FB should demand another million for NBC associating the fonts with the horrible cast SNL has had over the last couple of seasons. Best wishes for the settlement!
Someone should have checked which fonts were used in the examples in the illustration that accompanies the article. Isn't the SNL logo set in Gotham (not from FB)?
> "no less than $2 million", "caused injury to Font Bureau's relationships with present and prospective customers," "will cause confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of Font Bureau's trademarks."
who's the lawyer? with that he wants to go to court?
>"which would only permit the company to install the typefaces on a single computer.... But NBC went ahead and copied the fonts"
I'm left wondering if NBC’s designer(s) are going to get canned for not being more attentive to the EULA. When your design work gets that level of exposure, you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of not knowing or abiding by protocol.
Actually, I would say the Font Bureau’s “relationship with present... customers” was to tacitly permit nonlicensed use... up to the moment that suit was filed. It seems to be a method of warning “prospective customers” that “we’ll sue the shit out of you if you so much as look at us funny.” This, incidentally, might not be a bad attitude to take. Somebody’s got to.
Are we not allowed to utter the word “Swifte” here?
Pouty was ripped and re-copyrighted by a Russian woman and ultimately given away. The last time I looked at the site there were 243 downloads. When I reported it a year ago I was told foundries were only going after the "BIG" guys.
@David H: Frank Martinez is the lawyer for Font Bureau. Few people (if anyone) know more about the intellectual property laws surrounding fonts. Among other things, Frank is a former graphic designer, and a former patent office examiner....
@Michael: Was the Russian woman living in Russia?
I've never heard of any font IP case being prosecuted successfully in Russia, and I've heard several lawyers in the industry say that it is pointless to even try.
Yes, she lives in Russia. I also informed you, or Adobe rather, that Bickham was being ripped, along with some Linotype and several other foundries. I was amazed at the site. Pretty brazen. I think at one time she was associated with ITC. I think Frank got involved and quite a bit of it was pulled down, but Pouty persisted for quite some time. Available on the "101" site and a ton were downloaded. Just roughly, I calculated the losses at about 7500. Now whether they would have "BOUGHT" them is a whole different question.
I think that this lawsuit is a good thing; it reminds people that misusing a license or someone's IP is wrong. It is good publicity for the type industry as a whole. Don't you think more people will become aware of proper font licensing as a result? I just saw something on the WSJ about it.
Yep. I am confused to see that type designers lament about EULA violations yet if one of them responds that's not right either. My spontaneous reaction is thank you.
Thank you so much for posting this. Awesome indeed, but to me for different reasons, I suspect. I've been reading the complaint and looking at the exhibits - all of it available via Scribd links in the article. (Ya gotta love the web.)
I now doubly hope this goes to a decision and not a settlement because then there will be an extensive transcript, too.
Two facts stand out to me so far:
1) The three fonts Font Bureau is claiming to have been infringed are "Bureau Grotesque", "Antenna", and "Interstate".
I am now deeply interested to what degree those fonts can be considered "original expression".
I would imagine this would also be one line of defense for NBC.
2) The invoice to NBC for those fonts (bought online) is being used as prima facia evidence that NBC both obtained (paid for it, certainly) and used (presumably) those fonts in violation - or so plaintiff says - of Font Bureau's EULA.
I'm sure it will also be claimed that the invoice amounts to a tacit acknowledgment by NBC that said fonts are, indeed, copyrightable and that the license terms are, therefore, legit.
But since there are so many typefaces nearly identical in design, and the designers at a behemoth like NBC would surely experiment with many different fonts before making a decision, how is it going to be ascertained that NBC did, indeed, use these three exact fonts?
Fascinating.
The simple truth is that any font designer can bring a suit claiming infringement against anyone and do so relatively cheaply. But defending against it can be very expensive no matter how off-the-mark it may be.
However, if the basis of the complaint is just a similarity in look, it's a rather thin argument. Bolstering it with a documented purchase, however, much stronger.
Unfortunately, for some, the lesson here might be to think twice before buying any commercial font.
This isn't a football game where one roots for one or the other "side". There's always two sides and real-world consequences.
Rich, this is a straightforward software license violation suit, just like many others in which a software licensor sues a company for either unlicensed use of software or for violation of a license agreement. The fact that the software in question is fonts rather than, say, Adobe Photoshop, is irrelevant: this is a software licensing suit, not a typeface intellectual property suit.
Can one actually get a law degree at any McDonald's in Canada? I heard that if you buy one happy meal, one hot apple pie, a piping hot cup of coffee and no tray, you get a diploma from Cole's Law University, located just south of Mouse Jaw. It must be true, I heard it here.
Michael, I share your frustration about the sites offering unlicensed fonts for download, but I think the Font Bureau’s efforts are wisely placed in the prosecution of high-profile unlicensed font use more than their distribution by entities that are much more difficult to track and enforce. A case like this offers the most bang for the buck in publicizing the importance of proper licensing.
"this is a software licensing suit, not a typeface intellectual property suit."
I think I understand what you mean by this. But one line of defense is always that said property was not eligible, as IP, for licensing at all. (In patent suits, invalidating the patent is always the surest - and sometimes the easiest - way to go but whether that line is available here, I have no idea.)
I mean, can you license an egg? Unless you pay extra, you can only eat it hard-boiled, not scrambled or poached? I don't know.
I have two questions I will be calling Martinez's office about, as a journalist, on Tuesday:
1) Was NBC given, prior to filing the suit, the opportunity to rectify Font Bureau's claim by simply purchasing a license that covered the usage?
2) Is Herb Martinez's firm working on a contingency or partial contingency basis?
Rich, what is being licensed is not a right to IP, but a right to use the font software, so I really don't see how IP is at all relevant. When I license Adobe InDesign, I'm not licensing the IP -- that is, I am not purchasing the right to reuse of Adobe copyrighted code or patented techniques --, I'm just purchasing the right to use the software for the purposes and in the ways permitted by the license agreement. Same with fonts.
That said, the USCO has explicitly recognised that fonts are may be copyrighted as computer programs, and the summary judgement in the Adobe vs. SSi case confirmed that this pertains also to the outlines, so even if this were an IP case I don't think there would be any question of the eligibility of the fonts to protection.
Do they do Columbus Day in Canada.
No. It's our Thanksgiving weekend up here, an end-of-harvest festival.
By the way, it's Frank Martinez, not Herb Martinez.
(Thanks for the correction. Not Herb, Frank. I've got Herb on the brain. A Freudian thing, no doubt. But Herb always was quite frank!)
Anyway, Frank Martinez (who I met at Typecon) has a website where there is interesting stuff germaine to this topic to be read: The Martinez Group - Litigation
I've also been reading some Atypi presentations and all kinds of stuff with an eye to the possible legal consequences of using for-pay web fonts.
Anyway, I'm not understanding you on this at all.
How can there be a license to use something unless there is, presumably, a right on the part of the licensor that remains attached even after the item is transferred?
You say I'm buying the "right to use" the thing. OK, understood.
But if the thing is not protected in the first place, there is no "right to use" to be obtained in the first place. The idea of a license, a "right to use" is predicated on copyright.
Sorry, sometimes I'm thick, but what you seem to be saying is that anything can be licensed, and the license can be enforced, even if the licensor has no claim on the item after transfer.
To use the analogy one more time: you seem to be saying that if I buy an egg from you under the terms of a contract that says I'm only to eat it hard-boiled but, dammit, you've got pictures of me eating it scrambled, that you can claim damages because it's going to be harder to license more eggs to other clients in the future. (As the Font Bureau's complaint puts it. But no eggs, of course.)
The only problem with this is that you never had any rights to the egg in the first place because it was just an egg, so that leaves you with only breach of contract and what damages could you legitimately claim?
I don't call up Herman Miller to license a chair. I don't go to the local Honda dealership to license a car.
After I've purchased those things I can do what I want with them, period. I own them lock, stock, and barrel.
Licensing a "right to use" the font software is dependent upon the font software being protected IP. Otherwise, there may be a nonsensical contract, but there is no license.
Are you saying otherwise?
(I'll pass on the significance or lack thereof, of Adobe v Southern Software other than to say I've read the decision.)
The idea of a license, a “right to use” is predicated on copyright.
