How about The End User’s Manifesto?

I think “EULA Manifesto” is too unspecific. Who is manifesting? Users, designers, or producers? I’m assuming that you are speaking from an end user’s point of view. If I’m wrong, then maybe the “Licensing Manifesto”? Or the “Pay-Us-What-Is-Due-To-Us Manifesto”? (for foundries/designers, respectively).
__
www.typeoff.de

Assumption correct, Dan. I’m speaking for the End User. But, Isn’t it End User License Agreement? I would think that End User is implied. Fair enough. But that still leaves the other questions.

I think that End Users have very specific demands (or at least wishes) for the way EULAs be written. If they were to have a manifesto, that would express these, right? So it is their manifesto, and not a EULA manifesto.

But this is really your manifesto, isn’t it? I shouldn’t try to twist you into anything ;-)

__
www.typeoff.de

:^o Busted! Yes, it is my manifesto. But, I am hoping other end user’s will share their opinions and realities.

> How about The End User’s Manifesto?

That sounds just right. What we should be paying attention to.

hhp

Of course, most foundries are protecting themselves with their EULA, which is as it should be. The foundry is making explicit their demands of the end user.

In my opinion, it doesn’t hurt for the foundry to reflect the reality on the ground. (Many foundries will disagree with me.) The EULA for Village was written to protect the foundry, the end user, and the designer of the typeface. The language is simple and clear, and not legalistic, and above all it acknowledges that this kind of agreement is “faith-based”. As a small foundry, we can’t afford to prosecute those who infringe the agreement; we therefore ask that customers agree to comply with the terms of the agreement to the best of their ability, and in good faith.

The full text of the EULA follows. I’d love to hear feedback and comments. Especially from you, Tiffany. Does this EULA do anything for you as an end user?

/ / / / /

Village End User License Agreement / version 1.2, July 2005

This is an agreement between you, the purchaser, and Village Type & Design LLC (Village). In accepting the terms of this agreement, you acknowledge understanding and promise to comply with its terms. If you do not accept the terms, please do not complete the purchase transaction.

What you are purchasing from Village is the license to use digital typeface software - hereafter “fonts” - on a certain number of computers within your organization; you are not purchasing the copyright to the design of the fonts, but the rights to use the fonts.

If you are purchasing 1 license, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 4 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 2 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 10 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 3 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 25 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 4 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 50 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 5 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 100 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 10 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 500 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 20 licenses, you may use the fonts on an unlimited number of computers within your organization. You can purchase additional licenses at any time, which grant you the rights to use the fonts on additional computers, as noted above.

You can make archival copies of the fonts for your own purposes. You will not distribute the fonts to people outside of your organization. A copy of the fonts may be sent as part of a file release to a prepress bureau, if absolutely necessary. The fonts can be embedded in other software files, such as Portable Document Format (PDF) or Flash files, but you will take all reasonable care to embed the fonts in such a way that they cannot be extracted from the files you create.

You may modify the fonts for your own purposes, but the copyright remains with Village, and the number of computers covered by the license remains the same. You may not commission a third party to modify the fonts without first gaining permission from Village. You may not sell or give away modified versions of the fonts.

We have done everything we can to produce our fonts to the highest and most up-to-date technical standards, and we test the fonts extensively in the latest versions of technically-compliant applications. If you do experience any difficulties with our fonts, we will do everything that we can to work with you to resolve any issues. If, after we have worked to resolve any technical issues, you are still not satisfied with our product, we will be pleased to refund your money, which shall be the limit of our liability in this transaction.

We grant the rights of use of our fonts to you in good faith, and request that you promise to adhere to the terms of this agreement to the best of your ability, and in good faith.

Chester, what an incredibly reasonable EULA.

I don’t want people to think that I’m slowly trying to convince foundries to change at their core(s). If there could be some sort of standardization, I would be for that. However, some things which Chester/Village have has allowed would probably never happen on other foundries EULA.

I blush.

Tiffany, I’m sure that there are foundries out there who would find the Village EULA to be too reasonable and permissive. As a recovering graphic designer I am well aware of the way things work out in the world, and I felt that our EULA should reflect that experience.

Retail type design is a gamble: type designers work on types for months or years, getting them just right aesthetically and technically, in the hope that they will make money from sales for years to come. We invest in time and hope for return on investment in the form of money. (This is very similar to artists and writers, except we small guys never get advances.) The end user most likely doesn’t know this. Readers of Typophile probably do, but they’re in the minority.

Many graphic designers use their fonts illegally, either because they have not licensed them at all, they are using them more widely than their licenses allow, or they are embedding or doing other things the licenses don’t allow. The huge majority of these people didn’t read the EULA, just as they didn’t read the EULA for their page layout software, or the privacy statement on the back of their credit card bill. People are immune to legal documents; they click the “Agree” button automatically, never intending to follow the agreement: they don’t even know what they’re agreeing to.

My hope is that by simplifying our EULA people will actually read it. And that by making it easier to actually comply with its terms, people will uphold their end of the agreement.

At Thirstype, I once devised a really complex sliding pricing table for multiple-user licensing. It was a logirithmic nautilus affair, and was hard for purchasers to swallow. We would often get calls from people wanting to license a font for, say, 8 computers, but once they learned the price they changed their minds and would only license the font for one computer. If our licensing was more reasonable, customers would have been more willing to ante up for the correct licensing for their needs. And hopefully they would respect us for understanding their situation.

This is what I was thinking in drawing up the Village EULA and licensing table. I wanted them to reflect the way that designers actually use type. Type publishers just don’t have the time to go around enforcing the correct licensing of their types, so we have to place our trust and faith in our customers. We have to believe that they will try their hardest to follow the terms of the agreement, that they will purchase the right number of licenses for the number of computers on which they plan to install the fonts, and that they will try not to let the fonts loose.

As for an End User Manifesto... I think it’s a good idea. There are too many EULAs out there which are egregious in some or all of their stipulations. Should one cross one’s fingers while clicking “Agree”, or should one cancel one’s order/installation, etc.?

Chester:
Your EULA is what I, as a user, want.

I _do_ read EULAs. I won’t buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it’s not worth it to me to buy a font if I can’t send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don’t want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won’t buy them.

And modifications:

Just yesterday I was going to buy Monticello from Linotype, until I noticed that the EULA doesn’t allow modifications. Now, the Linotype EULA offered at MyFonts does allow modification, but Monticello isn’t offered there. It’s a pain.

It’s a pain, especially now, as we hover halfway between OpenType and Type 1. If I buy Monticello (type one only), I can’t combine the smallcaps with the roman into OT for convenience in InDesign. The fractions are a separate font. How...quaint.

Meanwhile, I have FontFont’s Absara Sans OT. I’d like to can get at the smallcaps to use on a form in FileMaker, but that isn’t possible in FileMaker without rearranging the font.

Now, I have a nice guide put out by FontShop Canada some time ago: “FontShop’s Guide to Legal Typeface Use”. It states the “most font manufactures will allow you the right to produce a modified version.” It then goes on to give an example: producing swash caps for Baby Teeth, they suggest, would be all right as long as everyone involved is within the EULA for the original.

So, I can just go ahead and rearrange the position of the small caps in Absara, right? NO! The FontFont’s EULA requires me to obtain _written permission_ first. I have asked, and Danny Dawson is looking into it for me, but my inquiry was made a couple of weeks ago, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I have to wait a few more weeks to get an answer.

Surely this isn’t good for me, or profitable for FontShop.

Will I buy from FontFont again? Probably, especially if they solve my problem. Will I consider the added hassle when deciding between a FontShop face and, say, one from Village or ShinnType? For sure.

I know that all designers are free to set whatever conditions they want on their work, and it’s up to me to make my decision based on these conditions.

