Do the typeface designer need social responsibility?

Hello,

I would like to know what kinds of social responsibility are needed to the typeface designer.

I think 'social responsibility' is mainly used for corporations or product design field.

But, i think the typeface designer need social responsibility too.

What do you think about this?

Chris Dean's picture

Everyone should be socially responsible lest we end up living in a world at war in economic and environmental crisis…

http://www.davidberman.com/social/dogood.php

http://www.davidberman.com/social/faq.php

David Berman is a good friend of mine and knows more about design ethics than anyone I know. He also has very strong type skills. I’m sure he’d be more than willing to answer any direct questions.

oldnick's picture

i think the typeface designer need social responsibility too

How would a typeface designer practice social responsibility? Is there any way to control the actions of end users, so a typeface does not serve nefarious ends?

hrant's picture

> Everyone should be socially responsible

Hear, hear.

Specifics to type design are indeed hard to come by, but I can think of these:
- Participating in (or even initiating) fund-raising efforts, like FontAid.
- Functionality is a reflection of sobriety, something I for one feel we need more of today. So to me making a text font is more socially responsible than making a display font for example.
- The making of fonts for endangered writing system - and really most of them are! For example when I make Armenian fonts, it's not for money, it's to help keep my culture alive. And I try to apply that sensibility when making fonts for scripts besides my own. And some future generation will have to do that for Latin...

hhp

John Hudson's picture

For me, social responsibility begins in the workplace. I don't think there is necessarily a single model of social responsibility to which type designers should conform, but certainly the way in which you organise your working relationships with other people should not be at odds with your beliefs about the organisation of society. Beyond the workplace, in relationships with other people and institutions, things get more complicated. For instance, Tiro operates as a free association of individuals in which no one profits from anyone else's labour, but most of the work we do is for companies that are based on capitalist models because, well, they’re the people who are paying.

There was an old Typophile thread on the subject ‘Who wouldn’t you work for?’, i.e. what clients or kinds of work would you turn down on ethical or other grounds.

Chris Dean's picture

How would a typeface designer practice social responsibility?”

Another way to explain would be to ask the question “How would a typeface designer practice social irresponsibility?”

Example: Designing a display face for a new brand of cigarette.

hrant's picture

> Designing a display face for a new brand of cigarette.

Unless you donate at least some of the resultant proceeds
to an anti-cigarette cause! And you make sure people know that.
Because, really, somebody is going to design the font if you don't.

hhp

BeauW's picture

somebody less socially responsible, hopefully.

.00's picture

Years ago I drew a whole bunch of lettering for Mezzina/Brown on the Joe Camel campaign. I needed the money and didn't see a problem, however, my current EULA requires written approval for any political or religious use of my font products.

hrant's picture

Don't you run into issues of definition? I mean, can such a clause
ever be more than a mild scare-tactic? I do hope I'm wrong though...

hhp

typerror's picture

"So to me making a text font is more socially responsible than making a display font for example."

?????????

That is truly a stretch!
PC on the PC?

joeimmen's picture

There are a lot of professions whose connections to social responsibility are hard to see. Would the world carry on fine if no new typeface designs were produced in the next 50 years? We would be able to 'survive' without them, but quality of life would be diminished, the same way as if there were no new board games, flavors of ice cream, styles of clothes, or varieties of architecture. Creative professions push the culture forward, make people happy, and increase quality of life, and it's hard to discount that.

At the same time, I have been interested in how type design relates to the greatest threat of the 21st century, climate change. Unfortunately, for this particularly important issue, type design doesn't seem to offer much help. New type designs could help in communicating environmental issues through posters, videos and interactive media, but it seems the thousands of existing, fantastic typefaces would be more than up to the challenge. Graphic designers appear to be able to have more social influence than type designers, who make the tools designers use.

David Berman's book looks good, I'll have to check it out!

typerror's picture

@ James

I wonder about the First Amendment implications with your EULA!

Frode Bo Helland's picture

One certainly needs to step away from the computer every-now-and-then and socialize with non-typophiles :)

blank's picture

So to me making a text font is more socially responsible than making a display font for example.

I see it the other way around. A text face can be put to utterly loathsome purposes like publishing the work of Karl Marx or Noam Chomsky. Novelty fonts that can be used to promote wholesome business activities via advertising campaigns are certainly better for society.