The fact that B is predicated on A does not mean that A is at issue whenever B is at issue. Licensing law is fundamentally contract law; specific types of contracts may be predicated on intellectual property law, but that does not imply that lawsuits regarding such contracts are intellectual property suits. I don't believe that the copyrightability of fonts as computer programs under US law is at issue in this licensing case.
But I'm not a lawyer. And you're not a lawyer. If you'll excuse me, I have to go stare down a herd of buffalo now. It's a Canadian Thanksgiving tradition.
>I don’t call up Herman Miller to license a chair. I don’t go to the local Honda dealership to license a car.
Take a look at Title 17 § 106. The idea is that as the owner of a copyright, one has exclusive rights to do a few things with that copyrighted work. Generally one can sell or conditionally license these rights. Similarly, if you don’t own a copyright to a particular work, and you wish to do any of the things to which the owner of the copyright holds exclusive rights (again, generally) you have to negotiate with the owner to do those things.
Rich, my impression is that lawyers can and on occasion will use any argument to win their case, whether it is legitimate or not, consistent or not. Thus NBC could try to challenge whether Font Bureau owns any rights to the fonts, and hence whether their EULA is a legally binding contract.
But then NBC would in effect be challenging whether any software EULA for fonts is valid. In light of SSI vs Abobe, I doubt they would be successful, and hence probably NBC won't try this strategy. I am just guessing, as I have no training in law.
Because SSI vs Adobe established protection of fonts as software, and undoubtedly software was licensed from Font Bureau and used by NBC, I don't think that an argument about the originality of these particular fonts as designs would be relevant, as they would pass the test of SSI for original software. Again, lawyers can try any argument, but I don't see how it would work before a judge.
Also re-litigating SSI vs Adobe would likely be an expensive matter for NBC to do, which they would want to do only if they were concerned to establish a principle important to their business. And I don't see how this is. To put this into perspective, according to one figure I just found it costs 3 million dollars to produce one hour of a sitcom. In contrast, paying for new fonts each year will be a tiny fraction of that.
I have no illusions. A quick settlement is what is being sought and what will, probably, be gotten.
Prolonged litigation is fabulously expensive.
On the Martinez group's web site (link to the litigation page is in a previous comment), it's made clear that settlement is the aim.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The following is nothing more than opinion and reportage of the legal precautions and calculations that take place in the world.
To continue, Bill:
Where NBC screwed up is in buying the font online using a NBC credit card or somesuch. It proves access and gives the complaint legs. It's much more difficult to prove access without it. It's the last time NBC will be doing that, I assume.
And it would not surprise me if this ran counter to existing policies within NBC.
Businesses with deep-pockets are constantly sued. Some suits are legit, some concocted. But it's routine to create barriers to potential liability such as using shell entities to conduct business, etc., to provide a shield.
For example, if the design department were to be spun off as a single-client entity - a business of it's own - it would be much more difficult to drag NBC into the fray.
And the bells that went off at Font Bureau when NBC purchased those fonts would not have rung, most probably.
My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded. I do not know if Font Bureau's claim is true or not. But the whole idea of a purchase triggering a surveillance of sorts, I find a little creepy. I mean, do you think someone at FB just woke up one day and said, "Hey! There's our fonts on Jay Leno!"
Instead of NBC it could be me or you or anybody, really.
I recently bought a particular weight of Kent Lew's font "Whitman" from the Font Bureau. And it gives me pause.
(Well, more than pause, but another time and place, not here.)
Anyway, perhaps because so much of NBC's core business is copyright related, it simply isn't (or wasn't) worth the confusion for them to take these precautions, who knows.
The world we live in. Interesting (and sometimes troubling) times.
Ok, I'm an interested party because Font Bureau will soon be releasing my Williams Caslon retail. But really Rich, if somebody rips me off and I complain to the law, I'm the bad guy, I'm a stalker? That's upside-down ethics, and suicide for foundries and type designers.
Are you advocating that foundries never monitor the very public use of their fonts? When a marketing firm (IIRC) ripped off FF Dax and it ended up on every UPS truck in the world without being paid for, FontFont should have ignored it? Or when P22's Cezanne wasn't licensed properly by Starbucks, and it was all over their walls around the country, they should have just shut up?
If big companies whose fonts appear all over the country are not one in a while threatend with a law suit for very publicly violating a font EULA, such as in this case or the Dax or Cezanne case (both settled out of court IIRC), then EULAs will become meaningless.
Unless you are planning to put it on a hundred computers without paying the license fees, why would this complaint cause you worry about your ownership of a one-computer license for Kent Lew's fabulous Whitman?
I mean, do you think someone at FB just woke up one day and said, “Hey! There’s our fonts on Jay Leno!”
Yes, that's exactly what I think happened. Unless (less likely) somebody at NBC tipped off FB.
The idea that font vendors in general, or FB in particular, routinely "stalk" big companies who purchase just one license for a font is pretty hilarious, actually. They don't have the time to waste. Mind you, I'm also fond of using Occam's Razor in my inductive thought.
(Heh. First time I typed that last sentence, I wrote "font" for "fond"....)
My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded.
Do you have the first clue how much time type design takes? If you think that anybody at Font Bureau has time to stalk customers for license violations you’re both paranoid and not applying critical thinking skills.
Rich: My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded.
Your ‘feeling’ is erroneous.
We're talking about very high profile font use: fonts used in a television season branding campaign by a major media corporation. When fonts are used in such a high profile way, I think it is sensible for foundries to check their license sales logs. The fonts are contributing massive added value to the media corporations campaign, and should be properly licensed and paid for. Further, as explained during the web fonts discussions, much of the value in fonts, for the professional designers who are the principle market for font licensing, resides in real, partial or perceived exclusivity. If major TV network ‘A’ are using specific fonts in their season branding, other networks will want to avoid using the same fonts so that their own branding is not diluted. So high profile font use by one major customer diminishes the likelihood of licensing by other customers in the same business or marketplace. Hence the basis of potential damages. If NBC had properly licensed the fonts to use them in the ways in which they intended to use them, they would have reasonably compensated Font Bureau for the likely loss of other sales.
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, as I skipped reading the last few posts. As I understand it, the validity of this suit depends on whether or not the terms of the EULA were violated by NBC, more specifically that a license for the font, legally purchased for a finite number of computers, was installed and subsequently used on a number of computers exceeding the terms of the agreement. Assuming my facts are straight, could NBC theoretically claim that Font Bureau has no way of proving how many computers the font was installed on? For all they know, all of the design work in question could have come from the same designer on the same machine. Or is there something I’m missing that would refute such a claim?
I've seen enough law shows on TV to know that there's a "discovery" phase in such cases, but there needs to be some evidence of wrong-doing to avoid claims of a "fishing expedition"
I am sure that Font Bureau and their very capable legal consultant did not just jump in to a suit without something more than a "Gee, I wonder if" whim. All of us speculators with experience limited to old episodes of Perry Mason, myself included, should perhaps just sit back and let the real folks involved do their own thing without us mucking up the works.
No italics on my machine, Joe, except for the places where they should be ... in a few short quotes. And definitely nothing that deserves another dig at the moderators. Save that for the thread where it should be.
Sorry, did not know I needed a degree to speculate about a legal matter. I guess the next time I have to change my oil I'll become a certified mechanic. And I definitely can't cook dinner until I finish my masters at the Culinary Institute of America.
Seriously though, I think my point was valid, though maybe unsubstantiated due to a lack of information.
It's perfectly OK. There are judges who narrowly passed or resat their degrees, and probably know less than you do. I fear this thread's speculations may be over-analysed as the judge is likely to encourage settlement as a means to avoid publicly exposing their own inability.
As I understand it, the validity of this suit depends on whether or not the terms of the EULA were violated by NBC....
Well, that depends on what you mean. Did you read the lawsuit filing? I mean, yes, the six causes of action are all predicated on the idea that the EULA NBC had (a single-user license for just one of the three families in question, namely Interstate) did not permit NBC to do what they did. But if NBC had never had a license at all, five of the six causes of action would all still be there; only "breach of contract" would go away.
>I guess the next time I have to change my oil I’ll become a certified mechanic.
Come now, you can change your own oil. What I guess is odd, is if you wish to change the oil of a car you've never heard running, or owned, or checked the dip stick of. Weirder, would be that no one asked for you to do so, or comment on the need to do so, but you hunted them down anyway to tell them they needed their oil changed, when they did not need their oil changed.
