I dont get the feeling it’s about monopoly – all these foundries are also represented:

http://www.fontwise.com/foundries.asp?part=1

Oh, I'm represented and didn't even know it! That's not too bad then.

But what about smaller distributors like Fontworks UK who've backed me from the beginning? How do Montype get hold of my stuff? - I don't have any contract with them.

Nick Cooke

How do Montype get hold of my stuff? - I don’t have any contract with them.

Do they need a contract with you just to recognize a font and let people know that it came from you? This isn't much different from a third-party specimen book; as long as Monotype isn't actually selling your fonts it's probably legal.

From what I understand, anyone signed up to Fontwise is restricted from dealing with other suppliers and all typefaces have to be supplied by Monotype. Is that not the case?

Nick Cooke

That sounds a bit bizarre and limiting of competition. Why would they have to limit customers to their site for purchase? They certainly don't have the best site for font purchase around. It would seem that they should just design a superior site and go on the better-mousetrap theory.

ChrisL

I don't see this restriction mentioned in the PDF. According to the PDF, the program will automatically license any Monotype font that gets loaded into your system. So they have some kind of direct link to their own purchasing site (and your credit card?).

I assume, then, that loading a font Monotype does not sell does not trigger this automatic license system.

Just for sake of discussion, there is an alternative solution which is software-based only, meaning the manufacturer of the auditing app is not getting in on the deal. I think this would be preferable. I am forgetting the name but I think it's French. Anyone know it?

I think you mean FontChannel - that's the name of the product, not sure if it is also the name of the company supplying it.

I know that 10 or 15 years ago, Macmillan publishing had a similar arrangement with Bitstream. They got a deal on buying all their fonts, and then freelancers like me had to buy BT copies of fonts we already had. Problem was, Macmillan wouldn't pay for the fonts, and on some jobs I needed to spend $600 in fonts to get a $1200 contract.

Gosh, I wonder why I stopped freelancing.

Gosh, I wonder why I stopped freelancing.

ROFL! Yeah, I had a client a number of years ago who offered me a week-max/minimum wage job laying-out a manual on condition I bought FrameMaker.

Nick, arrangements like this make me question their process as well. After looking at the website, I can see where something like this might appeal to smaller companies who want to trim costs and ensure they're legal. My guess is that multi-nationals probably already have the capacity to track this sort of thing in-house, and that sole practitioners either do it or don't care to.

Does strike me as something designed to prey upon people's fears though....

Just getting back to this post. Actually, I've always thought that any legal action will be taken against multi-nationals rather than small companies because the pay-off would make the length of a legal battle worthwhile.

My guess is that multi-nationals probably already have the capacity to track this sort of thing in-house,

Actually, I doubt that very much. Here at megacorporation, the concern over security issues makes the tech team very reluctant to install any software that could connect directly to individual corporate computers.

We make a good faith effort to install proper practices among our co-workers including deleting the fonts from their computers when they are done using them, but I'd be a fool to think the practice is widespread. The type team tends to overestimate our multiple usage numbers to allow for these problems.

OK, in theory I support Fontwise as it ensures that type designers and font engineers are paid for their work. For too long the practice of sharing fonts has been going on. I remember about 10 years ago there was a statistic that for every font bought, five copies were made and used. And that's just in Europe and North America. The moment you go to places where only minimal copyright laws exist and theft/piracy is regarded as an act of valour you will find this ratio rises to about 1:25.

Yes we are on the 'signed-up' list at Monotype. But we have no formal agreement with them. It is because we have worked with Monotype in the past and have a good relationship.

I too have heard that a Fontwise contract will tie the client to buy fonts exclusively to Monotype. This is of course monopolistic and predatory (and potentially illegal under most trade laws). And that's what I object to. This will eventually push independents out of business as more and more clients will go to Monotype as the first port of call - be that for straight font licensing or customisation. As far as Dalton Maag is concerned it may put us in an awkward position as clients may question our legality. Furthermore, original fonts designed by us will flag up on Fontwise as potentially illegal. I don't know how Monotype handles such flagged up fonts - whether they contact the original designer tracing the source of fonts, or whether they simply demand payment from the client. I know that they contacted me about fonts we have done for a client to establish their rightfulness.