.00's picture

@Michael

There are no first amendment implications. I get to control what I create.

I own the copyright, therefore I control the right to copy.

Nick Shinn's picture

In the 1980s I attended a talk by F.H.K. Henrion in which he listed the responsibilities of a graphic designer.
I can't remember them exactly, but was impressed by the scope.
Something like this:
- Do original work, to a high standard of quality
- Educate the next generation of designers
- Organize one's peers (industry bodies, trade shows, conferences)
- Promote the profession to the trade and general public (public relations, competitions)
- Cause marketing (he had designed wartime propaganda posters for the Ministry of Information (UK) - possibly "Keep Calm and Carry On"- and later volunteered his services to causes he believed in, eg designing posters for Oxfam)

Type designers have some catching up to do, but bear in mind that type design has only very recently become a viable full-time profession for more than a handful of people.

alezanoni's picture

Probably not exactly what you are looking for as an answer, but there is a very nice idea/concept developed in Brazil on how to help disabled kids through typography/design, check it out (in English): http://www.uniquetypes.cc/index_en.html

It does not cover "common" typedesign, but it's still a very nice initiative!!!

Andreas Stötzner's picture

my current EULA requires written approval for any political or religious use of my font products.

GOOD Heavens!
How do you manage to control this? Are you going to censor your client’s text pieces?
This is rediculous.

making a text font is more socially responsible than making a display font

– a little over-simplifying? The Uniquetype project seems to prove otherwise.

“Make good fonts and get them to the crowd…” – have I read this here already?

quadibloc's picture

I would regard it as legitimate to try to restrict use of a typeface in, say, an advertising logo for something political, religious, or carcinogenic... but highly inappropriate to restrict use of a typeface as a text font for any purpose.

The idea being that in the former use, the typeface itself, and hence its designer, is becoming identified with something, while in the latter there is, among other things, a First Amendment issue.

Does anyone else see this as a valid distinction? Of course, one could say that this distinction is more concerned about the self-interest of the type designer for his own reputation than with social responsibility... but that's another can of worms.

John Hudson's picture

I don't see the purported First Ammendment issue with James' EULA restriction. He is making and selling a licenses to use a product and reserves the right not grant such a license for certain uses. No one's freedom of speech is dependent on the right to license James' product. It's not as if he's making the only fonts in the world.

Further, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution says that government will not enact laws to limit the freedom of speech. It doesn't put any onus on private citizens to materially provide for the free speech of others. About as close as any jurisdiction gets to that is the California ruling that shopping malls, although private property, function as public spaces and hence owners cannot prohibit peaceful assembly, although they may limit them.

.00's picture

@Andreas

Certain political and religious organizations are not banned in the US as they are in Germany, so I figure I have to mange this on my own.

typerror's picture

My query was not meant to be negative, simply an inquiry as to how one could keep another from using a legally bought product in any fashion they chose. I would never even think of looking at a EULA for restrictions on how I could "use" a font. Needless to say my eyes have been opened.

.00's picture

I didn't perceive your query as negative.

But aren't all font EULAs documents (contracts actually) that outline how and under what circumstances the font software may be used?

ab's picture

I totally agree with John Hudson when he stands that "social responsibility begins in the workplace". It's not only a matter of doing a good job or just doing it well. It's about how we could contribute as we — type designers — are part of our society. We're not living in another Galaxy (although it might seem so ;-)
According to this responsibility, in the last years, I've been involved in Arabic, taking into account the Arabic heritage of my country (Spain) and looking for some original historical roots that could help when designing an Arabic-Latin script. A research has been made in order to fulfill some basic requirements. It's not easy, indeed. But the most important thing is establishing a cultural "bridge" between our spanish culture and the increasing arabic population that is now living in Spain.
Immigration is becoming a big problem in my country. A real stuff within the political agenda. There's a lack of tools in order to improve a better understanding among our cultures. I believe that typography, as a tool for communication, can help. That's the reason why I got engaged in this work. This is only a sample I just wanted to highlight.
I could also talk about languages like Guaraní that are not considered within the unicode system yet. Type design can support this kind of "unknown" languages throughout the visibility of text.
I'm sure there're other ways to contribute as part of our responsibility as designers. But, first of all, our responsibility is as people, as human beings sharing the same place.

Andreu B.

Rob O. Font's picture

>...what kinds of social responsibility are needed to the typeface designer.[?]