From further up the thread, who believes anyone, anywhere, can be charged with the rather serious crime of stalking, as a result of watching network TV? Just curious.
None of this, however, has anything whatsoever to do with this case, as you might suspect.
Italics have been activated since Tom’s quotation of the words There’s our fonts on Jay Leno!” and are still there now. There are no I or CITE elements in the source code, and every EM appears to be matched with a /EM. Nonetheless, something is wrong and it is the job of the people who call themselves “moderators” to fix it.
There will indeed be “another dig” at the so-called moderators if they make “another” mistake. It’s called accountability.
I don't see the italics either. But the <cite> tag on Thomas's quote (". . . Jay Leno") is not closed. It ends with an opening tag.
I guess it depends upon the browser. Joe is undoubtedly using something that is strictly compliant, and that's why he sees it, I'm guessing. Whereas most of us use browsers that close it out at the </p> or the </div>.
Now that the problem has been identified, perhaps an admin can rectify it.
@joe clark
I, too, agree that all things should be done in moderation.
@john hudson
People are quoting me lately - with and without attribution. In your case it's an "inside" thing,
but compare Typotheque's "endorsement" of WOFF here and my post about WOFF from a few days ago.
Very much fair use, and I'm flattered, but a citation would have been the right thing, don't you think?
Interestingly, to me, the Canadian end-of-harvest roughly co-incides with the Jewish holiday of Succot - also an end of harvest shindig. You know, there's a theory that the lost tribe of Israel found it's way to Canada and settled in and around Vancouver. This would account for the buffalo population running rampant - they're not Kosher. Hence the need to learn how to stare them down. This sounds quite plausible to me.
@thomas phinney, william berkson, et al:
Re, the suit against NBC: the one thing I haven't read here so far, is a statement from a representative of the Font Bureau denying that my surmise is not, indeed, what happened.
I mean, if that's the case, why not?
>a statement from a representative of the Font Bureau
David Berlow is a co-owner of Font Bureau. His statement above is:
"who believes anyone, anywhere, can be charged with the rather serious crime of stalking, as a result of watching network TV?"
Translating from the Berlonese as best I can, that reads that he or someone else associated with Font Bureau was watching NBC and said to themselves: "WTF? Our fonts are all over the network and they only bought one license? We have too look into this." I suppose the details are in the complaint, which is on line, but I haven't looked at it.
Since you refer to Sukkot, I'd refer you to a great principle in Jewish ethics that I try to practice, though I don't always succeed: "Be judging everyone in a favorable light." In other words put a construction on their words or actions that assumes a good motive, and as a rule act on that assumption. Of course there are exceptions, but I think this isn't right forum for a Talmudic discussion :)
@david hamuel
>I didn't know that Typophile is the court.
Objection. Move to strike.
@thomas phinney
Re FB v NBC - my experience in business, outside of IT, is with very small businesses. Sales volumes of anywhere from a measly $100,000.00 per annum to say, $15,000,000.00 per.
And the one thing every one those businesses owners wanted to know in the morning was: who had bought what the day before. Later on, when I ran my own company, if I didn't already know the who-and-what from having been around and watching, this was my first order of business every day, too.
I was, at first, amazed by the up-to-the-minute fine detail that guys in charge of fair-sized operations had at their fingertips at all times. But they did. I've never met a small business owner - or one of the owners, at least - that doesn't carry around this information in their head.
The idea that "they have better things to do", is hilarious to me. Better things to do than keep track of who is buying their products? Please.
At Fink's Font Bureau, you better believe I would know exactly who bought what font every damned day of the week and Saturdays and Sundays, too. And the principals of the Font Bureau don't? Pretty please.
And if I was them, given the current legal opportunities, the minute I saw "NBC" on an invoice, I would have tracked them every which way from Sunday.
With more verve than they, probably. But let's be real.
Thank you for your responses. I realize that my opinion on this matter is of no real value, as I am not a lawyer, type designer, or associate of either the Font Bureau or NBC. Unfortunately, I feel as if you guys had perceived my earlier comment as some sort of attack on the validity of this suit. That was in no way my intention, and I apologize if it was received as such. In fact, I think fighting back against theft and piracy is a necessary and admirable thing to do. We have to be willing to protect how we make a living. That said, my initial comment was not meant to poke holes in the argument, but to indulge my curiosity about the issue at hand. It was just a thought, not a values judgment or accusation.
Every browser is highly compliant now, even IE-greater-than-6. I searched through the source for all I, CITE, or EM elements and found none that were unclosed. I did not move the whole thing over to BBEdit and do a thorough debug.
Because moderators are supposed to be on top of that. At least the italics-deniers of this thread have been shut up.
I just wanted to say that I hope the Font Bureau collects handsomely from NBC.
They did a piece on 60 minutes about unlicensed DVD creation and copying that was so simple-minded and biased that they deserve to pay for whatever reason.
Kudos!!!
Sidestepping the 'IANAL' discussion for a moment: I'm very happy that FB has taken this action, if only because I can now point to this lawsuit when trying to nip the whole "just give me the fonts" discussion in the bud with employers and clients.
By some guy named Brian Lawler who I hope, for everyone's sake, is never allowed to sit on a jury.
The article begins:
"It would have been a lot easier if NBC had bought the licenses for the fonts!"
Just a teeny bit biased are we, Mr. Lawler? (Well, it is Graphic Arts Online, after all. Gotta tell 'em what they want to hear.)
Of course the rest of the article just assumes that NBC is an infringer. Did this guy Lawler even read the complaint? Is he aware that all the suit "proves" is that NBC bought three fonts from the Font Bureau and the rest is allegation?
And that that's all you pretty much need to initiate a suit and try to sock it to a deep-pocketed defendant?
Does he question the reasoning behind NBC owing anything more, even if found liable, than the difference between the license they purchased and the license Font Bureau says they should have purchased? Was any such attempt made prior to litigation? That would have been a more civil and productive approach, don't you think, Brian?
And how about some giving some thought to the possibility of a chill effect leading to less purchases from any and all "retail" font vendors. Ever occur to you? Naw, couldn't happen.
Congrats to Brian Lawler and Graphic Arts Online for a hatchet job well done. And thanks to the Ascender blog for the link.
When I heard of this lawsuit, at first I was puzzled. You buy a font for one computer. You print something on that computer. Then you make millions of copies of what you've printed on an offset press, or take your image with letters on it, and put it into an animation... and none of those later actions violate the license to the font. You only need a license to the font on the one computer and printer combination that converts the text to the graphic image of the letter.
But it is being alleged by the plaintiff that NBC used those fonts on more than one computer. And this is not an unreasonable suspicion if they were used in a wide variety of advertising materials that would likely have been prepared by different people working in different offices. Plus, lawsuits only require a balance of probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
FWIW, this is not the first time NBC TV has been sued for a design-related copyright infringement. Back in the mid 1970s, the network was penalized about $850K in cash and equipment after it introduced a new corporate logo that was already being used by a group of public TV stations in Nebraska: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_logos
Richard, Brian, not being on a jury, is not required to presume innocence. I do agree that his first sentence should have been a 'what if', rather than a presumption of guilt. (He does conclude with a 'what if'.) But what exactly is mistaken in the rest of the article? I find it hard to believe that Steve Matteson did 4000 kerns in a sitting, but aside from that it seems pretty accurate, though I admit I didn't read it with great care.
As to the "chilling effect", doesn't this argument apply to all software sales? Will people stop buying software if some software manufacturers sue when large public companies violate the EULAs by distributing all over their company a piece of software licensed for only one computer?
By the way do you have no concern for the huge losses due to use of unlicensed fonts? Should foundries and developers of fonts always just shrug and let themselves--ourselves--be robbed? I am not, I should emphasize, presuming the outcome of this case. But let us suppose for the moment that Font Bureau is completely right, and NBC completely in the wrong. If that were the case, do you still think Font Bureau should do nothing?
quadribloc, I believe all software is licensed and charged by the number of computers, and when fonts became software, they started charging the same way. It may not make a lot of sense otherwise, but surely NBC is aware of the terms of the license. If you buy any font over the internet, there is almost always--and certainly at FontBureau.com--a choice of how many computers you are licensing the font for, with the price adjusted accordingly. This information is not a detail buried in a long EULA, but right in the buyer's face as part of the buying process.