If more people read the EULAs, and took them to heart, the marketplace might function properly. EULAs that allowed me to actually USE the fonts would boost sales, and other designers would follow suit.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that many buyers blithely ignore the EULA and make their purchases without reference to them, and make use of the fonts outside of the EULA. There’s no reasonable possibility that LinoType is ever going to know if someone slipped a couple of the nut fractions into the roman cut of Monticello, and most designers wouldn’t even know (or care) that they had broken the EULA if they did so.

I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it.

“I won’t buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it’s not worth it to me to buy a font if I can’t send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don’t want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won’t buy them.”

That is the crux of it for me as well. I password protect the PDFs before I send them to anybody.

ChrisL

I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it

That’s a pretty common feeling for people who abide by the rules when so many around them don’t; however, it’s generally better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

swash caps for Baby Teeth

OMG!
I want it.

It seems I’m not the only one that feels somewhat penalized. In development, I can prepare many PDFs. Taking each one and re-opening in Acrobat to add password protection takes real time. I feel like I spend increasingly more time trying to keep my end of the deal. I also don’t stray much from very commonly available type with my lower end clients because of the hassle.

This makes me think of what people say about a police state, that you craft enough laws that everyone is in violation of a few at any given time.

I think this thread and others are a testament to the fact that all the efforts to protect the type sellers and designers are creating a drag on the industry. I find it odd that as the promise of technology has paid off, the time saved having functioning hardware and software can be spent fussing with EULAs and patching up PDFs to prevent font theft. I don’t even know how to pull a font out of a PDF. Now I feel I should figure out how it is done so I can best try to prevent it. The burden is on the honest, which doesn’t seem fair. But then again, what’s fair?

Which EULA’s require password protection of PDF’s? I can’t recall seeing this before. Not mentioned at all in the bible... http://fontlab.wikidev.net/Image:Interrobang2-EULA-chart.gif

Cheers, Si

OH NO! That isn’t the bible, Si, I’ve been told by numerous foundries that there are now errors and mistakes because they have changed or Nathan and I misunderstood the EULA.

I would also be curious to know who requires this assanine requirement.

Explain embedding. Maybe I’m off on a tangent.

Font embedding is an Acrobat option that lets you include the fonts used in the document within the PDF. Foundries have EULA restictions around the embedding their fonts, as well as the distribution of the PDF that include their fonts. However, I’ve not seen a font EULA require that a PDF be password protected - although they might exist. But if you’re not obligated to pass-word protect why are you doing it?

Cheers, Si

I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.

Following your link Si, I notice the Adobe restrictions listed “additional license available for documents that are editable”, and “technical restrictions such as print & preview only”.

I’ve used the password function to prevent editing of the doc. etc. for various reasons, but one of those reasons is usually associated with the EULA and trying to protect the font from theft. I’ve had PDFs sent to print without my knowledge without full res. images.

Anyway, I’ll look at Acrobat with more depth and get up to speed before I rant anymore.

Embedding is a problem word as it can be in reference to PDF and/or formats similar to SWF. I do think these are two different kinds of embedding, but I wonder if foundries see embedding as a value add when used in SWF and so reason they should be able to get more money. (That could also be a question.)
—
I appreciate, as a user, that Chester, you and Village, have approached this with new thought and reason. You are right most of the time people, even I, click agree without thinking. Bad habits die hard. There are basic uses which designers hope they can do with there fonts. Your EULA, Chester, seems to make sense in that maybe designers will meet you half-way and will read your EULA.
—
What are those basic things we, designers, need to be able to do with our fonts when we license them?
- Print: I have several printers in my office. But, according to some EULAs I have to choose a printer. This seems antiquated.
- Embed for proofing and service bureau output.
- Archive
- Modify: At my own risk. This one isn’t so important to me, but John does make a good case for it. My situation is such that I wouldn’t trust myself to modify the font. I’d rather have the foundry do that for me so if something is wrong I can talk to them.
- Transferability: This is important to me. (Read below)
- More than 1 user, at least 2: I have no idea how to rationalize this beyond my own personal experience as someone in a small office.
—
What about resale? If I were to create a book, for online sale, as a PDF. Is it reasonable that foundries charge extra for this? Should their be a resale EULA? Or is this yet another case of trying to get us to pay more? I think it is fair. But, what do you think?
—
I’d be interested to actually see someone crack a PDF and find out how useful the font is once cracked. It seems to me that those who can crack open a PDF to get a font aren’t designers but bored geeks out to prove something.
—
It seems to me that Chester, you, are trying to infuse trust into your EULA. I appreciate that. This is not to say that I don’t find trust in other EULAs.
—
There are two people in my office that might be considered “designers”. I use quotes because he is more or less in charge of production. However, when I license type from a foundry, such a The Font Bureau, I have to make sure that the other “designer” doesn’t copy the fonts off of my machine as I only license them for my machine. I also pay for the licenses myself with the understand, from all of the foundries from whom I license, that I will take the fonts with me when I leave. Am I creating a nightmare for them? Probably. But, I’ve taken the time to create relationships with these foundries based on trust and common understanding. It needs to be said that I have searched his hard drive and have deleted fonts that I know he shouldn’t have. I feel a little guilty, but I doubt he even notices. I’m the police in my office. I take the steps necessary to respect my associates and friends.
—
Another tangent. If more people actually took time to create relationships with the foundries, and vice versa, I think more people would find themselves wanting to abide by the rules.
—
Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.

> I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.

For TTF and OTF’s the ’print and preview’ restriction is encoded in the font itself, and Acrobat will respect that setting. For Type 1 fonts, perhaps jumping through those hoops might be the only option to stay within the EULA - that’s a bit annoying. In my world I don’t have to deal with Type 1, so things are somewhat less complicated.

>Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.

Yes! There will be people there who will benefit from this, especially in the context of the other talks lined up for Thursday morning.

Cheers, Si

Did you guys know that the Emigre EULA fobids you to send your service bureau a file containing converted-to-outlines of their fonts? That’s gotta be a really good example of either monumental hubris, or engrained idiocy. Or both. This is definitely even worse than any no-mod clause. And I wonder what it says about making a logo from their letterforms... It should just come out and say: “If you think about not giving us more money, you thereby owe us twice that amount.”

hhp

To be fair, their EULA says nothing about outlines specificially, as I would use the phrase “turn the type to outlines”. Could others read it and maybe help clarify. It could be that I am misunderstanding their use.

http://www.emigre.com/EUL.php

Number 6 says you can’t make EPS files.

hhp

Type designers can set the embedding bit in TTFs to one of four options. These options affect how you can use and share a font from a license standpoint. The option in Acrobat to embed fonts is more of a toggle button, and the embedding rights in the font need to agree with it:

1. Downloadable: Anyone can squeeze the fonts out of a PDF and install them on their machine for unlimited use in other docs

2. Editable: The whole (not subsetted) font is embedded in the PDF, enabling co-authors to edit the file but not download it

3. View and Print: Subsetted fonts are embeddable in PDFs for distribution, but no editing is possible

4. Restricted: Font can’t be embedded, so fonts revert to system or substitution fonts when PDF is shared.

Obviously the first is horrible for a type designer, and the last is horrible for the document user and author.

The term ’embedding’ for fonts needs a qualifier to discuss meaningfully.

Adobe allows downloadable embedding in all its new font products. Adobe’s main business is Acrobat. See?

> Adobe allows downloadable embedding

I think you mean editable. The point you make is interesting and reminds me of something Bruno said at TypeCon about foundries basing their output device restrictions on Adobe’s font EULA. Seems odd that any foundry would today follow the lead of a software vendor (especially one selling font-related apps, tools and technology) when setting embedding bits and writing licenses.

Cheers, Si

Hrant, to your point on article 6, the sentence that follows this restriction has more to do with article 9 where Emigre states they won’t be held responsible for somebody using their fonts or derivative works for fitness for a particular purpose . . .

