As far as I know, contacting the designer is a good practice, but, since you've said it yourself that you didn't have any copyright information or usage restrictions on the site, or even a readme file in the zip archive, I don't think there's much you can do.
By having none of that info on your site, you basically implied that the font was free for the taking and that any usage would be okay. At least that's the message I get.

>>Sorry if this seems like a bit of a whine...

It does.

>>simply used the typeface and added nothing to it, passing it off as his own work

Choosing and using the typeface was his own work.
The logo is his.
Think of all the logos which are just a word, set in a particular face - are the designers of those logos cheating the type designers?

Related topic here.

You might check out the License Agreements from some other foundries if you want to keep this from happening again. There are foundries that restrict this sort of usage of their fonts. Emigre & House come to mind, but IIRC P-22, AGFA, and Typofonderie also have clauses dealing with this.

> http://www.overnightdesign.co.uk/aerobic

Hey, nice!

I think your best bet is to appeal to common decency. And although Steve is right that a logo that uses a font has no legal obligation to the font, giving credit somewhere (especially for purely typographic solutions like that one) is good, and it would be decent if the guy did that. Otherwise there's the stigma that's he pretending it's all his.

hhp

Thanks for replying.

I never really took into account that once something is made available online people can use it for whatever they want. I should have included some accompanying text in read me file along with the font.

I'll know for the next time.

Barrie

"I never really took into account that once something is made available online people can use it for whatever they want."

No, that's not true. Copyright law exists on the web as it does on paper. However, your sight clearly says 'no copyright' so maybe you should be a bit more explicit as to what you want your license agreement to be. I did notice your readme file says 'for personal use only' so I think, technically, you're in the right. YOu just may want to make that a bit clearer on your actual page.

Maybe Crobar can hire Barrie to nuance the typeface for them, as MoMA commissioned Matthew Carter to modify Franklin Gothic.

I am a bit lost, so is there an obligation if I use Meta Black and make a logo for 'Mister Twister Lemonade' for me to somewhere state that I used Meta? Can it be explictly stated for me to do so? Doesnt the fact that I paid for the license to use the typeface for that job enable me to use that typeface for that job without credit? Must I edit the type in the design? Furthermore, did editing Fr. Gothic get around this 'clause'?

I love the font and the website...it's rad!

As for the copyright, you do have copyright for things you create (and I'm almost positive that even by adding a stylistic "No Copyright" to your site doesn't erase this). However, I think that because he has created something as well, it would be considered a new work and therefore have its own copyright. It's like collage art: the new piece is considered its own creation even though it contains the elements of other copyrighted works. However, there have been many cases where the use of a single item as the major feature of a work has led to copyright violation, so this might be the case with your situation. Unfortunately, this would be a situation that rides the fence and might need to be taken to some sort of judicial proceeding to actually get sorted out.

It is a special case in that it's a typeface, which doesn't have quite the same copyright protection that drawings, photographs, and stories do. If you had put any of those things on your site and someone made a derivative work from them, that would be a violation. To be realistic, if you say a font is free to use, you have to expect people to set words in it for design purposes, otherwise what is a font for?

But, venturing out of the realm of the question asked and into the minefield... I can tell a difference between the two. The crobar weight is slightly lighter and there are a few subtle proportional differences. And don't hate me for saying this, but it's made of circles. Parallel invention of simple forms such as these cannot be ruled out. There is a good possibility that they never saw your typeface.

Great Flash work. Kudos on the font too. Suxors on the licensing bit, but I think you can learn from the Broadcast Licensing post Eduardo mentioned. (Even though your situation isn't totally parallel with Stuart's, you still have the "for personal use" clause to hang onto.)

> giving credit somewhere (especially for purely typographic solutions like that one) is good, and it would be decent if the guy did that.

Hrant, that would definitely be a very decent thing to do but highly unrealistic to expect. Like Tayo, I don't think designers should feel obligated to credit anywhere on the client's end what typeface was used for a certain logo � I don't even credit myself. Not even like this one, where it's a purely typographic solution. I would never, on a client's website, mention what typeface I used for their logo. Now, in my personal portfolio, if I chose to do so, I would be more than happy to mention what typeface I used for a logo.

In some instances giving the typeface credit is unrealistic. In regards to the clauses in some EULAs, I choose to read between the lines by listing the fonts used when the opportunity is available.

However, I think that there should be more colophon's in catalogs and brochures, as well as annuals and books. Perhaps it is not always appropriate, good enough. BUT ... I think design annuals are guilty of not making this mandatory. If for not other reason that to help the young design students that dig through them.

Barrie. Doing anything retroactively is difficult, unless of course you have your own stable of lawyers. I would suggest the same as others have and attach a EULA to your typeface with a personal use clause, or perhaps some other kind of clause that at minimum gives you the opportunity to see the work being created with your typeface.

I think there's a confusion here between assessing the fairness/legality of the Crobar logo, and assessing the designer's skill.

There's no question that the use of Barrie's font is legal. There was no EULA stating otherwise, and there's no law that prohibits a designer from using a font as-is in a logotype.

Barrie seems to feel that it was lame of the designer to not adjust or customize anything. Fine, but that's just a judgment of the designer's skill and of the finished product -- no legal issue is involved. Besides, it's conceivable that the "as-is" logotype might be the best solution for the project. It wouldn't make sense to have to alter the type just for the sake of altering the type.

(On another topic, I wholeheartedly agree with Tiffany about encouraging the use of colophons in publications. I'm always disappointed when there's not one.)

That being said, if you agree to a contract that says you're going to things in a certain way -- which is what a EULA is -- and then you fail to abide by the contract, you've just given the foundry grounds to sue you and otherwise hold you in brach of that contract (your right to use the font at all may be terminated, for instance).

If you *really* don't like the terms of the EULA and/or don't think you can abide by them, you shouldn't license the font. Once you've agreed to it, it doesn't matter whether the EULA seems reasonable, you're in a contract.

At least, that's my non-lawyer's understanding. As usual, you shouldn't take this as legal advice; if you need legal advice, you should consult a lawyer. Etcetera.

Regards,

T

> Once you've agreed to it, it doesn't matter whether
> the EULA seems reasonable, you're in a contract.

I'm sure that would be a direct translation of what Louis XVI said right before they chopped his head off. Fairness is not formal.

hhp