Richard, I found you attack on Brian's article a lot more offensive than the article itself.
Yes, the opening sentence seems to assume guilt. But the entire rest of the body of the article is really about the broader issues of font piracy and how hard it is to make a living as a type designer. Not much to complain about there.
Does he question the reasoning behind NBC owing anything more, even if found liable, than the difference between the license they purchased and the license Font Bureau says they should have purchased?
Why should he question it? US law provides that a copyright holder may opt for either actual damages *or* statutory damages. So on the copyright claims, if NBC is found to have infringed, it is possible Font Bureau could get quite a bit more in damages than just the amount NBC failed to pay. Plus, not all of the claims were based on copyright, so there are other factors.
You're spending a lot of time on web fonts and related areas. Try spending a day reading up on copyright law. It's fascinating stuff, and not all of it is obvious or self-evident.
James, my Williams Caslon has a total around 16,000 kerning pairs, and 600 kerning classes. I know that after that experience I'm enormously quicker now than at the start, when I was awfully slow. But how fast now I don't know. Next time I'll check and see.
"quadribloc, I believe all software is licensed and charged by the number of computers, and when fonts became software, they started charging the same way. It may not make a lot of sense otherwise, but surely NBC is aware of the terms of the license. If you buy any font over the internet, there is almost always—and certainly at FontBureau.com—a choice of how many computers you are licensing the font for, with the price adjusted accordingly. This information is not a detail buried in a long EULA, but right in the buyer’s face as part of the buying process."
I didn't think I put anything contradicting that in my post.
Instead, I noted that the widespread use of the font in NBC's promotional materials is not necessarily evidence of a single-user EULA being violated.
If, on one computer, I type the phrase "The More You Know", and with my copy of that font on the computer, produce an image of those words set in that font - then I need to have that font licensed on that computer.
If I then take that image, the translation from individual letters to the printed page having been performed on the first computer, and do coloring, 3D-shading, and rendering into an animation of that image on a render farm of a thousand other computers - not one of those computers needs to have a copy of that font installed on it. None of them are doing any typesetting, they're only doing image processing.
So the test to determine whether the font has been pirated isn't how widespread logos using that font are - but how many different texts they contain.
Otherwise, it's like saying that since a book set in Caledonia had a print run of 30,000 copies, the publisher must have had 30,000 Linotype machines with Caledonia matrices.
If that font is important to NBC's corporate identity, it could be there is only one copy of that font in the company, in one computer in a closely guarded room - to make sure that unauthorized employees in NBC do not create official-looking materials without authorization.
>Congrats to Brian Lawler and Graphic Arts Online for a hatchet job well done.
Chainsaw on. The fact that this is a near-repeat of your Oct 9th post lends credence to the gathering view you are not exactly unbiased yourself, if indeed you are yourself.
>it could be there is only one copy of that font in the company, in one computer in a closely guarded room - to make sure that unauthorized employees in NBC do not create official-looking materials without authorization.
Anybody can already buy these retail fonts--or steal them--and exactly reproduce the look of the NBC official materials, so rationale you hypothesize makes no sense. Also, if NBC indeed had such a policy and practice, I'm doubting that there would have been any law suit, or at very least that it would have been settled or dismissed by now.
Judging by the conversations on Typophile, the ignoring of EULAs is extremely widespread, and some people think type designers and foundries are a bunch of clueless whiners for objecting.
Regarding the feasibility of the "one font license may be all you need" hypothesis--I pity the creative team that produces all NBC's promotional material, working on a single computer!
I don't know how much distinct promotional material NBC has, so my hypothesis may well be untenable. Nor do I suggest they should get away with it if they are guilty.
But this one computer could be just used to set the appropriate text into type, while other aspects of the creative design - turning a line of text into a colorful logo - take place on other computers.
So my point is merely that to eliminate possibilities like that, one needs more than "oh, my, they run these logos all the time". How much typesetting with this font actually took place, not how often we see it, is what matters.
Of course, if we're talking about a lot of printed material too, it may also be that printed material was done with copies of the font in question at the printing shop... since sending the printer a PDF with an embedded font might not be allowed by the font license.
For what it would have cost them to outfit the entire PR Advertising Branding team and have peace of mind, surely must be less than the legal hassle that they have now. Come on, corporate America, own up and pay up your fare share of doing business!
In the criminal justice system, words are represented by two separate yet equally important fonts: Friz Quadrata, and a crappy artificially condensed version of Friz Quadrata.
8.Oct.2009 4.22pm
FB should demand another million for NBC associating the fonts with the horrible cast SNL has had over the last couple of seasons. Best wishes for the settlement!
8.Oct.2009 4.34pm
Someone should have checked which fonts were used in the examples in the illustration that accompanies the article. Isn't the SNL logo set in Gotham (not from FB)?
8.Oct.2009 6.47pm
Learn the difference between a single-user license and a site license before you use the fonts in your nationwide marketing materials.
8.Oct.2009 7.39pm
Looks like Sam and Dave are looking to retire early.
Shame they did not go after the piracy of my font with the same vigor!
Michael
8.Oct.2009 7.41pm
> "no less than $2 million", "caused injury to Font Bureau's relationships with present and prospective customers," "will cause confusion, mistake and deception as to the source of Font Bureau's trademarks."
who's the lawyer? with that he wants to go to court?
>"which would only permit the company to install the typefaces on a single computer.... But NBC went ahead and copied the fonts"
so, that was in-house design, for sure?
9.Oct.2009 4.38am
Michael,
If your font(s) had been in this situation, the same actions would have resulted.
Cheers!
9.Oct.2009 5.27am
Maybe Nick Cooke should check to see if they have an appropriate license for Houschka Pro?
9.Oct.2009 5.34am
Discussions are ongoing at the moment Kent.
Nick Cooke
9.Oct.2009 5.46am
I'm left wondering if NBC’s designer(s) are going to get canned for not being more attentive to the EULA. When your design work gets that level of exposure, you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of not knowing or abiding by protocol.
9.Oct.2009 5.57am
Actually, I would say the Font Bureau’s “relationship with present... customers” was to tacitly permit nonlicensed use... up to the moment that suit was filed. It seems to be a method of warning “prospective customers” that “we’ll sue the shit out of you if you so much as look at us funny.” This, incidentally, might not be a bad attitude to take. Somebody’s got to.
Are we not allowed to utter the word “Swifte” here?
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
9.Oct.2009 7.36am
David
Pouty was ripped and re-copyrighted by a Russian woman and ultimately given away. The last time I looked at the site there were 243 downloads. When I reported it a year ago I was told foundries were only going after the "BIG" guys.
Michael
9.Oct.2009 10.14am
@David H: Frank Martinez is the lawyer for Font Bureau. Few people (if anyone) know more about the intellectual property laws surrounding fonts. Among other things, Frank is a former graphic designer, and a former patent office examiner....
@Michael: Was the Russian woman living in Russia?
I've never heard of any font IP case being prosecuted successfully in Russia, and I've heard several lawyers in the industry say that it is pointless to even try.
Cheers,
T
9.Oct.2009 10.49am
Yes, she lives in Russia. I also informed you, or Adobe rather, that Bickham was being ripped, along with some Linotype and several other foundries. I was amazed at the site. Pretty brazen. I think at one time she was associated with ITC. I think Frank got involved and quite a bit of it was pulled down, but Pouty persisted for quite some time. Available on the "101" site and a ton were downloaded. Just roughly, I calculated the losses at about 7500. Now whether they would have "BOUGHT" them is a whole different question.
Michael
9.Oct.2009 11.04am
I think that this lawsuit is a good thing; it reminds people that misusing a license or someone's IP is wrong. It is good publicity for the type industry as a whole. Don't you think more people will become aware of proper font licensing as a result? I just saw something on the WSJ about it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/09/nbc-hit-with-font-infringement-suit-...
9.Oct.2009 11.09am
Yep. I am confused to see that type designers lament about EULA violations yet if one of them responds that's not right either. My spontaneous reaction is thank you.
9.Oct.2009 1.26pm
Makes me think IKEA's recent corporate typeface switcheroo may not be such a dumb idea after all? ;)
9.Oct.2009 2.08pm
Frank Martinez is well suited for the job.