Imagine an ad agency uses an Emigre font or creates EPS outlines from an Emigre font and runs an ad campagin for a major client like MegaFlicks in a national campaign and it reads in the paper as MegaF*cks and the agency gets fired and blames it on the font rather poor art direction and decides to sue Emigre. Legally, Emigre would still be on the hook for this unless articles 6 and 9 were in their EULA.

It’s a totally unlikely scenario, but the language is clear that there is no guarantee that font software licensed to an end user is guaranteed to work for any specific purpose. I believe this is one of those misunderstood passages that comes off as ’license everything from us or else’ . . .

On the flip side of the coin, lets say one of the many Digital Scrapbookers (the fastest growing new trend) decides it’s OK to make a digital alphabet from an Emigre font and resells it for $6 for a set of .EPS letters. This becomes a derivative work which is being resold and redistributed as software and for all intents and purposes violates the EULA to say the least . . .

I’m not sure Emigre’s EULA is that dogmatic, but it does in very general terms create enough of a statement to the end user that should they need to bring suit to get them to stop selling these digital alphabets, they have a strong case to do so with . . .

Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child . . . If you don’t specifically say ’NO’ or ’DON’T DO THAT’, the child assumes the answer to every question is ’YES’ or ’YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION’ - And make no mistake, most end users are very generous in their assumptions about what is allowed and what is not.

At least twice a week I am pleased to get questions from folks wondering if their use falls under our standard EULA and I make sure to answer them thoroughly . . .

Also, I’m not inclined to debate Emigre’s EULA point by point, but I prefer to explain to the best of my understanding as to what each passage means to both the foundry and the end user. Often times from what I read about EULAs on boards, it does come off as an us vs. them kind of deal when in reality it’s more like defining the terms of a relationship between two parties kind of like a pre-nupt.

As a foundry owner I feel responsible for defining this, else its my own fault if I don’t provide any information on what the purchase price entitles you to. And, for any fonts that do NOT have EULAs, many of them end up on CDs for sale at eBay for $15 and the creator is often none the wiser that somebody else may be profiting off of their work, EVEN if the creator intended that nobody should pay for it and distributed it as freeware to the masses.

So I guess what I’m saying in not so many words is that the buyer and the seller need a EULA. How clear or restrictive it is, is solely the responsibility of the foundry and as the creator of the products they are selling they have the ultimate last word in how they wish their products be used.

Here is an interesting snippet from the House Industries Vector Image EULA that demonstrates how specific a foundry can define their use:

’If images featuring a person will be used in connection with unflattering or controversial subject matter, or used to imply connection to or endorsement of a product, the image must be accompanied by a statement that states the person is a model used for illustrative pruposes only.’

My 2¢

Stuart :D

Stuart, you’ve thought a lot more about this than I have - thank you for elaborating on how complex this can be. But the bottom line is that a designer* is forbidden from carrying out a routine, legitimate and indispensable activity. A foundry’s liability is one thing, imposing hyper-restrictive blanket requirements is another; as I’ve expressed before, I think all unreasonable demands do is encourage bad behavior - they don’t actually stop much. Also, it seems to me that EULAs often leverage over-simplification to create an intimidating aura of ambiguity that seems to serve only the foundry - but ends up leaving a bad impressions with the user. The fact that section 9 is in all-caps is a clue as to what’s really going on.

* Who even bothers reading the thing.

> Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child

To me it seems a lot more like a nasty, slick, middle-aged lawyer.
Who writes this stuff, anyway? Come on.

> most end users are very generous in their assumptions
> about what is allowed and what is not.

End users who bother taking a EULA seriously should be treated with respect - not like this. And end users who don’t, you have to learn to ignore.

hhp

I agree you’ve got some good points here Hrant. The question is, how can one craft a EULA that reads at an end user ’understandable’ level yet has enough weight to hold up in a court of law if need be.

Something else to consider is that all EULAs were written long before the indie internet foundry boom of the mid 90s becuase at that time most foundries selling fonts were selling them to art directors whereas todays audience is quite honestly anybody with a computer so the language of EULAs has not evolved to meet this new audience.

For myself, when I started my foundry in 1996, I did a cut/paste job and subbed my foundry name for the one that was there. Certainly years later when I GOT the purpose of a EULA, I did get saavy about understanding what I wanted mine to say. I think this holds true for many foundries from that time period as well as plenty of the current MyFonts foundries who don’t totally GET EULAs but think they should have one to seem ’official’

In part, I don’t think many font creators totally get the concept of a EULA and I think most of the spanning of the gap occurs from the foundry side, not the end user side and I certainly agree with Hrant on this. And to this point, as I mentioned earlier, the end user is becoming a more sophisticated buyer than ever before so EULAs are being read by end users.

Tiffany made a point earlier about embedding and this one is tricky. The idea of somebody selling an ebook with an embedded font, does this warrant additional licensing fees? What about a computer gaming company using a font prominently in their product? What about embroidery machines that will sew your name on a shirt using a specific font? What about a network running promos for a TV show using a specific font?

In all of these cases, the end user is enhancing or creating a product using the font as part of the product. As the creator of the font being used, I do honestly feel that using the font in these manners does warrant the need to extend licensing since part of what is being sold or promoting the sale is the font.

Stuart :D

How is an eBook different than a print book? Why wouldn’t the same rules apply?

ChrisL

Two thoughts I have on this are:

1) Because technically it’s still a form of software distribution which is forbidden in most EULAs. Different than sending PDFs with embedded fonts to a service bureau or client, when an eBook author sells a book, they are selling the font(s) as well. Both sides could be argued to death, but it’s clearly an issue that requires discussion . . .

As far as eBooks go, it’s is no different than a game developer embedding a font in a video game or a kiosk developer embedding a font in a stand along kiosk or digital slot machine. If they are intending to sell something or make money with something the software is part of, I personally feel it’s still a form of software distribution that requires additional licensing.

2) I think the difference between a printed book is that the font is no longer accessable and the product is truly ’finished’ - In cases of eBooks, the font software outlines are still ’live’ because they are required to render text to output devices like monitors and printers via computers. So, for all intents and purposes, the font is still very much a part of what is being sold.

Stuart :D

I have a few thoughts too...

1. having digital fonts (bitmap fonts or outline fonts) embedded in eBooks, video games, help systems, etc., clearly adds value to these products. The fonts reduce file size (no need to pre-render flat bitmaps for each page of content), they aid modification (easier to fix typos without regenerating bitmaps), make localization easier (update a linked text file ratehr than a bitmap), are easily searchable (no need to jump through the additional hoops Octavo do/did in their eBooks by having searchable text ’behind’ the bitmap pages) etc., etc.,

2. Embedding permissions in fonts relate to “document” embedding. Clearly a video game is not a document, but for a commercially sold eBook some font vendors make the case that eBooks are “products” and not documents in the embedding sense.

So on the one hand because eBooks were not really covered by older EULAs (which talk about document embedding) font vendors could take advantage of this and put restrictions around the eBook embedding without visibly taking away existing rights from customers.

On the other hand clearly embedding fonts in eBooks adds considerable value and functionality to these products so it’s not unreasonable for customers to pay more for these rights.

Fears of extraction of fonts from eBooks is really a red-herring - the restrictions are based on the value the fonts add to the products.

Cheers, Si

Hmmmm... I see Suart’s point about “live versus static”, but I would say that this kind of extra payment scheme is akin to one’s bank taking extra money for every transaction. It’s beyond the pale.

I mean, imagine paying FontLab extra money every time you generate a font; this is the final task of the software, and we expect this functionality. And we should. Which is why we ship out OTF or TTF or PST1 files to our licensees, not VFBs. (Not everyone has a copy of FontLab lying around to roll their own fonts.)

The more restrictions we place on the potential licensees of our types, the less interested they are going to be in abiding by those restrictions.

