Issue with Typeface

Ken W's picture

A friend of mine gave me set of typefaces. When I try to download it, every single typeface is called "regular", even though in finder they are all titled differently. Is there anyway I can change the name of these typefaces?

oldnick's picture

Your friend violated the terms of his licensing agreement, and you are a font thief. Don't expect any help here.

Dan B.'s picture

You've got the Helveticons. Nice. (Hope you paid for them.)

Ken W's picture

My friend purchased them. we're both working on a project for school and he just let me borrow the typefaces to me. I have no intensions of using the gotham typefaces for anything but the project. Im no art thief; I just cant afford the typeface so my friend offered to let me borrow the typeface. I wouldn't make that kind of statement oldnick, you have no idea what your talking about.

and yes, I do have the helveticons, I got it as a gift from my father. Im exited to use them!

Dan B.'s picture

Thumbs up for your dad. I've had my eye on them for some time, but haven't had a project that justified the expense yet.

In defense of Nick, your (ambiguous) wording is at fault. I'm not an expert, but I don't think the EULA would allow for borrowing.

Dan B.'s picture

To actually contribute something that's helpful to this thread, here's H&FJ's EULA.

John Nolan's picture

And that EULA's first clause begins:

"1. Grant of License. H&FJ hereby grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license"...

(Emphasis added)

Welcome to the world of EULA's. To stay on the straight and narrow one really must read them.

twardoch's picture

Obviously, if you own a license, you should contact the technical support of the font foundry that made the font:
http://www.typography.com/ask/faq.php#Ft_9
section "45. Technical support". They will be happy to answer your questions.

If you don't own a license, you're getting involved in illegal activities, and I'm afraid you won't find much help here.

Thomas Phinney's picture

@Ken:

You wrote:

My friend purchased them. we're both working on a project for school and he just let me borrow the typefaces to me. I have no intensions of using the gotham typefaces for anything but the project. Im no art thief; I just cant afford the typeface so my friend offered to let me borrow the typeface. I wouldn't make that kind of statement oldnick, you have no idea what your talking about.

Actually, it's clear that you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about. I'll blame your school for not teaching you this stuff, I guess. It's great that your friend LICENSED the fonts (he did not purchase them). You are indeed breaking the law in "borrowing" the font software, just as you would be if your friend gave you the install disks for some other piece of software with a non-transferable, single-user license.

If you're so sure what you're doing is legal, go right ahead and call Hoefler & Frere-Jones for tech support. Be sure to explain your situation and see what they say.

Cheers,

T

oldnick's picture

you have no idea what your talking about.

Actually, that would be "you have no idea what you're talking about"...

charles ellertson's picture

My friend purchased them. we're both working on a project for school and he just let me borrow the typefaces to me. I have no intensions of using the gotham typefaces for anything but the project.

Hmm. Your bio says your profession is "art director."

Still, if you are a student, one lesson that must be learned is to work with materials available, even if "availability" is a matter of money. I assure you this won't be the only time this comes up.

dezcom's picture

The nonchalance of piracy never ceases to amaze.

Khaled Hosny's picture

The craziness the software industry always amazes me! So lending your friend some thing you bought with your own many is a theft, how sweet! That why I'll never ever give my money to such insane people with flawed logic. An industry where you call your own baying customer thieves and pirates is an industry that lost its compass.

I'd rather build my own fonts, or keep using ugly fonts than giving may money to such zealots who rip me off thousands of dollars then claim ownership of my own property!

phrostbyte64's picture

Khaled Hosny: I think the point is that you own a license to use the font. The ownership of said font still rests with the creator and/or foundry. So, the font isn't actually your property to loan, share, trade, etc. Personally, I find some of the EULA's so restrictive (House Indstries as an example) that I won't buy their fonts reguardless of the quality.

Ken W: You might consider contacting the foundry in question. Some folks have discounts for students - albeit sometimes limited to non-commercial applications. Then they might be able to solve your technical problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from the Fontry...

charles ellertson's picture

Khaled,

As a user of type, I'm not entirely unsympathetic your position. The problem has more to do with what all this new technology has brought.