ChrisL
9.Oct.2009 2.15pm
I hope this goes to a decision, not a settlement.
9.Oct.2009 4.34pm
@zara evens
Thank you so much for posting this. Awesome indeed, but to me for different reasons, I suspect. I've been reading the complaint and looking at the exhibits - all of it available via Scribd links in the article. (Ya gotta love the web.)
I now doubly hope this goes to a decision and not a settlement because then there will be an extensive transcript, too.
Two facts stand out to me so far:
1) The three fonts Font Bureau is claiming to have been infringed are "Bureau Grotesque", "Antenna", and "Interstate".
I am now deeply interested to what degree those fonts can be considered "original expression".
I would imagine this would also be one line of defense for NBC.
2) The invoice to NBC for those fonts (bought online) is being used as prima facia evidence that NBC both obtained (paid for it, certainly) and used (presumably) those fonts in violation - or so plaintiff says - of Font Bureau's EULA.
I'm sure it will also be claimed that the invoice amounts to a tacit acknowledgment by NBC that said fonts are, indeed, copyrightable and that the license terms are, therefore, legit.
But since there are so many typefaces nearly identical in design, and the designers at a behemoth like NBC would surely experiment with many different fonts before making a decision, how is it going to be ascertained that NBC did, indeed, use these three exact fonts?
Fascinating.
The simple truth is that any font designer can bring a suit claiming infringement against anyone and do so relatively cheaply. But defending against it can be very expensive no matter how off-the-mark it may be.
However, if the basis of the complaint is just a similarity in look, it's a rather thin argument. Bolstering it with a documented purchase, however, much stronger.
Unfortunately, for some, the lesson here might be to think twice before buying any commercial font.
This isn't a football game where one roots for one or the other "side". There's always two sides and real-world consequences.
Awesome.
9.Oct.2009 4.43pm
How does original expression even figure into it at this point? NBC used fonts which can be proved to be those owned by Font Bureau.
9.Oct.2009 9.41pm
I should just leave legal matters to lawyers since my legal authority is limited to watching episodes of "Boston Legal" on another network :-)
ChrisL
9.Oct.2009 8.00pm
Rich, this is a straightforward software license violation suit, just like many others in which a software licensor sues a company for either unlicensed use of software or for violation of a license agreement. The fact that the software in question is fonts rather than, say, Adobe Photoshop, is irrelevant: this is a software licensing suit, not a typeface intellectual property suit.
10.Oct.2009 4.58am
Can one actually get a law degree at any McDonald's in Canada? I heard that if you buy one happy meal, one hot apple pie, a piping hot cup of coffee and no tray, you get a diploma from Cole's Law University, located just south of Mouse Jaw. It must be true, I heard it here.
Cheers!
10.Oct.2009 7.01am
Don’t ask me, Berlow. I don’t eat at McDonald’s, since everything there is steeped in cow fat.
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
10.Oct.2009 12.19pm
On the other hand, Joe, you are unlikely to hear the word charcuterie uttered in McDonalds. :)
10.Oct.2009 5.43pm
Michael, I share your frustration about the sites offering unlicensed fonts for download, but I think the Font Bureau’s efforts are wisely placed in the prosecution of high-profile unlicensed font use more than their distribution by entities that are much more difficult to track and enforce. A case like this offers the most bang for the buck in publicizing the importance of proper licensing.
11.Oct.2009 9.33am
@johnhudson
"this is a software licensing suit, not a typeface intellectual property suit."
I think I understand what you mean by this. But one line of defense is always that said property was not eligible, as IP, for licensing at all. (In patent suits, invalidating the patent is always the surest - and sometimes the easiest - way to go but whether that line is available here, I have no idea.)
I mean, can you license an egg? Unless you pay extra, you can only eat it hard-boiled, not scrambled or poached? I don't know.
I have two questions I will be calling Martinez's office about, as a journalist, on Tuesday:
1) Was NBC given, prior to filing the suit, the opportunity to rectify Font Bureau's claim by simply purchasing a license that covered the usage?
2) Is Herb Martinez's firm working on a contingency or partial contingency basis?
Of course, I may have more questions by then.
Do they do Columbus Day in Canada?
Cheers, rich
11.Oct.2009 11.12am
Rich, what is being licensed is not a right to IP, but a right to use the font software, so I really don't see how IP is at all relevant. When I license Adobe InDesign, I'm not licensing the IP -- that is, I am not purchasing the right to reuse of Adobe copyrighted code or patented techniques --, I'm just purchasing the right to use the software for the purposes and in the ways permitted by the license agreement. Same with fonts.
That said, the USCO has explicitly recognised that fonts are may be copyrighted as computer programs, and the summary judgement in the Adobe vs. SSi case confirmed that this pertains also to the outlines, so even if this were an IP case I don't think there would be any question of the eligibility of the fonts to protection.
Do they do Columbus Day in Canada.
No. It's our Thanksgiving weekend up here, an end-of-harvest festival.
By the way, it's Frank Martinez, not Herb Martinez.
11.Oct.2009 9.22pm
@johnhudson
(Thanks for the correction. Not Herb, Frank. I've got Herb on the brain. A Freudian thing, no doubt. But Herb always was quite frank!)
Anyway, Frank Martinez (who I met at Typecon) has a website where there is interesting stuff germaine to this topic to be read:
The Martinez Group - Litigation
I've also been reading some Atypi presentations and all kinds of stuff with an eye to the possible legal consequences of using for-pay web fonts.
Anyway, I'm not understanding you on this at all.
How can there be a license to use something unless there is, presumably, a right on the part of the licensor that remains attached even after the item is transferred?
You say I'm buying the "right to use" the thing. OK, understood.
But if the thing is not protected in the first place, there is no "right to use" to be obtained in the first place. The idea of a license, a "right to use" is predicated on copyright.
Sorry, sometimes I'm thick, but what you seem to be saying is that anything can be licensed, and the license can be enforced, even if the licensor has no claim on the item after transfer.
To use the analogy one more time: you seem to be saying that if I buy an egg from you under the terms of a contract that says I'm only to eat it hard-boiled but, dammit, you've got pictures of me eating it scrambled, that you can claim damages because it's going to be harder to license more eggs to other clients in the future. (As the Font Bureau's complaint puts it. But no eggs, of course.)
The only problem with this is that you never had any rights to the egg in the first place because it was just an egg, so that leaves you with only breach of contract and what damages could you legitimately claim?
I don't call up Herman Miller to license a chair. I don't go to the local Honda dealership to license a car.
After I've purchased those things I can do what I want with them, period. I own them lock, stock, and barrel.
Licensing a "right to use" the font software is dependent upon the font software being protected IP. Otherwise, there may be a nonsensical contract, but there is no license.
Are you saying otherwise?
(I'll pass on the significance or lack thereof, of Adobe v Southern Software other than to say I've read the decision.)
End of harvest, eh? I love it.
Regards, Rich
11.Oct.2009 10.25pm
The idea of a license, a “right to use” is predicated on copyright.
The fact that B is predicated on A does not mean that A is at issue whenever B is at issue. Licensing law is fundamentally contract law; specific types of contracts may be predicated on intellectual property law, but that does not imply that lawsuits regarding such contracts are intellectual property suits. I don't believe that the copyrightability of fonts as computer programs under US law is at issue in this licensing case.
But I'm not a lawyer. And you're not a lawyer. If you'll excuse me, I have to go stare down a herd of buffalo now. It's a Canadian Thanksgiving tradition.
12.Oct.2009 4.40am
>(As the Font Bureau’s complaint puts it. But no eggs, of course.)
Clearly, a minor blow to your analogy. But do go on. ;)
>I don’t call up Herman Miller to license a chair. I don’t go to the local Honda dealership to license a car.
Generally, one buys or leases a product, and licenses a design. Herb Miller and Honda both do all three.
John, how does one get a stuffed buffalo into an oven, much less out? It expands doesn't it?
Cheers!
12.Oct.2009 6.18am
>I don’t call up Herman Miller to license a chair. I don’t go to the local Honda dealership to license a car.
Take a look at Title 17 § 106. The idea is that as the owner of a copyright, one has exclusive rights to do a few things with that copyrighted work. Generally one can sell or conditionally license these rights. Similarly, if you don’t own a copyright to a particular work, and you wish to do any of the things to which the owner of the copyright holds exclusive rights (again, generally) you have to negotiate with the owner to do those things.