Time for another analogy: You’re in the market for a new car. The EULA for the car stipulates that you cannot drive above 45 miles per hour, but you want to drive your car on the highway. So you have to decide: do you buy the car knowing that you can’t exceed 45 mph, or go look elsewhere for a car without such a restriction?

I know I’ve posted this elsewhere, but David Foster Wallace wrote a very interesting piece for Harper’s magazine about dictionaries taking either a descriptive or prescriptive approach. If you have a couple of spare hours, you can read it here:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

We publishers each have to decide if we’re going to focus on describing - our approach at Village - or prescribing the allowable use of licensed types.

Si:
I think that fonts, as individual designs, add more value to a printed piece than an electronic one, so I don’t really buy your arguments.

The fonts on the cover of a book, the look of a printed page, help convince the browser in the bookstore to pick up the book and buy it. (Or, at least, they engage me.) _That’s_ added value for the book producer.

I doubt that many PDFs are sold because of the format. The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. If it all shows up as Adobe Sans, (or Verdana or Georgia) on their system, they’ll still get the content, and probably won’t be disappointed. The “functional” nature of the font, its search-abilty, its compact format, aren’t tied to its individual design qualities.

So, one might say the fonts, qua individual designs, have _less_ value, not more in an electronic doc. One certainly might have a hard time convincing someone holding the purse strings to spend extra for the “restricted” fonts, over easily available unrestricted ones.

Again, market forces should discourage restrictive EULAs, but I suspect that much of the market is already treating fonts as unrestricted regardless of the EULAs.

John, to be honest I don’t think people are buying eBooks yet, so the issue isn’t exactly relevant right now. Font vendors added these eBook clauses to their EULAs when eBooks were being hyped as the next big thing - that hasn’t happened yet - maybe it never will.

If and when eBooks do take off designers may stick with system core fonts but it’s likely they’ll want the same flexibility they have in print. Even if many customers will be happy with Arial and Comic Sans.

Cheers, Si

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard back from Danny Dawson at FontShop USA about modifications to FF fonts, and the short answer is, no, you can’t do any.

I have found my dealings with Danny to be very satisfactory, and I believe he is trying his best to help me and explain the Fontshop terms to me. It’s a thorny area, and I get prickly when I enter it. He’s spent a lot of time replying to my pesky queries. Fontshop has a good and patient worker there.

Specifically, you may recall that I wanted to be able to rearrange the font to allow me to use the smallcaps in Filemaker. Danny says that modifications have to be done by the designer, or by Fontshop staff, and that I am “effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself.” He says there may be some situations where FontShop might allow user mods, but he doesn’t know of any.

I’ve asked him how much such a modification would cost, but he hasn’t replied to me yet. Practically, I’m sure it would be much cheaper to just buy the Type 1 smallcap font, but I was curious.

I’ve also asked him what it would cost to have the ff ligatures from Seria Sans added to the regular font, something I would have done myself in about 5 minutes. I also wondered why FontShop persists in putting ff ligs in a separate font when, for example, Storm includes them in the regular font (even the Type 1), and names them properly so that InDesign finds and uses them.

I haven’t asked, but wonder how much time and money it would cost me to have kerns for smallcaps to numerals added to a Fontshop font. Canadian postal codes alternate letters and numerals, like this “M5W 7V6”. It doesn’t take an obsessive compulsive to find fonts that end up with ugly spaces with these babies! Do all the FontShop fonts cover these pairs? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Since I’m not allowed to modify the fonts, I’m going to be stuck reviewing addresses individually if I do mailing labels with a Fontshop font. Hmmm, maybe I’ll use an Adobe font, or Panoptica! Life’s too short.

So, I’m disappointed in FontShop. I think their EULA is a tease. It states “If you want to make modifications to the Font Software, you must obtain the prior written consent of FSI.” Am I the only one who thinks this implies that one _might_ obtain that consent? Shouldn’t it state “you are effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself”, since that is, in fact, the policy?

> Life’s too short.

Exactly. Do it.

hhp

... The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. ...

You are right, but it is generally the designer who wants to guarantee the look of the book/brochure/whatever across media which means embedding the font. Should I be saying subsetting instead of embedding? If designers are fine with Adobe Sans and Adobe Serif then there isn’t a problem. However, isn’t it a messy PDF when you allow for re-flow? Won’t you have to create a version of the book/whatever allowing for re-flow? The table of contents will suddenly not count for much.

—

John, can you e-mail me the EULA which you are using as reference?

—

I wouldn’t call it a tease, well, ok, maybe, but after reading so many EULAs, and not calling myself a lawyer or legal-eagle or expert, it seems to me it is in the best interest of foundries and users to have some text left vague. Perhaps more for the foundries, but it leaves it open to the user to create dialogue and develop a relationship. You could disregard the help which Mr. Dawson has offered. You could read into it and find a rationalization. It seems to me he hasn’t given you a final NO, so maybe you could wait a little longer?

Economics say you’ve probably spent more time (which equals money) on researching this option than it would take to license the type and write a script for replacement? I’m probably over-simplifying.

The things you’ve stated need to be addressed, not just by FontShop, but all foundries. I’m not trying to create argument.

Perhaps the reason they haven’t compiled all of the ligs/figs into the same font is they are slowly upgrading everything to opentype. Maybe. Only a guess. I have some fonts that drive me crazy in similar ways. I do own a license to FontLab, but I’ll be the first to admit my total lack of knowledge. IF I were to open a typeface and start monkeying around I’m sure I’d make a bigger mess than a simple find-and-replace would solve.

Am I to understand that the EULA for FSI Canada is different that FSI?

Tiffany:
Of course I’ve spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn’t have to jump through such hoops.

The fact that you don’t feel comfortable with FontLab is unfortunate. I’m no expert, but the kind of modifications I’m talking about aren’t difficult, and aren’t dangerous.

Believe me, it takes far less time to add ff ligs to a font for use in InDesign than it does doing S&R every time you use the font, and then remembering to redo the S&R if you change fonts. If I switch my headings from Seria to Seria Sans, I’m going to have to go over to the Sans “expert” (ha!) set to get the ligs again.

Am I the only one who’s printed a piece with a word like “office” showing up as “oVce” because I missed a expert set switch after changing fonts? Thanks, but no thanks.

I don’t mind terribly that they haven’t compiled the ligs into the fonts. I _do_ mind that they won’t let me do it for my own work. I’d be happy if they said modifications “voided the warranty”. (Oh, that’s right, there is no warranty, is there?)

The FontShop EULA I’m referring to is the one offered if you go through the checkout process at FontShop USA. You, or anyone else, can view it there if you wish. I can email it to you if you’d like.

I don’t know the current status of FSI Canada. I don’t get the impression that the current Canadian terms are different from the USA ones. I was referring to a pamphlet sent to me several years ago by FSI Canada entitled “FontShop’s Guide to Legal Typeface Use”. I had, naively, relied on it in the past.

I can’t find EULAs for any FS Canada font purchases. I have FF Clifford on floppies from them, but the disks don’t seem to have EULAs on them. I have some original compressed packages sent to me by FontShop on my hard drive, but, unfortunately, they will no longer open on my Mac, even in Classic. The floppies may have come wrapped in a printed EULA, but it’s no longer to be found. I suppose I thought the pamphlet told me what I needed to know. Ah, youth!

FWIW, Tiffany:
I’m not sure, because I never use them, but I think that the Adobe substitution fonts maintain line breaks.

Dan, I think I will use your idea. After thinking about it, and obviously having misunderstood you the first time, I do like the idea that this is “The End Users Manifesto”.

—

Of course I’ve spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn’t have to jump through such hoops.

Sorry. I was stating the painfully obvious.

Thanks for e-mailing your EULA. Yes, I’ll agree, it is mis-leading of them to tell you to obtain written consent when in fact, so far, it seems you won’t be granted consent. I think you might agree that if they had simply said, “modifications are not allowed,” you wouldn’t have bothered with them or their type. Or, at least you wouldn’t have wasted time hoping and writing. The fact that you are in correspondence should show them you do care. Perhaps it will end on you side of the user fence.