Suppose, for example, you had bought Linotype mats for a linecaster. You'd need 8 point, 9-point, and at least one of 10, 11, or 12-point. Plus some display sizes. Roman and italic (though most were duplexed). That's for "one font," say Janson. The purchase price was about $2,000 in the early 1960s -- about the price of a new car.

OK, you own them. But you own a shop with more than one casting machine. If you want run the magazines on more than one machine at a time, you'd have to buy another set of mats -- another new car.

Today, fonts are software, not physical objects. So, what is sold is a license, not a physical object. Copying is easy; policing copying is difficult. And the price doesn't let the font designer buy a car with each purchase -- a good lunch is more like it.

The model of "owning fonts" is difficult with software, esp. to a collection of people use to viewing something as a physical object. But as has so often been pointed out to me, I'm old. For the younger crowd, the notion of type as a physical object is passing strange. It will take a while for all this to settle down.

Today, I'm going to skip purchasing a font, so off to lunch.

ralf h.'s picture

So lending your friend some thing you bought with your own many is a theft, how sweet!

I seriously doubt, that the friend licensed the fonts in the first place. If they came from the original source, they wouln't have the problems described in the first post. These are typical problems of fonts that are extracted from PDFs or other documents.
Also: If you copy digital goods, you don't LEND them. Lending means you give away something, you don't have then anymore. If you want to do that with fonts, no problem! You can transfer a license from one user to another. Just ask the font foundry.

Khaled Hosny's picture

@phrostbyte64
I find the ownership vs. licensing a complete non-sense spread by software industry that I don't agree with. I bought something and I possess it, then it is my property and I'm free to do whatever with it. If eulas say otherwise, then I'm not paying for it.

Khaled Hosny's picture

@charles_e
But producing physical copies did cost money and time for every single copy, which is not the case for digital type. You do the work once and want to keep profiting from it for a whole life! I work as a physician and I've to work 6-12 hours a day to earn money, I don't write a prescription once and give soft copies of it to my other patients and expect to keep making money out of it, why type people think they are different?

dezcom's picture

If a type designer works 800 hours to produce a typeface, how many copies does he have to sell at $30 each to equal what a doctor would earn doing 800 hours of work?

oldnick's picture

I find the ownership vs. licensing a complete non-sense spread by software industry that I don't agree with. I bought something and I possess it, then it is my property and I'm free to do whatever with it. If eulas say otherwise, then I'm not paying for it.

If you steal a music CD from a store and are caught, you will be arrested. It is unlikely that you will be caught stealing software, but a crime occurs nonetheless. In the first instance, you did not steal the physical object--the disk--for the object itself, but for its content. The fact that, in the instance of software theft, there may be no physical product stolen does not mean that the two kinds of theft are intrinsically different. In either case, you intentionally deprive the creator of the work of any compensation for his or her efforts, which is theft, plain and simple.

As to your second point: if you buy a gun and possess, are you free to do whatever you want with it?

1985's picture

Great, when this argument comes up everyone always states that the immateriality of the font is something that disadvantages the author – let's not forget that the long-tail distribution of the data usually costs zero or is at least substantially less than the manufacture (once designed) and distribution of material type, and this is therefore in the favor of the author.

I think it's a fair point that is usually neglected. Just sayin'.

1985's picture

And again, a typeface is clearly not interchangeable with a gun. Clearly Khaled can't go around doing what he wants with it, so that's moot. If you want to make a sensible comparison between a gun and a typeface you might note that the gun owner expects to be allowed to take the gun apart, look inside it or customize it for the job in hand, which most type EULAs prohibit. I think that is more akin to what Khaled is implying, so address his point sensibly.

1985's picture

PS before I get hammered I agree for the most part with protecting the font designer. I just tire of the comparisons to other products that don't wash.

oldnick's picture

I think it's a fair point that is usually neglected. Just sayin'.

So, what's your solution to "balance" the transaction so as not to "favor the author"?