I learned from a very senior experience designer at HP, that the most direct social responsibility we have is talking large scale distributors of mass products, out of 'cardboard shoes', which is something he was asked to design when he was young.

Type designers who can apply this to their work usually find a willing client, as large scale distributors of mass font products are usually paying top dollar, and what's a few extra hours to design in a rubber sole for the bottom end of the market.

Nick Shinn's list from F.H.K. Henrion is a superb next level.

>...“How would a typeface designer practice social irresponsibility?”
>Example: Designing a display face for a new brand of cigarette.

I think such subjective practices are a slippery slope, are not your business, and are beyond being well out of your control as a type designer.

hrant's picture

>> making a text font is more socially responsible than making a display font

> a little over-simplifying?

Yes, a generalization. Certainly a given display face can be more socially
responsible than a given text face. But I stand by my stated need for sobriety.

> Immigration is becoming a big problem in my country.

Good angle.

hhp

typerror's picture

Then why the blanket statement Hrant? I am not a fan of the "cult of ugly" but I would not disallow someone the right to design a titling font... nor would I call it socially irresponsible. My definition of socially irresponsible runs to the pirates, copyists, regurgitators etc!

butterick's picture

the First Amendment of the US Constitution says that government will not enact laws to limit the freedom of speech. It doesn't put any onus on private citizens to materially provide for the free speech of others

Correct.

aren't all font EULAs documents (contracts actually) that outline how and under what circumstances the font software may be used

Even a legal EULA provision is only as good as one's ability to enforce it, and use-based restrictions are difficult that way. You can't know what people are doing with your font at all times, everywhere. (Though I'd like to have a EULA provision that prevents horizontal scaling of more than ±10%.)

Also, if you dinged someone under your EULA for a forbidden message, the likely result is that they'd pay you to settle the dispute, so you'd end up profiting from their misuse anyways. Maybe the EULA would specify that they'd have to donate to a nonprofit organization with a diametrically opposed viewpoint (!)

But aside from the practical issues, I agree with DB that in general, social responsibility is an awkward duty to impose on type designers. Responsibility can only be manifested through choices. The type designer's zone of choices is the typeface itself; everything beyond that is someone else's choice.

John Hudson's picture

Andreu: I could also talk about languages like Guaraní that are not considered within the unicode system yet.

Guaraní is supported in Unicode. It requires use of combining mark characters, but that is true of very many of the world's languages. The use of combining mark characters can be made transparent to users, through keyboard layouts that assign multi-character sequences to single keystrokes and through language-specific editing, sorting, spellchecking, etc.

Nick Shinn's picture

The type designer's zone of choices is the typeface itself

But what of professional responsibility? (See my post above on Henrion)

This is responsibility to that sector of society to which one belongs, determined by one's work.
It is a practical and relatively feasible social responsibility, not mediated through one's product to a vast abstraction.

I don't expect type designers to organize to represent their interests, AIGA/GDC style, anytime in the near future.
The idea of type designers as a professional group is quite new, as prior to e-commerce there were only a very few full-time type designers. So far, the mentality is very individualistic, as the economic model is based primarily on retail product, and is hence entrepreneurial. The belief is that if you aren't successful, it's not because the odds are stacked against you, but because your fonts and/or the way you market them isn't good enough. The solidarity that exists, protecting and promoting group interests, in professional organizations, is lacking.

Those industry organizations in which we do participate (e.g. ATypI) represent a variety of interests, many of which—such as the major corporate sponsors—conflict with those of type designers.

hrant's picture

Michael, I didn't mean it as a blanket statement. But any statement is a generalization/simplification to some extent. And I absolutely don't think making display fonts is "socially irresponsible" - it's all relative, and to me making fonts of any kind is certainly far better than most things somebody could be involved in!

> I don't expect type designers to organize to represent
> their interests, AIGA/GDC style, anytime in the near future.

If not now, when?

Many years ago on the T-D forum I proposed forming TyD (Type Designers) and
if something like that ever materializes it would do just that (and more).

hhp

John Hudson's picture

Nick: Those industry organizations in which we do participate (e.g. ATypI) represent a variety of interests, many of which—such as the major corporate sponsors—conflict with those of type designers.