Monotype now controls the three biggest font libraries which contain most of the best known fonts. Establishing Fontwise also gives them control over our potential client base, and thus control over our business activities.

I am concerned that in the long term the combined behemoth MT/LT/ITC and Fontwise will impact on the smaller foundries and independent font retailers. Companies such as ourselves and retailers will need to double their efforts to put client's minds at ease in regards to legality and copyright if they want to maintain their business. Alternatively, all independent designers will have to 'sign up' to MT's Fontwise to be part of the legal database and give MT a de facto license to retail their fonts.

Bruno Maag
Dalton Maag Ltd

I very much agree with Bruno, Fontwise is a good idea, but it is being used by a commercial company to enhance their commercial interests. I can understand them doing that, but they may well be tempted, from being in such a dominant position, to simply cross reference fonts that they may not have access to. I’m not saying that Monotype carries out this practice, but I do know that some font distributors have done this, and some probably still do.

When a user is locked into a single distributor it is easy for that distributor to say to the user “g-type fonts (for example) are not easily obtainable so to avoid being compromised with possibly illegal versions of g-type fonts – let us license you with fonts of a similar design from our own sources”. So the distributor makes on the new font license, Nick Cooke looses income and exposure of his g-type font library.

It is very hard to be an independent font designer without the assistance of organisations like Monotype Imaging to give you wide exposure, and it’s a sad reflection of the font industry that, apart from MyFonts.com, Monotype are now the only boys in town. And what has driven the industry to this position – that’s simple – font piracy.

One only has to check the listing in alt.binaries.fonts to get a feel for the amout of font data being passed around illicitly, much of which is original work of independent font designers.

Malcolm Wooden

fontchannel.com seems to be offline. Can any of our Typophiles in France help us track down the Fontchannel folks to join this conversation? It sounds like I'm not the only one looking for an independent alternative to Fontwise.

I need to clarify something from the first post: FontWise is a service for tracking and managing licenses, from any company. There is no requirement or restriction on where the font licenses come from. It would be ludicrous to offer this service and then require that all purchases be made from one font store. Can you imagine any large ad agency being willing to sign up for that? Nick, please do your research.

Carl, can you explain what happens when Fontwise finds fonts that are a) from foundries sold by Monotype Imagining and b) fonts that are not sold by Monotype Imaging?

Carl, this is from the Fontwise pdf:

Your authorised users can licence any font as they need it through the Fontwise centralised database and purchasing system. Now you have a complete font licensing database that can be monitored dynamically. So at a glance you know what fonts your staff are using and critically, that you’re always correctly licensed.
What’s more, your font specifiers can use the database as a centralised font resource,
eliminating ad-hoc licensing and reducing system maintenance due to corrupt or infected
files being loaded from unauthorised sources.
The FontwiseTM database can also link online to Monotype to try out fonts prior to
purchase. Each time a font is acquired this way your licensing position is automatically
updated on the database. So your licensing position is always clear – you’ll never have to
audit your fonts again!
FontwiseTM provides a future proof solution you can rely on to end the chaos often
surrounding font licensing.

Does the Fontwise centralised database and purchasing system include every font by every independent foundry? Of course there is a link online to Monotype. My main concern is future purchasers of type being steered to Monotype only. See the first sentence of Malcolm's post.

It would be ludicrous to offer this service and then require that all purchases be made from one font store - I know, but I think that is the case when a company has this contract. Hopefully somebody from Monotype can put me straight on this and tell us all that it isn't so.

Nick Cooke

>Does the Fontwise centralised database and purchasing system include every font by every independent foundry?

My company has a "centralised database and purchasing system". The centralized database is a tool that stores licenses, and the 'purchasing system' is me. If Fontwise works the same way then the conflict of interest is if the customer asks for Humanist 777 and the 'purchasing system' suggests Frutiger as an alternative.

Nick,

Remember the thread where someone kept pestering Typophile for information about Apple support for a burned power cable? Did that seem inappropriate to you? Well....

I can supply contact information for someone at FontWise if you like, or maybe you could get it from the FontWise site, since I know you've been there. Try the "Contact Us" link.