1985's picture

Not at the expense of the customer.

1985's picture

By this I mean charging a huge sum for a product that the author can reproduce endlessly. It does happen.

oldnick's picture

By this I mean charging a huge sum for a product that the author can reproduce endlessly. It does happen.

Font purchases are not compulsory: if the customer doesn't like the price, he or she can simply not purchase the font...

1985's picture

You could say the same about any product, but usually manufacturers are held to account about how much profit they make. For example in the UK phone companies are currently being held to account over the price of a text.

1985's picture

Perhaps I am starting to make poor comparisons myself.

(At least the comparison was with another immaterial product.)

oldnick's picture

For example in the UK phone companies are currently being held to account over the price of a text.

Text messages aren't compulsory, either. In fact, until relatively recently, they were non-existent. Consumers have choices about HOW they spend their money...

1985's picture

Font purchases are not compulsory: if the customer doesn't like the price, he or she can simply not purchase the font...

What if huge vendors like MyFonts, FontShop etc. decide to charge whatever they like for fonts? I don't think you would advocate not buying in this instance.

oldnick's picture

What if huge vendors like MyFonts, FontShop etc. decide to charge whatever they like for fonts? I don't think you would advocate not buying in this instance.<.em>

Individual foundries, not MyFonts, set the licensing fee for their products. I can't speak for anyone else but, over the past year, I decreased my licensing fees, and my net revenue has increased. Find a new dead horse to flog...

1985's picture

You could happily argue that the majority of products are not necessary. But that is ridiculous, and many, many products beyond food and water are are necessary in society. Good luck on being socially included (in geographic terms) if you can't afford the phone.

Typical capitalism.

oldnick's picture

Typical capitalism.

Whose fruits you enjoy. No, it's not perfect: far from it but, by its graces, you have a range of choices available to you utterly undreamed of a hundred years ago. Please do continue to bite the hand that feeds you...

1985's picture

Nick, my point is that major vendors such as MyFonts could place a reckless surcharge on the transaction. This is not some ad hominem attack against your foundry!

1985's picture

With all respect, Nick, you don't know anything about what I do and don't enjoy. I enjoy this though, a good discussion! I think I have made my points fairly and clearly. Shame I ruined it with jibe about capitalism. Shake? As I said before, I side with the designer, but would like to see things discussed in full complexity.

oldnick's picture

Nick, my point is that major vendors such as MyFonts could place a reckless surcharge on the transaction. This is not some ad hominem attack against your foundry!

I don't take your comments as a personal affront, so an apology is unnecessary. Yes, font retailers could place reckless surcharges on the products they peddle, just as people can choose to commit suicide. In either case, the results would be the same. If vendors maintain pricing levels which their customers find acceptable, they will continue to have paying customers. If vendors charge outrageous fees, they will discourage buyers and encourage pirates and thieves. It's that simple...

charles ellertson's picture

I'm sure most of the type designers won't like my solution, but it is simple. Don't buy all those fonts, but do buy what you need. In my area of type use (bookwork) you can easily get your work done with 4-5 families for the various texts, and perhaps the same again for display. Wanting more fonts is a matter of graphic designer boredom, not necessity. We all wind up paying for this boredom -- in more ways than just money.

If you have to have it, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't whine. Khaled has found his way, more power to him.

Nick Shinn's picture

What if huge vendors like MyFonts, FontShop etc. decide to charge whatever they like for fonts?

Foundries stipulate an MSRP (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) in their contracts with distributors.
So that isn't going to happen.

oldnick's picture

Khaled has found his way, more power to him.

...which is to compare apples and oranges. Type foundries provide a product, doctors provide a service. Why not call for an end to automobile manufacturing, and bring back rickshaw drivers? Chances are, there would be around 40,000 fewer deaths each year in the U.S.

Nick Shinn's picture

Khaled, I'm sure you have a more nuanced approach to the issue of generic vs. brand-name drugs.
Or do you believe that generic drug manufacturers should be able to start copying brand-name drugs immediately, regardless of patent protection? After, all, if they bought a sample of the brand name drug and figured out how to mimic it, why should they wait 20 years to put their clone on the market?