Seriously. Bravo, Font Bureau.
12.Oct.2009 7.02am
Rich, my impression is that lawyers can and on occasion will use any argument to win their case, whether it is legitimate or not, consistent or not. Thus NBC could try to challenge whether Font Bureau owns any rights to the fonts, and hence whether their EULA is a legally binding contract.
But then NBC would in effect be challenging whether any software EULA for fonts is valid. In light of SSI vs Abobe, I doubt they would be successful, and hence probably NBC won't try this strategy. I am just guessing, as I have no training in law.
Because SSI vs Adobe established protection of fonts as software, and undoubtedly software was licensed from Font Bureau and used by NBC, I don't think that an argument about the originality of these particular fonts as designs would be relevant, as they would pass the test of SSI for original software. Again, lawyers can try any argument, but I don't see how it would work before a judge.
Also re-litigating SSI vs Adobe would likely be an expensive matter for NBC to do, which they would want to do only if they were concerned to establish a principle important to their business. And I don't see how this is. To put this into perspective, according to one figure I just found it costs 3 million dollars to produce one hour of a sitcom. In contrast, paying for new fonts each year will be a tiny fraction of that.
12.Oct.2009 8.20am
@william berkson
I have no illusions. A quick settlement is what is being sought and what will, probably, be gotten.
Prolonged litigation is fabulously expensive.
On the Martinez group's web site (link to the litigation page is in a previous comment), it's made clear that settlement is the aim.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The following is nothing more than opinion and reportage of the legal precautions and calculations that take place in the world.
To continue, Bill:
Where NBC screwed up is in buying the font online using a NBC credit card or somesuch. It proves access and gives the complaint legs. It's much more difficult to prove access without it. It's the last time NBC will be doing that, I assume.
And it would not surprise me if this ran counter to existing policies within NBC.
Businesses with deep-pockets are constantly sued. Some suits are legit, some concocted. But it's routine to create barriers to potential liability such as using shell entities to conduct business, etc., to provide a shield.
For example, if the design department were to be spun off as a single-client entity - a business of it's own - it would be much more difficult to drag NBC into the fray.
And the bells that went off at Font Bureau when NBC purchased those fonts would not have rung, most probably.
My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded. I do not know if Font Bureau's claim is true or not. But the whole idea of a purchase triggering a surveillance of sorts, I find a little creepy. I mean, do you think someone at FB just woke up one day and said, "Hey! There's our fonts on Jay Leno!"
Instead of NBC it could be me or you or anybody, really.
I recently bought a particular weight of Kent Lew's font "Whitman" from the Font Bureau. And it gives me pause.
(Well, more than pause, but another time and place, not here.)
Anyway, perhaps because so much of NBC's core business is copyright related, it simply isn't (or wasn't) worth the confusion for them to take these precautions, who knows.
The world we live in. Interesting (and sometimes troubling) times.
12.Oct.2009 8.58am
>Stalking.
Ok, I'm an interested party because Font Bureau will soon be releasing my Williams Caslon retail. But really Rich, if somebody rips me off and I complain to the law, I'm the bad guy, I'm a stalker? That's upside-down ethics, and suicide for foundries and type designers.
Are you advocating that foundries never monitor the very public use of their fonts? When a marketing firm (IIRC) ripped off FF Dax and it ended up on every UPS truck in the world without being paid for, FontFont should have ignored it? Or when P22's Cezanne wasn't licensed properly by Starbucks, and it was all over their walls around the country, they should have just shut up?
If big companies whose fonts appear all over the country are not one in a while threatend with a law suit for very publicly violating a font EULA, such as in this case or the Dax or Cezanne case (both settled out of court IIRC), then EULAs will become meaningless.
Unless you are planning to put it on a hundred computers without paying the license fees, why would this complaint cause you worry about your ownership of a one-computer license for Kent Lew's fabulous Whitman?
12.Oct.2009 8.49am
I mean, do you think someone at FB just woke up one day and said, “Hey! There’s our fonts on Jay Leno!”
Yes, that's exactly what I think happened. Unless (less likely) somebody at NBC tipped off FB.
The idea that font vendors in general, or FB in particular, routinely "stalk" big companies who purchase just one license for a font is pretty hilarious, actually. They don't have the time to waste. Mind you, I'm also fond of using Occam's Razor in my inductive thought.
(Heh. First time I typed that last sentence, I wrote "font" for "fond"....)
Cheers,
T
12.Oct.2009 9.46am
OT:
"Ok, I’m an interested party because Font Bureau will soon be releasing my Williams Caslon retail."
REALLY! When?
12.Oct.2009 9.46am
My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded.
Do you have the first clue how much time type design takes? If you think that anybody at Font Bureau has time to stalk customers for license violations you’re both paranoid and not applying critical thinking skills.
12.Oct.2009 9.53am
John, I'm not sure exactly, but "soon". I'll post some samples this week.
12.Oct.2009 12.03pm
Rich: My feeling is that from the day of that purchase onward they were being stalked for any sign that the basic license had been exceeded.
Your ‘feeling’ is erroneous.
We're talking about very high profile font use: fonts used in a television season branding campaign by a major media corporation. When fonts are used in such a high profile way, I think it is sensible for foundries to check their license sales logs. The fonts are contributing massive added value to the media corporations campaign, and should be properly licensed and paid for. Further, as explained during the web fonts discussions, much of the value in fonts, for the professional designers who are the principle market for font licensing, resides in real, partial or perceived exclusivity. If major TV network ‘A’ are using specific fonts in their season branding, other networks will want to avoid using the same fonts so that their own branding is not diluted. So high profile font use by one major customer diminishes the likelihood of licensing by other customers in the same business or marketplace. Hence the basis of potential damages. If NBC had properly licensed the fonts to use them in the ways in which they intended to use them, they would have reasonably compensated Font Bureau for the likely loss of other sales.
13.Oct.2009 3.00pm
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, as I skipped reading the last few posts. As I understand it, the validity of this suit depends on whether or not the terms of the EULA were violated by NBC, more specifically that a license for the font, legally purchased for a finite number of computers, was installed and subsequently used on a number of computers exceeding the terms of the agreement. Assuming my facts are straight, could NBC theoretically claim that Font Bureau has no way of proving how many computers the font was installed on? For all they know, all of the design work in question could have come from the same designer on the same machine. Or is there something I’m missing that would refute such a claim?
13.Oct.2009 4.33pm
I've seen enough law shows on TV to know that there's a "discovery" phase in such cases, but there needs to be some evidence of wrong-doing to avoid claims of a "fishing expedition"
13.Oct.2009 5.18pm
I am sure that Font Bureau and their very capable legal consultant did not just jump in to a suit without something more than a "Gee, I wonder if" whim. All of us speculators with experience limited to old episodes of Perry Mason, myself included, should perhaps just sit back and let the real folks involved do their own thing without us mucking up the works.
ChrisL
13.Oct.2009 7.10pm
Or is there something I’m missing that would refute such a claim?
A law degree.
14.Oct.2009 12.24pm
I love how the “moderators” have allowed this topic to italicize itself into oblivion.
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
14.Oct.2009 12.24pm
Shall we try turning italics off?
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
14.Oct.2009 1.11pm
No italics on my machine, Joe, except for the places where they should be ... in a few short quotes. And definitely nothing that deserves another dig at the moderators. Save that for the thread where it should be.
14.Oct.2009 5.01pm
A law degree.
Sorry, did not know I needed a degree to speculate about a legal matter. I guess the next time I have to change my oil I'll become a certified mechanic. And I definitely can't cook dinner until I finish my masters at the Culinary Institute of America.
Seriously though, I think my point was valid, though maybe unsubstantiated due to a lack of information.
14.Oct.2009 6.31pm
It's perfectly OK. There are judges who narrowly passed or resat their degrees, and probably know less than you do. I fear this thread's speculations may be over-analysed as the judge is likely to encourage settlement as a means to avoid publicly exposing their own inability.
14.Oct.2009 10.25pm
The snarkiness was uncalled for. But....
As I understand it, the validity of this suit depends on whether or not the terms of the EULA were violated by NBC....