And even if not directly conflicting are certainly not the same interests. ATypI used to be a professional organisation of type companies -- a cartel in fact --, but is now a social and educational organisation, open not only to people who work in the type business but also to those who buy type, work with type, like looking at type, etc. There are, broadly, three sets of economic interests represented -- employers, employees and customers --, all at odds with each other.

As I see it, there are two major mode of work for type designers. One is a modern capitalist mode in which a type designer is a wage worker employed by people whose own business is not designing typefaces; in this category are those designers employed at companies like Monotype Imaging and Linotype, i.e. companies whose owners are not type designers. The second is the older artisan mode, in which master type designers own their own businesses and employ journeymen type designers (and may take on apprentice type designers too), albeit without the regulation provided by a guild (a journeyman is defined by his employment, not by certification). A good example of this mode is H&FJ.

At Tiro, we've tried to come up with a third mode in which workers individually own the means of production and no one is an employee. I don't imagine this would work for everyone: one has to value freedom higher than stability. No one is bound to Tiro, but by the same token we can't guarantee continuous work to all our associates. Then again, the stability of employment under those other modes is illusory, as those laid-off type designers who write to me asking if I have any work for them surely know.

.00's picture

Many years ago on the T-D forum I proposed forming TyD (Type Designers) and
if something like that ever materializes it would do just that (and more).

Given the number of Type Designers out there, what dues structure would you propose to raise the substantial amount of operating capital needed to be a true professional organization that can lobby and hire legislative clout?

Ready to throw in $10,000 -$100,000 a year?

Nick Shinn's picture

If not now, when?

We're starting to see foundries make some serious retail money now, and with that independent financial strength the paradigm that the top type designers sell out to OEMs may change, and more come to realize that doesn't serve our best interests as a group.

Nick Shinn's picture

James, my RGD membership fees are around $300 p.a.
With 1,000 members, that provides the funds for staff and an office.
Then corporate sponsorships and partnerships kick in.

butterick's picture

But what of professional responsibility? (See my post above on Henrion)

All worthy virtues. But I think of "social responsibility" as pertaining more to the effect on the outside world, whereas Henrion's list is more about good sportsmanship within the industry (aka not biting the hand that feeds). Also, all of Henrion's suggestions are things that are well within the scope of what designers can choose to do or not do.

The solidarity that exists, protecting and promoting group interests, in professional organizations, is lacking

Industry associations are only economically rational if three conditions are met: a) the putative members have identifiable collective interests, b) those interests are impractical to pursue on an individual basis, and c) no other industry organization is already addressing those interests.

I may be imagination-challenged, but I can't think of a group interest for type designers that would meet these conditions.

Nick Shinn's picture

Industry associations are only economically rational if three conditions are met…

The RGD (Association of Graphic Designers of Ontario) came into being despite your conditions (b) and (c).
Graphic designers in Ontario had conducted business before, and many had been members of the GDC, a national body.
The main impetus for the RGD was the threat of competition from "unprofessionals" without much ability, know-how, experience or educational qualifications, but with the latest software.

The piracy issue is a common interest for type designers, but it is a single issue.

John Hudson's picture

Nick: We're starting to see foundries make some serious retail money now, and with that independent financial strength the paradigm that the top type designers sell out to OEMs may change, and more come to realize that doesn't serve our best interests as a group.

That seems to me contradictory. If some foundries are making some serious retail money now, that must either be despite the work that type designers also do providing fonts to OEM distributors, or in some way actually contributed to by that work, e.g. by OEM distributed fonts exposing more potential retail customers to a richness of typographic variety. You've been suggesting for years that OEM font distribution undermines retail font licensing, and yet OEM font distribution isn't getting less while you are acknowledging a growth in retail licensing income. Indeed, not only is OEM distribution not getting less, it is now supplemented by the growth of free and open source font distribution. That ‘serious retail money’ is being made within a diverse font business ecosystem, and without a systematic analysis of how that ecosystem works it isn't possible to say what the actual impact of one area is on another. I don't think it should be presumed that OEM font distribution ‘doesn't serve our best interests as a group’.

There are things that I instinctively think are probably not a good idea: retailing and OEM licensing the same fonts, for example, which is why I prefer a clean distinction between custom fonts and retail fonts, although recognising that product-specific OEM distribution may actually create a retail demand among users of other products, as was the case with the Microsoft C* fonts. [In that case, the issue is not of OEM negatively impacting retail, but of custom font development contracts not providing for the original designers to receive a share of subsequent retail licensing, in this case by a licensed third party. Something for people to think about when contracting custom font work.]