Khaled Hosny's picture

@Nick Shinn

Or do you believe that generic drug manufacturers should be able to start copying brand-name drugs immediately, regardless of patent protection? After, all, if they bought a sample of the brand name drug and figured out how to mimic it, why should they wait 20 years to put their clone on the market?

Yes, I do support ending drug patents too, because history tells us that drug manufacturers Mafia are happy with thousands (if not millions) of people dying as they can't offered their overpriced drugs. Patents are state granted monopolies and initially aimed for the good of people, if it is rather causing harm then it should die.

1985's picture

I'm sure most of the type designers won't like my solution, but it is simple. Don't buy all those fonts, but do buy what you need.

Charles that would be a fine solution if we Typophiles didn't moan so much about ubiquity…

Nick Shinn, I think the drug comparison is, again, way off the mark. My interpretation of what Khaled is saying is that he does 6 or 12 hours work and that is what he gets paid for, every time he works 6 or 12 hours. The fact he is a physician is not the point. He is talking about the value of labour - that he makes the prescription each time not once thereafter duplicating it.

Also Nick, I don't think it is useful to bring profiteering from the availability of medicine into the commercial type equation. It has far greater ethical ramifications than any debate about the luxury business of contemporary type design (oldnick already confessed it is not a compulsory purchase). In short the importance of available medicine trumps contemporary type design.

If you think that this is a safe comparison, then this industry clearly has no sense of itself, or it's place in the world, and as Khaled said earlier, has lost it's compass.

Shoot me.

Khaled Hosny's picture

@oldnick

If you steal a music CD from a store and are caught, you will be arrested. It is unlikely that you will be caught stealing software, but a crime occurs nonetheless. In the first instance, you did not steal the physical object--the disk--for the object itself, but for its content. The fact that, in the instance of software theft, there may be no physical product stolen does not mean that the two kinds of theft are intrinsically different. In either case, you intentionally deprive the creator of the work of any compensation for his or her efforts, which is theft, plain and simple.

As to your second point: if you buy a gun and possess, are you free to do whatever you want with it?

First, I don't support violating license agreements (even if I find a certain license immoral), I rather avoid it completely. Second, stealing a physical object is not like copying a piece of software; when I steal an object I deprive it of you, a real loss. But when I copy a piece of software I deprive you nothing as you still have it, there is no real loss. There is however an expected loss, based on an unproven hypothesis that the "pirate" would have purchased a copy if he didn't get it for free, which I have never seen and evidence that support it (to the contrary, several studies fond that people who download music from file sharing services are the one who purchase music most!).

As for second point, I think it was clear that I was talking about ownership rights.

1985's picture

Yes, I do support ending drug patents too, because history tells us that drug manufacturers Mafia are happy with thousands (if not millions) of people dying as they can't offered their overpriced drugs. Patents are state granted monopolies and initially aimed for the good of people, if it is rather causing harm then it should die.

And as a somebody with a serious illness I agree with that.

microspective's picture

I think this thread officially needs to be renamed.

1985's picture

Issue with is a good start…

oldnick's picture

First, I don't support violating license agreements (even if I find a certain license immoral), I rather avoid it completely. Second, stealing a physical object is not like copying a piece of software; when I steal an object I deprive it of you, a real loss. But when I copy a piece of software I deprive you nothing as you still have it, there is no real loss.

There is a very real loss in both instances: that is, compensation for the labor required to produce the product, intangible or not. Or do you see patients for free because, in the end, they receive NO THING and you still retain your medical knowledge?

1985's picture

Eh, this is madness. You are just ignoring the existence of long tail distribution model. THAT is your compensation.

1985's picture

Or do you see patients for free because, in the end, they receive NO THING and you still retain your medical knowledge?

Also, some doctors do see patients in free clinics, on top of their paid hours, especially in America. Doctors are often obliged to act outside of paid hours when the need arises, for example responding to an accident outside of work, without compensation.

Syndicate content Syndicate content