Well, that depends on what you mean. Did you read the lawsuit filing? I mean, yes, the six causes of action are all predicated on the idea that the EULA NBC had (a single-user license for just one of the three families in question, namely Interstate) did not permit NBC to do what they did. But if NBC had never had a license at all, five of the six causes of action would all still be there; only "breach of contract" would go away.
Cheers,
T
15.Oct.2009 5.40am
>I guess the next time I have to change my oil I’ll become a certified mechanic.
Come now, you can change your own oil. What I guess is odd, is if you wish to change the oil of a car you've never heard running, or owned, or checked the dip stick of. Weirder, would be that no one asked for you to do so, or comment on the need to do so, but you hunted them down anyway to tell them they needed their oil changed, when they did not need their oil changed.
From further up the thread, who believes anyone, anywhere, can be charged with the rather serious crime of stalking, as a result of watching network TV? Just curious.
None of this, however, has anything whatsoever to do with this case, as you might suspect.
Cheers!
15.Oct.2009 10.09am
Good luck with your lawsuit, Font Bureau.
Sharon
16.Oct.2009 1.41pm
Italics have been activated since Tom’s quotation of the words There’s our fonts on Jay Leno!” and are still there now. There are no I or CITE elements in the source code, and every EM appears to be matched with a /EM. Nonetheless, something is wrong and it is the job of the people who call themselves “moderators” to fix it.
There will indeed be “another dig” at the so-called moderators if they make “another” mistake. It’s called accountability.
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
16.Oct.2009 1.46pm
I am not seeing what you are seeing, Joe. There are no running italics which are not close tagged. Perhaps it is something peculiar to your browser?
ChrisL
16.Oct.2009 1.49pm
The problem occurs in IE8, which makes me think other browsers are automatically closing the italic tags outside of each DIV element.
16.Oct.2009 2.01pm
Joe, I'm not seeing it either, not now not earlier.
edit: Thanks, Si, but Joe says all the "em" tags are closed.
Could there be a problem with Cached material?
16.Oct.2009 4.10pm
I don't see the italics either. But the <cite> tag on Thomas's quote (". . . Jay Leno") is not closed. It ends with an opening tag.
I guess it depends upon the browser. Joe is undoubtedly using something that is strictly compliant, and that's why he sees it, I'm guessing. Whereas most of us use browsers that close it out at the </p> or the </div>.
Now that the problem has been identified, perhaps an admin can rectify it.
16.Oct.2009 5.41pm
Seems fixed now.
17.Oct.2009 8.35am
@joe clark
I, too, agree that all things should be done in moderation.
@john hudson
People are quoting me lately - with and without attribution. In your case it's an "inside" thing,
but compare Typotheque's "endorsement" of WOFF here and my post about WOFF from a few days ago.
Very much fair use, and I'm flattered, but a citation would have been the right thing, don't you think?
Interestingly, to me, the Canadian end-of-harvest roughly co-incides with the Jewish holiday of Succot - also an end of harvest shindig. You know, there's a theory that the lost tribe of Israel found it's way to Canada and settled in and around Vancouver. This would account for the buffalo population running rampant - they're not Kosher. Hence the need to learn how to stare them down. This sounds quite plausible to me.
@thomas phinney, william berkson, et al:
Re, the suit against NBC: the one thing I haven't read here so far, is a statement from a representative of the Font Bureau denying that my surmise is not, indeed, what happened.
I mean, if that's the case, why not?
17.Oct.2009 9.32am
> the one thing I haven’t read here so far,is a statement from a representative of the Font Bureau denying
I didn't know that Typophile is the court.
17.Oct.2009 10.48am
>a statement from a representative of the Font Bureau
David Berlow is a co-owner of Font Bureau. His statement above is:
"who believes anyone, anywhere, can be charged with the rather serious crime of stalking, as a result of watching network TV?"
Translating from the Berlonese as best I can, that reads that he or someone else associated with Font Bureau was watching NBC and said to themselves: "WTF? Our fonts are all over the network and they only bought one license? We have too look into this." I suppose the details are in the complaint, which is on line, but I haven't looked at it.
Since you refer to Sukkot, I'd refer you to a great principle in Jewish ethics that I try to practice, though I don't always succeed: "Be judging everyone in a favorable light." In other words put a construction on their words or actions that assumes a good motive, and as a rule act on that assumption. Of course there are exceptions, but I think this isn't right forum for a Talmudic discussion :)
17.Oct.2009 11.23am
@david hamuel
>I didn't know that Typophile is the court.
Objection. Move to strike.
@thomas phinney
Re FB v NBC - my experience in business, outside of IT, is with very small businesses. Sales volumes of anywhere from a measly $100,000.00 per annum to say, $15,000,000.00 per.
And the one thing every one those businesses owners wanted to know in the morning was: who had bought what the day before. Later on, when I ran my own company, if I didn't already know the who-and-what from having been around and watching, this was my first order of business every day, too.
I was, at first, amazed by the up-to-the-minute fine detail that guys in charge of fair-sized operations had at their fingertips at all times. But they did. I've never met a small business owner - or one of the owners, at least - that doesn't carry around this information in their head.
The idea that "they have better things to do", is hilarious to me. Better things to do than keep track of who is buying their products? Please.
At Fink's Font Bureau, you better believe I would know exactly who bought what font every damned day of the week and Saturdays and Sundays, too. And the principals of the Font Bureau don't? Pretty please.
And if I was them, given the current legal opportunities, the minute I saw "NBC" on an invoice, I would have tracked them every which way from Sunday.
With more verve than they, probably. But let's be real.
17.Oct.2009 11.01pm
To David Berlow and Thomas Phinney,
Thank you for your responses. I realize that my opinion on this matter is of no real value, as I am not a lawyer, type designer, or associate of either the Font Bureau or NBC. Unfortunately, I feel as if you guys had perceived my earlier comment as some sort of attack on the validity of this suit. That was in no way my intention, and I apologize if it was received as such. In fact, I think fighting back against theft and piracy is a necessary and admirable thing to do. We have to be willing to protect how we make a living. That said, my initial comment was not meant to poke holes in the argument, but to indulge my curiosity about the issue at hand. It was just a thought, not a values judgment or accusation.
20.Oct.2009 1.20pm
Every browser is highly compliant now, even IE-greater-than-6. I searched through the source for all I, CITE, or EM elements and found none that were unclosed. I did not move the whole thing over to BBEdit and do a thorough debug.
Because moderators are supposed to be on top of that. At least the italics-deniers of this thread have been shut up.
—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/
22.Oct.2009 3.07pm
Joe, I did find an open cite tag and closed it. I believe that was what fixed it. And that was a week or so ago.
23.Oct.2009 5.44am
Ed>It was just a thought, not a values judgment or accusation.
Accepted, thanks. You are being curious about details I'm prevented from discussing.
Cheers!
2.Nov.2009 5.40pm
I just wanted to say that I hope the Font Bureau collects handsomely from NBC.
They did a piece on 60 minutes about unlicensed DVD creation and copying that was so simple-minded and biased that they deserve to pay for whatever reason.
Kudos!!!
2.Nov.2009 6.19pm
Isn't 60 Minutes on CBS?
3.Nov.2009 8.32am
Yeah, but you can't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
:)
4.Nov.2009 9.34am
Sidestepping the 'IANAL' discussion for a moment: I'm very happy that FB has taken this action, if only because I can now point to this lawsuit when trying to nip the whole "just give me the fonts" discussion in the bud with employers and clients.
4.Nov.2009 4.52pm
CBS, NBC, what's the diff? Go get 'em! Hoohah!
4.Nov.2009 5.11pm
The difference between NBC and CBS is about a billion viewers. NBC is the worst network in U.S. market share and CBS is the best.
ChrisL
27.Nov.2009 3.14pm
I just ran accross a link at Ascender's blog to this post:
Jaywalking On Fonts
By some guy named Brian Lawler who I hope, for everyone's sake, is never allowed to sit on a jury.
The article begins:
"It would have been a lot easier if NBC had bought the licenses for the fonts!"
Just a teeny bit biased are we, Mr. Lawler? (Well, it is Graphic Arts Online, after all. Gotta tell 'em what they want to hear.)
Of course the rest of the article just assumes that NBC is an infringer. Did this guy Lawler even read the complaint? Is he aware that all the suit "proves" is that NBC bought three fonts from the Font Bureau and the rest is allegation?
