Hooray!! Congradulations Marian!

I've had my eye on Restraint for sometime... extremely pretty, extremely versatile. :-) Love the flourishes.

I don't like the EULA though. :-|

Mike

Congratulations on the release of Restraint! I saw your TypeCon presentation in Seattle recently and am glad to see you have moved your project to the visible world :-)

ChrisL

Wow, so pretty. Very much like Indic simulated :)

I'm actually a little curious what people here think about that EULA.

As I mentioned on another forum, for the *standard licensing* we have put some unusual restrictions on its use:

Not to be used for logos, signage or major ad campaigns (billboards, TV) where Restraint is the main or sole element of the design; and not to be used for items for sale for profit (e.g. t-shirts, jewellery, cards, wrapping paper, etc.)

As type designers, do you think this is outta line?

I'm actually very convinced of the latter: I would be extremely pissed off to have someone profit from products for sale made of my work, which they paid $45 for. So that seems like a no-brainer. But what about the rest?

-marian

Marian,
I think the issue is that your lovely artwork/font has so much of your own self in it that, as a logo, it would be hard to make it work for someone else. Someone would be giving over their identity to become you if they used it. If they made enough changes to make it their own, chosing your art as a basis would make no sense. I would imagine a logo would need to be less you and more whatever the brand was about.
For tshirts and jewelry, you have a real case though. Their is no brand involvement, only the visual appeal of the elements. Your work has plenty of visual and artistic appeal which is clearly part of your being and rightfully so. I think the issue is that this is not so much a typeface as a conceptual work of art who's parts can be rearranged in verbal or just textural patterns. By billing it as a typeface, you open yourself to the weak copyright protections of typefaces in general. You may want to promote it as artwork in the form of software instead. I would talk to a good lawyer like Frank Martinez about it and get a more professional opinion.

ChrisL

Marian, you may already be aware of this, but here is a similar clause in P22's EULA:

"However, the use of illustrative elements (also known as “dingbats”, “extras”, “ornaments”) within logo design requires an additional one-time license. If you have purchased the font(s) license for use on a large scale campaign such as in the course of entertainment promotion, advertising, corporate identity design, product packaging, store signage or in any way that requires the multi media (television, internet, print or other) output of the font(s), an additional license may be required."

So that seems like a no-brainer.

I am not sure. When I looked at the font I thought ( more or less). ' Clever idea. THis is almost an instant ID machine. Maybe it's a kind of "everyman's Marian". No exclusivity of course. Hmm I wonder how this will be used? Maybe a restaurant will pick it up & use it'...

So I was immediately anticipating a prohibited use with no Malice in my heart. Really!

Now I see that's not your intention I confess that I see how you might feel that way. Especially not being a font maker most of the time. But I am not sure if it's an advisable position because unless you make the unusual terms of the EULA extra-clear you could end up spending too much time litigating and not enough time having fun.

Maybe you should allow the currently prohibited uses by making a clear path to an explicit special license for each kind of use. That would be 'rights managed' photo model of licensing.

I don't know though. That's just my 1st reaction.

What do you think of this idea?

> I would be extremely pissed off

They do not even allow you to print out the shit EULA:

http://www.tiro.com/Restraint/Restraint_EULA_2007_(5).pdf

Instead of the shit EULA, you may print out this shit:

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/shit.gif

Personally, I think that the EULA makes a lot of sense. Restraint isn’t the most useful typeface when it comes to serious commercial applications—unless the application happens to be trying to get the look of a Marian Bantjes design without actually spending money on an artist. Type design is not your primary source of income, so it makes plenty of sense to let people know up front that they can’t just go the cheap route and use your font to cash in on your popular work.

On a related note, this font seems to be catching on with design students including you in their thesis/dissertation work. I already know more than one person who purchased it just for that.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that Marian aught not to have the EULA she prefers. Far from it! I just think that practically speaking people generally expect to be able to do & not do certain things with a font. At least I do. I expect that I may or may not be able to modify a font I license. I expect to be able to use it for one glyph or to print a book. But I really don't expect to be told not to use it in an ID or logo. Unhappy surprises are avoidable. So why not avoid them with a special notice of what is an admittedly unusual EULA?

Restraint isn’t the most useful typeface when it comes to serious commercial applications

It depends. For a computer services company - probably not. But for a Bar, Restaurant or Quilting store or even Soap packaging. It could be legitimately & seriously used.

I also think it could be hard in some ( not all ) circumstances to say if the font is or is not the 'main' element. I mean, who is going to decide? It just seems messy to me. I don't know though. Maybe Marian want to review all the pieces that use her font/design. If it was me I would not.

