums, and I even enjoy the bomb throwing from time to time. But here you’ve gone to far with the personal insults, and just plain rudeness. Oddly, however, in this instance I find myself agreeing with you on this point: no-mod clauses are no fun for anyone. “No mod for resale” clauses make more sense. At the same time the practice of “mod to skinny out of buying licenses” is no good either.
As for the idea of remix: It can be good or it can be cheap and lousy. There is also the concept of “re-perform”, which is better in my mind. It’s one thing to sample someone’s song and add very little. It’s another thing to perform it and add your own touch. There’s a fine line that must be drawn. No one likes cheap font cd’s filled with cheap, slightly altered and renamed fonts. At the same time, I would love to see Jonathan interpret Frutiger or Zapf, just as he interprets the work of designers whose work has now entered the public domain. Maybe works need to enter the public domain much more quickly. What if all works became public domain after 10 years? It would make more sense to me. That being said, I may be reticent to release my fonts into the public domain when they turn 10 if they are still making me money :)
22.Jun.2005 6.08pm
Silas, I don’t know. But one of the things I really hate is “covering legal liability”. It’s a pervasive and growing cancer that creates a regressive, petty society.
Christian, different things make each of us sad. You think this is some kind of cheery thread for me? But if we care about Typophile it’s very important not to let the behavior of others dampen our participation. I value candor as much as you seem to value civility; but most of all I value tolerance, and not just of content, but of expressive style. What else could hope to work in such a heterogenous environment?
hhp
22.Jun.2005 6.12pm
:)
guys — this thread is with 1370 reads; 1500 — beer on the house.
:)
22.Jun.2005 6.16pm
...no-mod clauses are no fun for anyone.
It’s not about fun. It’s about protecting investments and interests.
There’s a fine line that must be drawn.
...or loads of them all over the place according to the situations you’ve listed, Christian. A no-mod clause saves the trouble and discussion, not to mention a potential loss of profits.
And how far does one have to tweak an existing design for it to be a respectable reinterpretation? Who is to judge? I’d say the licensor/designer of the original has 51% say. Even in the music industry, remixes require the approval of the original artist/publisher prior to release.
22.Jun.2005 6.21pm
i think that Nick is simple and clear:
“Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.”
22.Jun.2005 6.32pm
Mmmmmm... beeeer.
This is an extremely valuable issue... and I use the term ’valuable’ in the most literal sense. There’s a lot of easy money to be made in aftermarket modification. We all need to know where each other stand.
Another thing I’m neglecting to mention — but will at this point for the side of the pro-mod camp — is the eduacational value of decompiling a font. There is a lot to learn of metrics by reverse engineering a professionally tuned design... things that printed specimens will never explain so plainly. A no-mod-for-resale clause is certainly more reasonable taking this into consideration.
22.Jun.2005 6.42pm
i think that Nick is simple and clear:
“Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.”
It certainly isn’t type design, but it can be a lucrative service. Pep Boys isn’t in the business of putting wheels on your car, but they sure can replace them with shinier ones.
Through the hazy ethics of modding a font, there is still the monetary exchange.
NO MOD FOR PROFIT seems fair enough to me. If you have the time and skill to mod a font, why would you be willing to work pro bono? If you’re modding for personal use, you must be doing something valuable.
22.Jun.2005 6.58pm
> A no-mod clause saves the trouble and discussion,
> not to mention a potential loss of profits.
Huh, the same is achieved on the other end by... piracy! My point remains that in looking for a good balance, you cannot divorce humans morals from this, or from anything else for that matter. “Who is to judge?” The same as always: the individual. This isn’t The Borg or something where we defer our decisions to some central “server”; we have no choice but to exercise our judgment, our reasonability, in everything. Any other view can only cater to the powers that be (not us), channeled by the ideological lethargy of some.
> “Tinkering with someone else’s font (modification/customization) is not type design.”
I found that laughably over-simple.
Simple things are cute. For 5 minutes.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 7.37pm
Piracy is the loss of profits.
Sure, we aren’t the Borg and surely there is no Secret Font Police. And who is to judge, you ask? The Licensor of the work... not the End User! The End User enters into the Agreement when the license is purchased. The End User must RESPECT that Agreement. There’s no subjectivity in that! There’s not autonomy in the interpretation! Deal with it!
we have no choice but to exercise our judgment, our reasonability, in everything. Any other view can only cater to the powers that be (not us), channeled by the ideological lethargy of some.
In Johnathan’s case, he is the powers that be, and more power to him. His End Users “have no choice” but to go elsewhere for their fonts, not to “exercise their judgment” on matters of abiding by his EULA once they have entered into it!
A round of rum shots! Let’s see which way Hrant’s judgment and reasonability sways. Raise the Jolly Roger! How many of your designs are publicly licensable? Where do you bury your pirate’s booty?