And that that's all you pretty much need to initiate a suit and try to sock it to a deep-pocketed defendant?
Does he question the reasoning behind NBC owing anything more, even if found liable, than the difference between the license they purchased and the license Font Bureau says they should have purchased? Was any such attempt made prior to litigation? That would have been a more civil and productive approach, don't you think, Brian?
And how about some giving some thought to the possibility of a chill effect leading to less purchases from any and all "retail" font vendors. Ever occur to you? Naw, couldn't happen.
Congrats to Brian Lawler and Graphic Arts Online for a hatchet job well done. And thanks to the Ascender blog for the link.
27.Nov.2009 5.16pm
When I heard of this lawsuit, at first I was puzzled. You buy a font for one computer. You print something on that computer. Then you make millions of copies of what you've printed on an offset press, or take your image with letters on it, and put it into an animation... and none of those later actions violate the license to the font. You only need a license to the font on the one computer and printer combination that converts the text to the graphic image of the letter.
But it is being alleged by the plaintiff that NBC used those fonts on more than one computer. And this is not an unreasonable suspicion if they were used in a wide variety of advertising materials that would likely have been prepared by different people working in different offices. Plus, lawsuits only require a balance of probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
27.Nov.2009 7.25pm
FWIW, this is not the first time NBC TV has been sued for a design-related copyright infringement. Back in the mid 1970s, the network was penalized about $850K in cash and equipment after it introduced a new corporate logo that was already being used by a group of public TV stations in Nebraska:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_logos
27.Nov.2009 9.03pm
Richard, Brian, not being on a jury, is not required to presume innocence. I do agree that his first sentence should have been a 'what if', rather than a presumption of guilt. (He does conclude with a 'what if'.) But what exactly is mistaken in the rest of the article? I find it hard to believe that Steve Matteson did 4000 kerns in a sitting, but aside from that it seems pretty accurate, though I admit I didn't read it with great care.
As to the "chilling effect", doesn't this argument apply to all software sales? Will people stop buying software if some software manufacturers sue when large public companies violate the EULAs by distributing all over their company a piece of software licensed for only one computer?
By the way do you have no concern for the huge losses due to use of unlicensed fonts? Should foundries and developers of fonts always just shrug and let themselves--ourselves--be robbed? I am not, I should emphasize, presuming the outcome of this case. But let us suppose for the moment that Font Bureau is completely right, and NBC completely in the wrong. If that were the case, do you still think Font Bureau should do nothing?
quadribloc, I believe all software is licensed and charged by the number of computers, and when fonts became software, they started charging the same way. It may not make a lot of sense otherwise, but surely NBC is aware of the terms of the license. If you buy any font over the internet, there is almost always--and certainly at FontBureau.com--a choice of how many computers you are licensing the font for, with the price adjusted accordingly. This information is not a detail buried in a long EULA, but right in the buyer's face as part of the buying process.
28.Nov.2009 1.36am
Richard, I found you attack on Brian's article a lot more offensive than the article itself.
Yes, the opening sentence seems to assume guilt. But the entire rest of the body of the article is really about the broader issues of font piracy and how hard it is to make a living as a type designer. Not much to complain about there.
Does he question the reasoning behind NBC owing anything more, even if found liable, than the difference between the license they purchased and the license Font Bureau says they should have purchased?
Why should he question it? US law provides that a copyright holder may opt for either actual damages *or* statutory damages. So on the copyright claims, if NBC is found to have infringed, it is possible Font Bureau could get quite a bit more in damages than just the amount NBC failed to pay. Plus, not all of the claims were based on copyright, so there are other factors.
You're spending a lot of time on web fonts and related areas. Try spending a day reading up on copyright law. It's fascinating stuff, and not all of it is obvious or self-evident.
Cheers,
T
28.Nov.2009 5.36am
I find it hard to believe that Steve Matteson did 4000 kerns in a sitting,
Easy peasy, Bill.
If you think that's an outrageous figure, you're out of shape and better get back to the kerning gym and put some serious time in.
Spend less time here and more time on the kerning floor.
28.Nov.2009 8.47am
For every season, kern, kern, kern . . .
:-)
ChrisL
28.Nov.2009 12.08pm
James, my Williams Caslon has a total around 16,000 kerning pairs, and 600 kerning classes. I know that after that experience I'm enormously quicker now than at the start, when I was awfully slow. But how fast now I don't know. Next time I'll check and see.
29.Nov.2009 4.10am
"quadribloc, I believe all software is licensed and charged by the number of computers, and when fonts became software, they started charging the same way. It may not make a lot of sense otherwise, but surely NBC is aware of the terms of the license. If you buy any font over the internet, there is almost always—and certainly at FontBureau.com—a choice of how many computers you are licensing the font for, with the price adjusted accordingly. This information is not a detail buried in a long EULA, but right in the buyer’s face as part of the buying process."
I didn't think I put anything contradicting that in my post.
Instead, I noted that the widespread use of the font in NBC's promotional materials is not necessarily evidence of a single-user EULA being violated.
If, on one computer, I type the phrase "The More You Know", and with my copy of that font on the computer, produce an image of those words set in that font - then I need to have that font licensed on that computer.
If I then take that image, the translation from individual letters to the printed page having been performed on the first computer, and do coloring, 3D-shading, and rendering into an animation of that image on a render farm of a thousand other computers - not one of those computers needs to have a copy of that font installed on it. None of them are doing any typesetting, they're only doing image processing.
So the test to determine whether the font has been pirated isn't how widespread logos using that font are - but how many different texts they contain.
Otherwise, it's like saying that since a book set in Caledonia had a print run of 30,000 copies, the publisher must have had 30,000 Linotype machines with Caledonia matrices.
If that font is important to NBC's corporate identity, it could be there is only one copy of that font in the company, in one computer in a closely guarded room - to make sure that unauthorized employees in NBC do not create official-looking materials without authorization.
29.Nov.2009 5.21am
>Congrats to Brian Lawler and Graphic Arts Online for a hatchet job well done.
Chainsaw on. The fact that this is a near-repeat of your Oct 9th post lends credence to the gathering view you are not exactly unbiased yourself, if indeed you are yourself.
Cheers!
29.Nov.2009 6.28am
>it could be there is only one copy of that font in the company, in one computer in a closely guarded room - to make sure that unauthorized employees in NBC do not create official-looking materials without authorization.
Anybody can already buy these retail fonts--or steal them--and exactly reproduce the look of the NBC official materials, so rationale you hypothesize makes no sense. Also, if NBC indeed had such a policy and practice, I'm doubting that there would have been any law suit, or at very least that it would have been settled or dismissed by now.
Judging by the conversations on Typophile, the ignoring of EULAs is extremely widespread, and some people think type designers and foundries are a bunch of clueless whiners for objecting.
29.Nov.2009 10.48am
Regarding the feasibility of the "one font license may be all you need" hypothesis--I pity the creative team that produces all NBC's promotional material, working on a single computer!
29.Nov.2009 11.31am
I don't know how much distinct promotional material NBC has, so my hypothesis may well be untenable. Nor do I suggest they should get away with it if they are guilty.
But this one computer could be just used to set the appropriate text into type, while other aspects of the creative design - turning a line of text into a colorful logo - take place on other computers.
So my point is merely that to eliminate possibilities like that, one needs more than "oh, my, they run these logos all the time". How much typesetting with this font actually took place, not how often we see it, is what matters.
Of course, if we're talking about a lot of printed material too, it may also be that printed material was done with copies of the font in question at the printing shop... since sending the printer a PDF with an embedded font might not be allowed by the font license.
29.Nov.2009 2.56pm
For what it would have cost them to outfit the entire PR Advertising Branding team and have peace of mind, surely must be less than the legal hassle that they have now. Come on, corporate America, own up and pay up your fare share of doing business!
ChrisL
30.Nov.2009 5.02am
http://www.free-logotypes.com/logotype/NBC.html
http://vectorlogo.blogspot.com/2008/11/nbc-logo-eps.html
. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO
30.Nov.2009 10.03am
In the criminal justice system, words are represented by two separate yet equally important fonts: Friz Quadrata, and a crappy artificially condensed version of Friz Quadrata.
30.Nov.2009 11.19am
LOL!!!
ChrisL