I had very mixed feelings about the EULA, because as a designer I had never even read an entire EULA. When I had a studio, I used to skim to find the part re. number of computers & output devices, and that's it. For that reason I have made the unusual exceptions as up-front as possible: they're listed on my web site, again in the instructions and highlighted in red in the EULA. (I will see if Ross can provide a link to the EULA from the site.)

The vast majority of applications are not problematic: magazines, menus, packaging etc. If someone did have a problem with the EULA, I would question their intent: so you *did* want to plaster it all over billboards or make jewellery? And in such case I feel justified in feeling indignant. And we do say "Please contact us for additional licensing." Despite my unease, in the end I thought "**** it, do I care if Designer X decides not to buy it because they wanted to use it for a logo?" I don't care.

Messy, unfortunately, yes. There are problems that Ross and I may have to untangle one day.

But in a bigger sense, I'm curious about the question of what is a [digital] font? Is a font a delivery system of artwork? Or is it a thing in and of itself with inherent or implied rights, or lack thereof?

When teaching typography I have sometimes made the analogy between a typeface and a piece of music, where the typeface is the music owned by the artist, and the font is like the CD: a delivery system of that music. You own the CD, but not the music. But even with a CD (or digital file) there are restrictions on how you can use it: but most people understand that while they can play the CD at home or at a party, if they want to use it for their radio commercial, they need to pay more: usually a lot more.

P22's licensing is interesting in that they make a distinction between the dingbats and the letterforms. Presumably this has to do with the long battles over copyright in typeface design, but it's interesting to me that at some point there is this distinction between what is licensable art, and what is not.

These larger questions of art vs. letterforms and what it means to create a Font are much more interesting to me. Is Restraint art that we can understand should be licensed accordingly, or is it a Font that essentially has no rights, or very few, once the purchase price has been paid? And if so, why? These are largely rhetorical questions, but things that I've struggled with over the past few months as we've hashed out the EULA.

-marian

I am a confused by one term in the EULA:

"you may not use the font for the creation of ... identities". I suppose that the word identities has a very specific, limited meaning for real designers, but being a layman, I'm not too sure where normal use ends, and identity begins.

If I used Restraint to set my company letterhead, that would be an identity use, right? So I can't use it for business forms like invoices, can I? Okay.

Now, if I wanted to use it in a brochure advertising my new puppet play, I would probably want to use it throughout the material for the show, i.e., the teacher's guides, info sheets, programmes - but then, am I not using it to create an identity for the play? If I can't use it throughout, won't it look rather out of place where I do use it? Hmm ... then purchasing the font would seem like a bad idea. I'm not sure when I could use it.

Or am I just not understanding the word "identity". If so, maybe you could gloss it in your EULA.

Allow me, if you will, to add a few comments on this.

I am perfectly aware that some of these clauses in the basic EULA may cause consternation amongst some. I am perfectly aware that these clauses may well not be legally enforcible in some jurisdictions.

Also, I am not suggesting that the fair use clause be applied to all other fonts. It is included due to the unique nature of this particular design.

The usage restrictions that apply to the basic license are an issue of fairness. Fairness both to those who have become accustomed to purchasing font licenses at industry-average prices which under-value the work of living designers. Fairness also to us as creators of both a tool and intellectual property. Or of course to those who are just obtaining some entertainment value from the font.

In the case of Restraint, nowhere have we said that you absolutely can not use it as a principal design element or identity. What we have said is you can't necessarily do it for $45. No where have we said you absolutely can not modify it (or have it modified). We have simply requested you ask first and give us first refusal. And if any of the terms are unclear to you, you can exercise your fingers by sending us an email, although I realize that some find it easier to complain to the aether which isn't enabled to help them with their complaints. And for those that have a problem with the legality of the agreement, well then we will have to start charging a hell of a lot more to be able to hire a lawyer who can then write a nice long convoluted license agreement which no one will read and then we're back at square one.

So, given these issues, we welcome constructive, thoughtful feedback on how the license may be improved or clarified.

Part of what I would like is to re-establish understanding between us and our (retail font) customer. The EULA is an agreement between us--a base contract which serves both you and us. Like most any contract, it is open to reasonable discussion; it is not a blind or brick wall, but a starting point. We have a limited, fair license fee and so therefore also have a limited, fair license. The fair use restrictions, which are unusual in the font world, are indications that if you intend to make obscene amounts of money off the basis of our work that we would like to be compensated. Likewise, if you ask 'can I use this for my puppet show?' under the basic license, chances are we will say yes. It is a pretty simple concept in the face of so many click-through agreements.