FS Canada no longers exists. Using that guidebook, as helpful as it might have been can only cause problems for you now. When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license.

“When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license.”

Well, no I don’t think so. If that were true, _I_ could change the terms of the agreement! That would be a unilateral re-negotiation of the “contract”. I can’t possibly be held to a new license—I didn’t agree to it. I can only be held to the license I agreed to at the time of the transaction.

That’s why, for example, the Berthold fonts I obtained in the distant past I can still use, although I have no intention of getting any new ones. And that’s why I wouldn’t be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.

If you licensed an FF font from FS Canada, I assume that your license was not with FS Canada, but with FSI (just like if you bought a ShinnTypes font from FSI, the EULA is from the foundry being distributed by the distributor, not the distributor itself).

FSI does still exist, and you would still be bound by your agreement with them if that is the way the EULA really worked (which I’m pretty sure it would… can any FontShoppers help me out here?).

Dan, I’m the one disagreeing, not John. I have always understood that as EULAs are updated those are the EULAs which we are held by. No? I mean say I license a typeface in 1999, but the foundry updates their license. I have questions and call them. I am now bound by the new/updated EULA, right?

I’d like more feedback on that question too.

Tiffany, I was responding to this line of John’s last post:

And that’s why I wouldn’t be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.

I would be worried about that, from a fair use perspective.

As to your question, T, I really don’t know what the answer would be! I suspect that a foundry could include in its EULA a clause like, “we reserve the right to modify our license at any time; this will not validate our agreement, etc.” But I am not a lawyer. I don’t know what any foundry’s position is on this. I bet that Thomas, Si, or John Hudson would have better answers, though.

Dan:
In what way would fair use be violated if I acted within the agreement I made with FS when they took my money and mailed me a font? I would say that altering software to ensure fitness of purpose would be “fairer” than an after-the-fact prohibition on alteration.

Really, please explain the fair use objection. When I made the agreement with FontShop, they were distributing literature (unsolicited—just because I was on their mailing list) telling me it was okay to alter fonts for personal use. I purchased a licence, sending the money to FS Canada. Um, would it not be “fair” for me to assume I was allowed to do what they said I could do?

If software vendors wish their agreements to have the force of contracts, they can’t possibly expect be able to re-negotiate them without, well, negotiating. It doesn’t take an Oliver Wendell Holmes to know that a binding agreement is binding on BOTH parties.

I’m no lawyer, but I suspect that any contract that suggested “we reserve the right to modify our license” would, if it ever came to court, be difficult to defend. It would be tantamount to stating that the contract, as written, did NOT “constitute the whole of the agreement” (ever notice how often you see that in software agreements?). It would leave the whole thing up for grabs.

You can’t have an agreement if one party says: “I agree now, but I might not agree later”. That’s not an agreement, that’s a discussion.

John, do you have a credit-card? :-/

hhp

Sorry, I don’t follow. You mean the floating rates? Yeah, okay.

But, really, Dan’s hypothetical EULA with a future modification clause is just that. I don’t think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low. I might be impatient with them, but I’m not about to lump them in with loan sharks and credit card companies!

John, is the license from FS Canada, or FSI (FontShop International)? I believe that the FontFont library is owned by FSI. If that is so then FS Canada was merely the intermediary—your agreement was with FSI. If you had bought a font from a non FontShop-related foundry through FS Canada (Adobe, Monotype, Shinn, etc), your licenses wouldn’t be voided just because FS Canada closed.

Like I said, I really don’t know what your situation was exactly. But even if the literature (flyers, etc) said that fonts were modifiable, those were the license. And it is the license that counts, isn’t it?

Have you asked anyone at FontShop in SF if they/FSI offer modification licenses? Some foundries will change your license to allow for modification for a specific fee. This would then be “written permission.” Other foundries don’t do this, they probably don’t want anyone to change their font data ever.

Credit cards can do pretty much anything they want.

> I don’t think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low.

Maybe, maybe not. But since few people read EULAs (that’s why they’re so long and cryptic, duh) they’re more motivated to.

hhp

Oh, Dan, I’ve been in discussion for over a month with Fontshop in SF. See my previous posts above.

And the issue of my ’legacy” EULA isn’t who it was with, it’s what it allowed; and further, (as I’ve argued), what _it_ allowed, not what current FSI EULAs allow.

I’m not suggesting that my licence is void, quite the contrary. I’m suggesting that it can’t be annulled unilaterally. (I don’t think FSI is planning to give me back my money.)

At least that’s how I see it, unless you can further elucidate for me how it wouldn’t be “fair” for me to exercise the rights an EULA gave me.

I’m sure you know what my two cents look like on this: The EULA is “ratified” by the foundry stating it and the customer accepting it. The customer agrees to the terms set forth by the foundry. If one of those terms states that the terms of the agreement may change in the future, then caveat emptor big time. The customer is responsible for sticking to the terms of the EULA she accepted at the time of purchase, not any subsequent EULAs.

And if you see a “terms are liable to change” term in an agreement of any kind, run far far away: you may end up losing your first-born or a pound of flesh.

Yeah, I guess I was wrong on the implications of the hypothetical “variable term” EULA.

Still, I’ve never seen one of those for a font. Has any one else seen one?

Perhaps we should steer this discussion back towards the very real difficulties in current EULAs. I’ll propose a topic:

Does it bother any one else that they’re not allowed to alter the kerning in a font if the EULA doesn’t allow modifications?

John, I am going to be speaking to the tech forum on exactly this topic. The complaints users have about EULAs. I will definitely mention your complaint as it is a complaint others have had. I personally think the EULA, any EULA, should allow for modifications, but with the caveat that if the user jacks-up their font they can’t complain to the foundry asking for a new copy if they didn’t keep a back-up. Not that this is what you would do, John.

Aren’t there any other fiddly bits in EULAs that really rub people the wrong way? Or are EULAs user friendly already?

Well, how about the EULAs that permit only one backup copy? What’s THAT about? Don’t most backup strategies include at least 2 backups?

Or, how about how hard it is to find and read some of the EULAs. Have a look at the Monotype EULA page. They ask you to agree without even showing you the agreement.

But fine, we’re all savvy here, just click on “Show agreement”, set below the “I accept...” button. Try reading this baby through the letter slot window provided!

One can’t be blamed for suspecting they don’t REALLY want me to consider what I’m agreeing to. Do they think I might not like it?

Excellent Point, John.

I do know some foundries have their EULAs front and center, but quite a few do not. Veer.com does an excellent job of giving anyone interested the opportunity to read the EULA for any of the foundries they represent. The license agreement is on the main page for each foundry. Kinda strange that I can’t expland the window, but no worries I can cut and paste and save it for later. I thought MyFonts had something similar, but a quick look shows nothing. A quick look around FontShop, nothing. Adobe, nothing. Linotype, front page albeit light gray and toward the bottom. House Industries has a link right at the top of the homepage. Emigre has a ’font related faq’ on their homepage, that sends you to a list of questions with the licensing question at the top. Village has the EULA for each foundry on their respective pages in bold black type. LICENSING Nice!

I do know some foundries show you the EULA before downloading, useful, but not totally smart. Foundries who hide their EULAs from interested parties are telling those interested parties that they don’t really care. Not so nice.

MyFonts, Linotype, FontShop all offer download after the fact. They keep track of your account. I think Veer does as well. With lifetime download you don’t need to make back-ups, or at least more than their EULAs allow. Nice.

Yes, Tiffany, the only way I’ve found of viewing the EULAs at FontShop (and a couple of others), is to begin the purchasing process, and then back out. I love the fact that Veer’s site makes them easy to find.

Well, what can I say that hasn’t already been said?