Rather than stir up gossip on this forum, why not do a little research and come back with some facts? Your concern appears to be based on misunderstanding the difference between "can" and "must". Maybe you can be the one who provides the answer, rather than the Chicken Little who raises a false alarm.

Has anyone worked with Extensis Font Reserve? That system seems to keep track of font usage within a network without any automatic link to a specific font vendor, if I'm reading the site correctly. What are the differences between tracking through Fontwise and tracking through Font Reserve?

Thanks!

OK, I posed some questions via email to the people at Fontwise and Alin, a lady who works at Monotype HQ in Redhill in the UK very kindly phoned me with some answers.

From what she told me there are apparently two types of contract; one where the client is tied to Monotype and its products, and the other where the client is free to choose whatever they want. It seems that if the Fontwise client has the non-restrictive contract they can acquire other non-Monotype fonts direct from the supplier or through Fontwise. Although, as there is no mention of two types of contract on the website I'm wondering if both get equal billing when selling the product. I can't say I'm exactly overjoyed at the first type of contract.

The question of representation is a bit woolly, as there is no formal representation. Monotype Fontwise will acquire independent fonts from the correct sources if requested.

I agree Fontwise is a good idea in theory, its objectives are laudable. If only it was run by an impartial company that doesn't sell typefaces.

So Carl, why exactly do you find this thread to be inappropriate? I would have thought that as an independent type designer you may be a little concerned if a Megacorp was trying to elbow you into the gutter. Perhaps you don't need to worry. Congratulations.

Nick Cooke

Nick,
Although Carl has just released his type family Beorcana through Monotype, he also has released type designs through Adobe and ITC, among others. I don't think he is under any exclusive arrangement with Monotype or salaried by them.

ChrisL

Nick,

I am a type designer who happens to be employed by "a Megacorp", The very one you're feeling threatened by. I do care if any company is attempting to monopolise any market, and that's not the case at all: signing up for FontWise isn't compulsory any more than buying all your fonts from Monotype. Now, after the lengthy thread and all the worrisome comments, you know better. Isn't it paranoid to now say: "Elbow you into the gutter"? You finally have substantive information and you're choosing to interpret it the most dreary and negative way possible.

My objection here is that you (and the Mac power cable inquirer) repeatedly asked a general group of people a question that was relevant to a specific party, one not hidden from you or difficult to find. I notice you didn't ask where to find the information, you only implied that you'd like a Monotype rep to appear to feed answers to you.

I like to think Typophile can be less of a gossip station and more substantially informative. If you have access to information and you don't take it, don't blame "a Megacorp" for feeling taken advantage of. Knowledge is power. Don't you think the readers and posters of this thread would have appreciated for you to bring all the information up front, rather than sound an unnecessary alarm? Other people come here for information too; consider also providing it occasionally, especially when it's about 3 mouse clicks away.

Carl,

I believe that this discussion is perfectly legitimate and by the sheer existence of this discussion, surely, you can acknowledge that there is concern in the community. I appreciate that you are defensive of your employer, and I myself have worked for Monotype in the past. However, I think that we need to keep a keen eye on what could have potential for abuse of a monopoly situation.

To call Nick's concerns gossiping is inappropriate. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think that there must be something in this, judging by your quite abrasive reaction. But I am not and I will give Monotype the benefit of doubt that they will do what's right.

In the meantime I will keep my eyes open and I will talk to my peers in the industry to see whether this scheme is as benign as you claim it is.

Bruno Maag

I tend to agree with Nick in the first post. While the aim of Monotype seems to be laudable, i.e., to insure complete legal and permitted usage of fonts, I can't help but wonder what the aim is in the first place. Since probably most font vendors have strict usage reguirements, EULAs, etc., it seems that the Monotype approach may be more than simply providing a service to insure that fonts are not used illegally. It would seem logical therefore that, whether or not intended, the customer will always come back to Monotype for font purchases regardless of whether or not an attempt is being made to monopolize the market because the implication is that, when and if the client or customer comes back, he can be assured of protection and observation of legal usage and there is no such guarantee through other vendors, again, by implication.