Another thing I think is wrong is the exploitation of libre and open source fonts by multi-billion dollar corporations like Google, who derive value from those fonts far in excess of the peanuts that they only sometimes offer to type designers. I think it is naïve to think that application of the free software model to creative works within a capitalist economy will result in anything other than the exploitation of those works by corporations whose capital resources enable them to leverage far more value from those works than the individual creator can. Giving away your fonts to people who can and should pay for OEM licensing is flat out stupid.

Nick Shinn's picture

I think of "social responsibility" as pertaining more to the effect on the outside world, whereas Henrion's list is more about good sportsmanship within the industry.

But one doesn't participate in a society by affecting an outside world.
We are all part of the same social ecology, and the way to best participate starts close to home, in ways that are socially practical, not mediated through a product whose conditions we have no control over.

Nick Shinn's picture

Giving away your fonts to people who can and should pay for OEM licensing is flat out stupid.

Well, that's how I see OEM licensing, however big the fee.
It's a one-time pay-off to surrender one's intellectual property.
I might see things differently if those who do it negotiated a royalty contract that was more in line with normal foundry retail returns.

You say there is no way to know if bundling is harm or help.
However, it seems obvious to me that any business deal one makes with a behemoth that doesn't score points is to one's disadvantage. And certainly to the disadvantage of one's peer's who weren't involved.

.00's picture

Nick, Does RGD lobby, have legislative clout, fight to overturn onerous laws and taxes?

ATypI, SEGD, TDC, SoTA, these are all professional organizations, but none of them get involved at the legislative level. Even AIGA is more of a wealthy graphic designers club that an advocacy group.

.00's picture

Giving away your fonts to people who can and should pay for OEM licensing is flat out stupid.

I concur.

Nick Shinn's picture

James, the RGD does have some legislative standing:
http://www.rgdontario.com/aboutUs/default.asp

And if not advocacy, at least this:
http://www.rgdontario.com/viewEvent.asp?ID=1114

John Hudson's picture

Nick: It's a one-time pay-off to surrender one's intellectual property.

There are three distinct models of OEM font licensing:

1. Non-exclusive corporate distribution license. In this case one isn't surrendering any intellectual property at all: one is simply granting a license that permits redistribution. Such a license may be linked to a specific volume of product for bundling purposes, specific number of downloads, etc.

2. Exclusive corporate distribution license. In this case one surrenders the right to sell licenses to other parties, whether corporate or retail; one may or may not surrender other intellectual property rights up to an including all rights, or one may surrender some rights only for a limited period of time. Obviously the size of the fee should be commensurate with the rights purchased.

Note that both of these models presume that what you have is a creative product for rights licensing, and the only difference between this and retail font licensing is the size of the fee and the rights granted under the license. OEM licensing of products in this way does not necessarily involve surrendering any intellectual property.

3. Custom or proprietary font development. This is the area I work in most of the time, and I see it as something quite distinct from corporate distribution licensing. This is contracted creative work, not product licensing, and the disposition of intellectual property rights varies considerably. Some clients want to completely own their custom typeface and be able to do anything with it that strikes their fancy, including distributing or even selling licenses themselves; in other words, they want to include in the contracted fee a transfer of all intellectual property rights. But this is not the case of surrendering intellectual property to the client -- as would be the case if one were selling rights to an existing product --, because the intellectual property is only coming into existence because of the contract. Some clients do not see a need to assume all rights to the custom font, so long as they have the rights to use the font in the ways in which they need it, and hence the font developer gets to retain some or most rights, including the right to license the font to other customers, either immediately or at some future date after a period of exclusive use by the client. That's my favourite kind of work, because it means that all the font development is paid for up front, while the possibility of future income is retained. Obviously the fee for work under such terms is lower than if the client wishes to own the product outright.

Nick Shinn's picture

John, this is all very well, but as you know, my criticism of OEM font licensing primarily concerned Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple.

AFAIK, the otherwise-available fonts they bundle are not owned by type designers.
And for the fonts they have commissioned, they have retained exclusive rights.
(I don't expect to ever see Gadget at Font Bureau.)

But this is not the case of surrendering intellectual property to the client -- as would be the case if one were selling rights to an existing product --, because the intellectual property is only coming into existence because of the contract.