I think it is quite obvious. If you put ridiculous restrictions on me, I will not support your foundry. We buy, on average, a font family every week for my firm, and we own several complete libraries.

There are foundries that I will NOT support, for the simple fact of these ridiculous restrictions that make the font useless to us.

The Village EULA is a perfect example of what we need. Kudos on that.

A word to the others. I AM NOT BUYING YOUR FONTS. Get with the picture and give us the freedom we need to do our jobs. No one is asking for a free ride, just some professional flexibility.

To keep this ticking along here’s a summary of items for the manifesto – these cover the “moving the goalposts” scenarios.

1. Easy access to the standard font EULA on every font foundry site – a link to the EULA should have the same hierarchical status us ‘contact us’, ‘home’ etc., on a web site. EULA should clearly declare date it went into effect.
2. Easy access to deprecated EULA’s – what were the rules when I actually licensed the fonts?
3. A EULA that matches the information encoded within the font – most obviously embedding bits – don’t make the EULA contradict the embedding bits set in the font. Make sure ownership © and TM, vendor ID, links, embedded description and license are accurate and match the EULA.
4. Don’t set restrictions like “may only be embedded securely” – I don’t want my documents to suddenly become illegal the moment a hacker beyond my control works out how to extract the fonts or outlines from a given file format.

Cheers, Si

Si, I’d add to point 2 ... or rather I’ll add ...

Does the EULA which applied to the license I purchased always apply? Or am I, the user, always held under whatever the current EULA might be?

Isn’t it an assumed thing ... oops assuming is bad ... that embedding will be secure? I think the major point, problem, concern, with embedding is simply being allowed to embed in things such as PDFs for proofing and for service bureaus.

Kyle’s company won’t license from foundry’s that don’t allow embedding. How many people are willing to stick to something like that? Do people license anyway and ignore that point in the EULA? Do foundries assume people are doing this and yet still do not change the EULA? Do foundries care? Do foundries not care and simply want their type to be licensed? I’ve been told by a small foundry that they want the type licensed, and that is their first concern.

One vendor told me that when they revise their EULA they don’t take away any rights they just clarify especially when new scenarios appear. But I don’t have a handle on how many vendors reserve the right to change terms.

WRT security I would rather have vendors call out the embedding that they’re okay with – PDF, Word, Flash etc., rather than play the security card.

I’d agree that any foundry that has a blanket no-embedding rule is not likely to license many fonts to graphic designers who will abide by this or other EULA terms. But in the OpenType world users will have to hack the fonts to change the embedding bits if they want to embed ‘no embedding’ fonts in PDFs – this raises the stakes.

Cheers, Si

The only thing I can add is a plea to clarify. What does it mean to alter a font? What is embedding? We are getting to the nuances any rational person would suss out. I think the point about adjusting kerning as altering a font is right on. What about converting to outlines and altering those outlines? What about trap? Blanket prohibitions only lead to more questions.

Any foundry producing or updating a EULA should focus not simply on how to protect themselves legaly but also on how an end user that wanted to respect the EULA could proceed.

Here’s another restriction that pops up in a few EULAs: some allow the use of the font software on 5 computers but only ONE PRINTER. So, if you’ve got a laser and an inkjet, I suppose one of them has to go!

This condition appears, for example, in the EULA offered for E&F and Linotype fonts at Myfonts, but not the Linotype EULA offered at Lynotype.com. (!?) Anyone else know of examples of this?

Unfortunately for me, Linotype.com doesn’t allow font modifications without special permission, while the Linotype EULA at Myfoonts does, so I’m forced to choose between colour printing and say, custom kerning. Hmmm...

BTW, for those of you who may think I’m overstating the import of modification restrictions in EULAs, I’d like to point out that Porchez Typofonderie’s EULA specifically forbids altering the kerning of a font:
“The fonts must not be altered in any manner whatsoever, including the manipulation of any of the following: The digital font data in order to mix it with another; its composition; its forms, outlines, or its characters; the position of the characters (in all cases, including spacing and kerning which leave the original font intact)”

It would seem that even using optical kerning within InDesign violates this EULA: note that kerning is forbidden even if it leaves “the original font intact”!

Good points. My understanding on the printers issue is that they are talking about resident fonts downloaded to the printer’s memory. But again, how clear has this been made? And, is it left to the end user to make an assumption?

> It would seem that even using optical kerning within InDesign violates this EULA

No, the actual font itself is not altered.

>Unfortunately for me, Linotype.com doesn’t allow font modifications without special permission, while the Linotype EULA at Myfoonts does,

My guess is that the Myfonts EULA for Linotype fonts will be updated soon to reflect the current Linotype.com EULA.

>What is embedding?

This is an interesting one - we say the user has rights to embed the font based on the embedding permissions in the font, and in accordance with the OpenType font specification - which defines embedding. The TT/OT specs are probably the closest thing we have to an industry definition of embedding.

But the PTF EULA says “... which leave the original font intact”!
So even customizing the kerning in Quark is strictement interdit!

hhp

Doh, sorry I didn’t read the whole thing.

In that case Word and any other WYSIWYG enviroment breaks the EULA. In fact printing to almost any device or rasterizing on any screen would break the EULA - because these devices can’t faithfully reproduce the exact spacing JFP put into the font without rounding errors.

Hey, I have an idea for TypeCon2006:
Have a theatrical play, where each male actor plays the part of a certain EULA, and there’s a female font user in the middle (Tiffany?) trying to decide who to go out with. Or wait: a font-user/EULA Dating Game! It all starts nice, but then as Tiffany asks harder questions the cracks start to show. Then you’d have one of the guys break down and start yelling “Don’t you touch me!!!” at the end, and another who keeps sneaking peaks into Tiffany’s pockets for contraband. A bunch of schizos, basically. And we’d use cool fake names (like Emigraine) for the guys!

hhp

“My guess is that the Myfonts EULA for Linotype fonts will be updated soon to reflect the current Linotype.com EULA.”

Where EULAs are concerned, even the best of us are left guessing.

>Have a theatrical play,

I like it. I’ve actually been thinking about the opposite angle – a play in which the fonts are set free and mayhem ensues. “The fonts were created by man… but they rebelled” – kind of like the Cylons in the Battlestar Galactica remake.

Si

I thought it might be helpful to this discussion to post a summary of what Frank Martinez (an experienced lawyer whose words have ended up in most foundries’ EULAs) had to say on the subject of the EULA. Frank attended TypeCon2005 and participated in a panel discussion in which Tiffany, Bruno Steinert, Si Daniels, Rich Kegler and I also participated.

I must make it clear that this is a personal impression of Frank’s remarks, and there is some elaboration by me, hopefully clarifying things.

EULAs address three parties
Frank reminded us that EULAs are written with three parties in mind, the last often forgotten in these discussions. 1. The designer/foundry. 2. The customer. 3. A judge. That third party will not accept vagueness: in a court, any imprecision will be interpreted in favour of the defendant. So EULAs, particularly from the long-standing foundries with experience of courtrooms, do not easily get rewritten in “friendly language”.

No silver bullet in writing EULAs
As a composer of EULAs, do not imagine there is a magic form of words which offers “100% protection”.

EULAs as a component of the foundry’s business model
Frank noted that a foundry composes its EULA not just to conform to its business model, but as a key part of its business model. You, as a EULA writer, decide to what extent a customer may exploit your work, thereby adding value to their work. This set of decisions relates strongly to what kind of customer you want to attract. Frank seemed to avoid the subject of what terms might be “reasonable” for a customer to expect from a font EULA, and seemed perfectly content with the idea of a diverse EULA world.

EULAs as psychological protection
It seemed that many of the foundries with whom Frank has worked have had a specific case or two in mind - from the years they’ve been in business - when rewriting their EULAs. It is as if the type designers were taking special precautions not to be stung twice in the same way. Perhaps (I’m paraphrasing now) repeated exploitation on the same basis would be deeply humiliating - not only financially painful. This method of writing leads to texts that seem overflowing with arbitrary exclusions, yet lacking in descriptions of how users are supposed to use the fonts. Thus one sees how the pleasant and readable EULA from a new foundry evolves only in the ugly direction.