22.Jun.2005 8.03pm
Arrr, scallawag!
hhp
22.Jun.2005 8.09pm
Another thing I’m neglecting to mention — but will at this point for the side of the pro-mod camp — is the eduacational value of decompiling a font. There is a lot to learn of metrics by reverse engineering a professionally tuned design…
Please don’t take me as a pro-no-mod but...
What EULA is stopping anyone from opening any font they own and looking at the metrics if they want to? Not doing so, just because the EULA forbids you to do so seems a bit too much (to me). After all, it doesn’t “harm other designer’s means of living”, does it?
22.Jun.2005 8.27pm
After all, it doesn’t “harm other designer’s means of living”, does it?
Ah, the victimless crime. We’re officially in the deep end over here, Nick and Jonathan. The water’s fiiiiine. Hrant, give us a cannonball!
22.Jun.2005 8.27pm
Matey, let me tell you my favorite tale from the high sees, one that will shiver the timbers of any salty rapscallion, arrr!
I had just finished what was then -and remained for 10 years- the typeface I had spent the most time on (about 800 hours). It was a serif Armenian font, a niche market then quite thirsty (but now no longer). I released it, sold a number, and was glad to see it used anywhere and everywhere. Most users had certainly not paid for it. But being the pragmatist, I could simply not get angry. Which isn’t to say I don’t like/need money - I’m human too. In fact, the sales and commissions I made in the last quarter of that year financed my “famed” 6-month sojourn in Barcelona; I only left for LA -via Beirut- when I ran out of money (and missed my Armenian community too much). Anyway. What happened is one day I saw a CD cover with a sans version of my darling design! I tracked it down, and found out it was done by an old buddy of mine from back home!! Yes, I was a bit angry at that appropriation, but it subsided quickly, and required no action, even though the guy was about 15 minutes away from me. You know what peeved me the most? That he chopped off the serifs but didn’t alter the spacing... That’s a strong aspect of the relationship I have -and I’d like to keep as much as possible- with my work. Note that I didn’t have a EULA. And THAT DIDN’T MATTER ONE DIDDLY, not to him, not even to me! Now, I don’t expect -or even want- everybody else to be like me, trust me. But I’m not some alien. What I felt, and what I still feel, is an aspect of humanity, and like any aspect of humanity, it can’t be conveniently ignored.
A more “glorious” anecdote along these lines:
Legend has it that when the barbarian hordes were pillaging Constantinople, a Byzantine noble sighed: “If only they knew what they were destroying, I wouldn’t mind one bit.” To me, this is the sort of thing that elevates us above mere animals.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 8.30pm
> What EULA is stopping anyone from opening any font they own and looking at the metrics
None that I know of. But some do prohibit changing one BCP and saving it out to your drive, even though that doesn’t hurt anybody either.
> Hrant, give us a cannonball!
Hey, I honestly hadn’t read that when I hit post on that long message!
I can only type about 30wpm to begin with.
hhp
22.Jun.2005 9.19pm
Hrant, you’re more human than human. That’s perhaps what irks your detractors.
Your testimonial brings up another of my thoughts... thanks for the segue...
Had your friend been required (or politely asked) to at least contact you regarding derivatives in a EULA, you would have at least been able to advise him on the spacing issue. You probably could have arranged a subsequent licensing arrangement for the derivative. A better product would have been delivered and compensation could have been spread around.
Human or not, poor behavior is poor behavior as determined by environment. A bull in a china shop is still going to destroy the goods. The type biz environment is fragile and delicate, and a lot of items aren’t packaged with enough foam peanuts and crumpled newspaper. A no-mod clause is an attempt at padding against breakage, but then these items sit on the same shelves as your open-box wares. The bull is ignorant of the packaging... he’ll smash them both the same.
The balance of extremes which you are striving for will only be attainable if type designers and modders and users work in concert and in good faith... to tame those bulls or at least keep them in the pasture. There must be a network of trust and respect and conditioning in business matters for your ideal market to emerge. Naturally, communication and respect is the crux of this dreamland, and some animals will never learn the language.
What can be learned from the Open Source Initiative? Has this been discussed at any conferences or forums with respect to font licensing?
22.Jun.2005 9.59pm
I guess my post was misunderstood.
With What EULA’s stopping anyone... I meant to say that no EULA will ever be able to stop anyone from opening a font and looking into it for fun or for education or whatever else. In fact, no law can stop anyone from doing something that isn’t public or doesn’t affect others. So the “open for education” argument doesn’t really influence EULAs, mod, no-mod, or no-mod-for-profit.
Also, I wasn’t stating that just because something has no victim it’s right to do it. I just thought that since “it hurts the type designer” is so used to justify EULAs, it should be possible to use the opposite to justify not following them. It was all one big question, really, but I guess my point was lost in my bad english.
22.Jun.2005 10.16pm
I understood your post. I just took it to the rhetorical extreme for the sake of analogy.
True, no written word will control free will. They may influence people’s thinking though, which in turn affects their behavior (sometimes to a reactiona