That's a moot point. The fact is, the client is acquiring the intellectual property that the type designer has created, and could have just as easily provided under a less exclusive contract.

John Hudson's picture

Nick: AFAIK, the otherwise-available fonts they bundle are not owned by type designers.

Ross owns Euphemia and Plantagenet. They are distributed under license by Microsoft and Apple. Other fonts we have made for Microsoft as custom fonts, which they own outright (see below).

Recently we were approached by someone representing Google who wanted us to release Euphemia under a libre license for hosting on the Google web font server. I, after my fashion, gave them the long explanation of why we wouldn't be doing this and how I think the naïvité of free software enthusiasts is being taken advantage of by corporate capitalists. Ross gave them the short response: Google can obtain a corporate distribution license if they want, and will pay no less than Microsoft and Apple.

That's a moot point. The fact is, the client is acquiring the intellectual property that the type designer has created, and could have just as easily provided under a less exclusive contract.

I don't think it is a moot point, because in such cases the intellectual property in question would not have existed other than as a result of the contract. This is not speculative work or work produced and then licensed: it is contracted work, and since the client is specifically interested in owning such rights that is what they are a) looking to contract and b) willing to pay for.

It isn't the case that the intellectual property inherent in the contracted work 'could have just as easily provided under a less exclusive contract'. If it was that easy, don't you think we would regularly be doing so? The people with the money and the freedom to contract with whomever they choose are in effect able to dictate what it is that they will purchase. We can decline the contract, but we can't really dictate it. I suppose if there were an association whose bylaws prohibited members from selling intellectual property rights outright, then members could attempt to dissuade clients from seeking such and accept less exclusive terms of use, but I suspect the outcome would simply be that the clients would go elsewhere and contract with non-members, and probably at lower rates for poorer quality.

I believe the contracting of a private, custom typeface to which the client assumes all rights is a legitimate arrangement providing that the fee represents to the designer adequate remuneration for both the work done and the value of the intellectual property. Note also that the client assumes not only the rights but the responsibilities for defending and enforcing them.
_____

With regard to the notion of a professional association, I think the two dominant modes of type design work that I outlined above present a problem. The artisan mode suggests something like a guild, in which the responsibilities and rights of members at different levels of the the type business -- masters, journeymen and apprentices in the traditional language -- would be codified. But the proper organisation for wage workers in the capitalist mode is the trade or industrial union. I look forward to the arguments of Monotype management that type designers and hinters should not be members of the same union.

Rob O. Font's picture

>Well, that's how I see OEM licensing, however big the fee.
>It's a one-time pay-off to surrender one's intellectual property.

Nick, otherwise they just offer cardboard shoes like comic sans, microsoft sans, the hideous apple chalkboard, and John said it first, Google in general, though it's hard to blame Google yet, because Apple and MS have published 0 web fonts by my last count?

>- Promote the profession to the trade and general public (public relations, competitions)

Via OEM licensing, it's the biggest promotion of designed fonts.

>And for the fonts they have commissioned, they have retained exclusive rights.
>(I don't expect to ever see Gadget at Font Bureau.)

This is simply not true of Font Bureau. The only fonts which "they have retained exclusive rights" to, were where FB provided services to OEMs, on the designs of other vendors which had been licensed to the OEM in incomplete form. This went from Linotype Times for Apple through Mistral for MS. But from Gadget to Prelude, and there's something like 50-60 FB original fonts involved to Apple, MS and others, we have all the rights we had before the OEM license, and all the rights we've granted to "them" are limited.

I will stop discussing whether replacing cardboard shoes with something better for masses of users.

But, please attempt to come to recognize that we are in different places on a spectrum. i.e. e.g. there are a lot more than two major modes of work for type designers, for sure;) and there are a lot more than two kinds of relationships between founders and OEMs.

hrant's picture

> what dues structure would you propose

What about royalties from sales? So the more money a member makes, the more he contributes to the organization. Like taxation. This could be considered fair because the more money you make the more you could benefit from the organization -specifically in terms of protection- in the future.

Also: In order to avoid the conflicts mentioned above, membership would be open only to individuals who are actually involved in the production of type; and no corporate sponsorship would be allowed.

hhp

abattis's picture

"the stability of employment under those other modes is illusory"

Except in France? ;-)

Syndicate content Syndicate content