Assumption of legal sophistication in the customer
Frank also mentioned that EULAs expect a degree of legal sophistication in the buyer. More sophistication, for example, than the buyer of “consumer” software such as music CDs, movie DVDs, and videogames. There seems then to be this tension from the buyer, exemplified by Tiffany and others here, where buyers are not exactly casual, but nor are they necessarily buying with business and contract law at the forefront of their minds. They see a typeface they’d like to use, the price seems fair, and would like that to be the end of it. (This seems to be to be a general problem, one that may cause surprises in the courtroom, as acceptance of unread EULAs and terms of service becomes universal.)

Small fry=red herring
Frank seemed to suggest that an experienced foundry would not go after customers for small (i.e. non-piratical) infractions of the EULA. A good EULA protects against serious abuses by those worth suing. Almost all small-fry abuse is piratical anyway, protection against which does not require a EULA.

The EULA is a declaration to sue
I, a foundry, will sue you, a user, for using my software. Oh, except in certain specific circumstances, I agree not to sue. Perhaps the allowable circumstances are not defined explicitly(!), but instead the EULA is a list of what is forbidden. This could be safer than statements of what is allowed, since technological advances mean old allowed usages might, in the future, add much more value than originally intended by the foundry. For example, “editable embedding” did not seem terribly dangerous in 1992. Customers have to get over the feeling that a EULA that consists of list of “what is not allowed” is unfair.

— Laurence

Laurence: good, useful post - thanks.

> Frank seemed to avoid the subject of what terms might be “reasonable”

Makes sense, for a lawyer. But nobody else.

> ... deeply humiliating

This I believe is quite relevant. I think it comes from the detrimental “artist’s pride” psychological complex. Font houses have to tame their egos to make more financial sense. When you get stung, you need to become wiser, not more cavemanlike.

> I, a foundry, will sue you, a user, for using my software.

This is, of course, exactly what’s wrong with the thing.

> This could be safer

Only in the most short-term, legalistic way. To me, the most dangerous thing is telling your legit customers you don’t trust them. The other ones barely know you exist.

> Customers have to get over the feeling that a EULA
> that consists of list of “what is not allowed” is unfair.

1) In reality, customers have to do jack. The problem is the font house’s. Customers can elect to become “pirates” quite easily (especially if they’re treated as such from the get-go) and an antagonistic EULA only pushes them towards that. And this is related to why most individuals (I mean non-lawyers) don’t read EULAs: it’s not worth the effort.

2) I haven’t seen anybody complain about that. I have seen people complain that: EULAs are (intentionally?) hard to understand; and some clauses are nothing short of fascist.

We need our users more than they need us.

hhp

In an attempt to continue this discussion on a positive note, I wonder if people have examples of EULAs they particularly like?

Some I appreciate:
Process Type, ShinnType, and, of course, Village. Adobe’s terms are also attractive to me, although the EULA itself isn’t exactly light reading!

The Mark Simonson EULA is interesting in what it doesn’t cover, although I’m not sure which EULA applies if you don’t buy type directly from Mark. Storm’s seems to be easy to understand and explicit.

People are listening...

Press release

August 2005

New Liberal License Conditions for FontFonts

FontShop International (FSI) has updated the license terms and conditions for their FontFonts. The new rules acknowledge two important user requests regarding the use of fonts on laptops and working with service bureaus and printers. These changes are valid immediately, and even cover FontFonts licensed in the past.

“Many of our customers now work at different locations, they take documents on business trips, work at home, and, in the end, they send documents for output to a service bureau,” says Jürgen Siebert, member of the FontFont Typeboard. “Font licensing should be compatible with these flexible working conditions.”

FontFont’s updated End User License Agreement (EULA) respects this new environment. Users who work both at the office and at home may load their fonts on their laptop — without any effect on the number of licensed users. Licensing is no longer applied per workstation (CPU), but rather on number of users. Supplying FontFonts used in a specific document to a service bureau or printer for outputting is subject to an important condition: the service bureau may output the given document but not make any modifications. After outputting, the fonts must be deleted.

There are also new rules for the internet. If you embed FontFonts in a non-commercial secured PDF, you may put the PDF on your website for viewing and downloading.

The rights of FontFont designers will also be strengthened by the new license conditions. Without FSI’s permission, FontFont data may not be renamed or modified.

You can read and print the new FontFont EULA at www.fontfont.com/eula/license.html.

About FontFonts

The FontFont library of digital typefaces was launched in 1990 by Erik Spiekermann and Neville Brody with the goal of producing cutting-edge typefaces by designers for designers. Now representing the work of over 100 designers, the FontFont Library contains over 3,000 contemporary fonts - many of the most popular typefaces in use today - including FF Meta®, FF DIN®, FF Scala®, FF Eureka® Sans, FF Kievit™, and FF Fago™. FontFonts are available at www.fontfont.com

FontFont and FontFont typeface names are trademarks of FSI FontShop International. Other trademarks mentioned for informational purposes are the property of their respective owners.

===

I’ve been thinking “constructively”, but pragmatically
as always, and I’m coming to the conclusion that EULAs:
- Are useful to the user only in helping him not get sued.
- Cannot be made reasonable/intelligible beyond a certain limit inherent in Law/Capitalism.
- Are here to stay, even if most people don’t read them.

As a result, I propose the following: leave the EULA field in its “negativist” domain, with all its legalese trappings, but have a second document for decent individual humans. This document (can’t think of a name right now) would explain in a normal conversational manner what the font house would like to see happen, and not happen. It might even explain why, and propose direct contact to resolve conflicts or ambiguities. It might start something like this: “Thank you for bothering to read this; it means you’re a decent person, hopefully with reasonable expectations. We also have expectations, and we hope they’re reasonable. #1) Please...” I can picture somebody who wouldn’t read a EULA going to the trouble of reading such a document, making everybody happier. And if they do bother to initiate direct contact, that just means you have a decent customer on your hands, to whom you can sell [more] stuff in the future, with peace of mind. Open, sincere communication is the best long-term strategy I think.

I’ve loved seeing some font houses try to be more reasonable in their EULAs, but I think it might be better to split the effort into two angles.

hhp

>but have a second document for decent individual humans.

From http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/name.htm ...

13. License Description; description of how the font may be legally used, or different example scenarios for licensed use. This field should be written in plain language, not legalese.

example - This font may be installed on all of your machines and printers, but you may not sell or give these fonts to anyone else.

Cheers, Si

This FontFont PR statement strikes me as intetresting...

>The rights of FontFont designers will also be strengthened by the new license conditions. Without FSI’s permission, FontFont data may not be renamed or modified.

The see this as a type designers rights issue. Do they go back and check with the designer when they get a modification request? “John Nolan wants to modify your font, what do you think?” Or do the bosses make the call, or do they have a list of fonts on which modifications are allowed? If so why not publish this list?

Cheers, Si

I’m not talking just about intelligibility, but more about tone and attitude. For example, “you may not” would NEVER occur in the document I’m thinking of.

The ideological difference between a EULA and this document is that the former assumes an entity will abuse the font house, while the latter realizes that the font house is at the mercy of the user and seeks only to communicate expectations.

hhp

Not sure I get it. I’d rather have a statement that says “you may not sell or give away this font” than “if someone else other than you wants this font they have to license a copy for themselves”, or “sorry the designer is very protective of their work so doesn’t allow modifications” rather than “if you’d like to make modifications to this font you’re out of luck, you should go and license another font from someone else such as Adobe.” Perhaps you could write such a description for an existing EULA (say the FontFont EULA) so we can see how it works.

None of those, nothing like that at all. I’m talking about something
that has a lot of “please”s in it. Like your friends talk to you.

There’s no point getting rid of a EULA, or even softening it up. Better to counteract it, balance it, cater to decent users (the rest either don’t read
EULAs or read them to know how impressive a legal department they’ll need).

hhp

Sounds possible, but I’d still like to see an example.

I don’t sell a lot of things to friends but here’s an example from a few years back, when I did. I had a car that I wasn’t using, and a friends car had just blown up. So I sold the car to her for 1/4 of what it was worth. There was a legal document required by the state of Washington, and a negotiated verbal agreement with my friend...

“For the next few years you can’t sell or give away the car without checking with me. When you’re done with the car I’ll buy it back from you for what you paid me for it. You have to take the car to the mechanic straight away as it’s been sitting in my driveway for the past six months, and I want to make sure its safe for you to drive. Don’t modify (paint) the car. Get the car serviced regualrly.”

So I guess I licensed the car to my friend, but the verbal agreement contains a lot of the phrases you’d ban me from using with respect to a font. I think in the circumstances my requirements were reasonable and my friend did too.

Hrant, you know that I’m very amenable when it comes to EULAs, but I think that it’s easier and clearer to list the things you DON’T want to happen to your fonts than all of the things which you DO allow.

In the Village EULA we start with “positive” rules, then follow those with exceptions and caveats. I believe that most EULAs work the same way: you can do what you want except X, Y, and Z. That’s much shorter than: you can do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, etc. etc.

Si:
“Do they go back and check with the designer when they get a modification request?”

As Danny at FS_SF explained it to me, yes.

He said modification work would first be offered to the designer. If the designer agrees to the modification, but doesn’t wish to do the work himself, it would be handled by FontShop itself.

He didn’t know of a case where a user would be permitted to undertake modifications himself. I’ve asked him about kerning alterations, and he’s looking in to it for me.

Simon: I try to avoid mixing commerce and friends too, but you could say that a customer who bothers to read a document outlining your desires (that’s all they really are) is in effect exceptionally friendly.

> “For the next few years you can ...

You asked for an example from me, but I think your provided a pretty good one yourself! This is sort of what I was talking about - although it’s still a bit too tough - and that works both ways. For example, I would say things like:
- “you shouldn’t sell or give away the car without checking with me.”
- but also, “I’ll endeavor to buy it back from you for what you paid me”.

Chester, I certainly agree with your “I think that it’s easier and clearer to list the things you DON’T want to happen to your fonts than all of the things which you DO allow.” The only time it makes sense to have a “positive” clause is as an exception to a negative one. For example you could have something like “please don’t modify the font, unless your computer is only used by you”. What I was actually trying to say isn’t that this document (not a EULA!) should avoid being antagonistic by mentioning what one can do with the fonts, but simply by treating the user as an equal (at least).

John, what if the font house asks the original designer, but he says “Hey, I like that malformed ligature”, or “I think the mod is a good idea, but I don’t want anybody doing it”. Or he says “I want to do it myself, but in five years”. I personally know a number of cases of such “font squatting”, and to me that’s just as bad as piracy. Oh, and what if the original designer has become a stubborn old senile prick? Typeface designs are part of culture, and never belong 100% to any single person.

hhp

Hrant it drives me bonkers every time you bring up this argument!

Just because someone becomes a “stubborn senile old prick” doesn’t mean that they loose their rights before the law. And who is to decide when someone has become “unreasonable”? Just because you dislike someone, that doesn’t give the right to run roughshod over their work!

> And who is to decide when someone has become “unreasonable”?

You ask me this every time, and I give the same answer: Each of us, individually. When you think about it, what other choice do any of us really have, in the end? The Law just doesn’t cut it, sorry. And it’s not a matter of “rights” as much as it is a matter of applying a pragmatic, reasonable existence. All these pretty, petty rights (like freedom of speech - what a joke) we’re told we have on TV are nothing but distraction tactics, to get us to be good little cogs, to keep us Legal. The problem of course is that the Law is about money, not Justice.

hhp

I don’t believe that justice would be possible under such a relative system. We would have a free-for-all, and no one’s rigts would be protected.

Oddly that is the usual stance — that things will fall apart without these ideas of law and justice. These are constructs though, and I do believe there is a deep system that works underneath the law/language structure. Everyone is subject to the law they impose on themselves — do what you will and all that jazz. Seems the legal system sets limits on recourse and sets a standard of civility or uncivility as it might be.

To me each person’s own ethical constucts hold the real power, so we might not have a free-for-all as we fear. That’s unless we were actually fighting for resources that were scarce. In that case I don’t think the imposed legal system would protect us.

What’s the difference between (a) fonts embedded in a PDF or Flash and (b) fonts embedded in games, software, operating systems or mobile devices?

The difference is that the latter (b) are products, where the font software enhances the value of the product in measurable terms like usability (closely related to aesthetics), file size and functionality. With the former (a) I see no difference between web sites with GIF fonts or Flash embedded fonts and something with ink on a page.

Since the laws around font licensing center around protecting the software (and not the design copyright) then it’s out of necessity that font licensing has evolved the way software has — versus the way other creative usage rights have evolved.

Now, speaking as an end user, I appreciate the foundries who are thinking about how I will use their fonts. In general, it is really irritating when there are stipulations about PDF or Flash embedding (or EPS outlines!) and I’d say get over it, because I’m going to find another foundry to deal with. Using Chester’s analogy, that means I would not buy the car that won’t go over 45mph when I know that most often I will need a highway legal car!

* Regarding piracy issues with embedding (not the topic of this thread), I say get over it. Piracy is going to happen and just because some hacker kid will pull your fonts out of a PDF or Flash file doesn’t mean you should hamper your font sales by getting so tight with your EULAs. This issue is something for the software makers (Adobe and Macro- er, Adobe) to figure out, not to punish the legitimate font licensees over.

Not sure if this has been covered yet, but it looks like Letterhead Fonts won’t release any new fonts before they have a working activation/copy protection in place (link). It looks like some of their fonts were pirated and they won’t have none of it.

Not sure how possible this is, and how it will interfere with the workflow... I’m really curious to see how this gamble will work out.

[Moderator comment: I have to say I appreciate the civil way this thread has been handled by all involved. It's a potentially touchy subject, so it's all the more appreciated.]

I will be curious to see what Letterhead comes up with, and hope that they have much success with it.

I am reminded of the time a few years ago when HTF’s fonts - this was before Tobias joined Jonathan - came with an installer which silently placed an invisible Extension into the user’s OS 9 System Folder. The fonts would not work without the Extension in place. So if one released a design job using a HTF font, and only the font files were sent to one’s bureau, the HTF fonts wouldn’t show up. (I forget whether they swapped out to Courier or what happened.)

HTF ended up “recalling” all of the protected fonts and replacing them with non-protected fonts. I assume that they had numerous requests from their confused clients, so had to withdraw their protection scheme. Many of us in the industry were interested by HTF’s technology, and were considering similar software or hardware “dongles”.

None of which is on-topic. Apologies. c

>It looks like some of their fonts were pirated and they won’t have none of it.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but this type of thing seems to account for the apparently bizarre or arbitrary restrictions in some EULAs - a designer or foundry gets burned in some way and then asks their lawyer to add a clause in their EULA in an attempt not to let the same thing happen again.

I was thinking the same thing, Simon.

Please go to this thread if you want to continue the piracy discussion: http://typophile.com/node/14891

I just want to say that as a non-type-designing art director, I really appreciate Village’s approach. Thanks, Chester.

It seems to me that all of these EULA variations and concerns can be worked out so long as something is allowed to “give”. If the end user wants a very unresrictive EULA that allows all the rights they dream of, then they should be willing to pay for that right. No?

Do expansive EULA rights come at a cost? And if so what would that be? I have a feeling it won’t be $19.95.

Perhaps this whole problem began when the price of font licensing