If someone ignores the intent of the license agreement that is on their conscience. We will either give them the opportunity to give us fair compensation or revoke their license. Or any number of other possibilities. We do not want to vet every instance of use. And as Marian says, if someone thinks they can't use it for a logo and decides not to buy it, I'm not going to sweat it for the loss of $45. If re-entering the retail font business becomes too onerous by virtue of those who find the terms unfair or intellectual property valueless or price too high etc., then I can do without it. I hope that won't be the case and that those who like and respect what I have to sell will continue to be served well by it.

I was thinking about this some more today in light of Eben’s comment about a “rights managed” style license option for fonts, and tying it to my previous suggestion of licensing fonts for single uses. I am surprised that more foundries don’t take an approach like that. I guess it’s easier for stock photo resellers to pull this off than font foundries—piracy of their stuff is far less common and/or easy, and the big photo houses have the money to sue, which most type vendors don’t. Please let us know how it works out in a year, Marian.

Ross, Thanks for commenting too. You make some great points.

Also your EULA is surprisingly readable & understandable. Good on ya!

Still I feel like I should mention that rather than prohibit with the phrase
'you may not use the font software'

And then re-open the door with the phrase
'if you wish to use the Font Software'

- why not reverse it & say something like

'NOTE: While it is unusual, however using this font software for X,Y & Z requires special additional licensing terms. Contact us for details. If you don't intend to abide by these terms please do not buy the font.'

Just think, if I was violently & ravenously interested in the font; just think what the phrase 'you may not..' would mean. I might not even keep reading - ah the disappointment! ;-) But taken the other way I think it is clearer.

Again I am not suggesting that you do anything different. Just the the way it is done could be more transparent and so more free of nasty-surprises for everybody. To me that would actually begin with a stronger notice about the EULA here:

http://www.tiro.com/Restraint/index.html

Still, I think that some of what I am getting at may be best put across by showing rather than by explaining. May I have your permission to mock something up?

EDIT - EDIT - EDIT

On 5th November at about 23:00 hours (European time) they removed the PDF print out restriction so that their EULA is printable as of now. Bravo.

So, I now again delete my "freaky/freaks" words by "xxxxx"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat what I said above:

They do not even allow you to print out this xxxxx Eula:

http://www.tiro.com/Restraint/Restraint_EULA_2007_(5).pdf

And this simple fact alone that these xxxxx (i.e. Bantjes, Ross, Tiro, etc.) do not permit you to print out the Eula, makes the Eula null and invalid.

No court room judge would make a barely legible screen shot and then a print out of this barely legible screen shot, which would look this way:

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/eula.gif

Instead, the court room judge would state that these xxxxx Bantjes, Ross, Tiro, who do not even allow you to make a legible print out of this bizarre Eula cannot expect that anyone adheres to this xxxxx, barely readable invalid Eula.

Uli, within the context of this thread, it's you who is the bizarre freak.
Would it trouble you too much to curb your coprolalia and show designers some respect?
You could always apologize, or delete the offensive post(s).
And then try and make your case in a more rational and dispassionate manner.

> Would it trouble you too much to curb your coprolalia

In this thread, Mrs. Bantjes preferred the parlance "piss" ("I would be extremely pissed off"), to which you did not object. So, as you do not mind the lady's parlance, I adopt her parlance to make both of you happy.

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/piss.gif

bwahahahhahahah... well put Uli!

Uli, I don't think that her tone & yours are remotely close. I also doubt that you will convince them of anything by calling them 'freaks'. And I even think you know this. So let me ask you: do you want to convince them of some point or another? Or are you just trying to be unpleasant for it's own sake? I do agree that it would be a good idea to be able to print the EULA though. I suspect it's a question of busy people at a small foundry and is just an oversight - not really worthy of such a frothy reaction.

Marian and Ross are talented artists who also happen to be generous and all-around nice people. While their EULA may differ from the norm, Restraint is not exactly a "typical" typeface and surely that has to be taken into consideration. As has been said by others here, if someone doesn't agree with the EULA, they are not forced to license this typeface. I think it's cool that Marian and Ross have released it at all. It's been in the works for several years, and Marian's star as an illustrator and lettering artist has risen greatly during that time. They could have opted not to release Restraint at all and Marian could stick with custom lettering projects which offer more lucrative compensation and less potential for headaches than single font sales accomplished over time.

A reasoned argument or suggestion on clarification is helpful and leads to a positive dialog that informs and assists everyone in the type business and those who use type. Name-calling, insults, and the cheering on of said name-calling is mean-spirited, pointless, and not appropriate to this or any other discussion on Typophile.

amen, tamye!
you've said all the things i would have like to have said, but just didn't have the energy to. the negative vibes sometimes present on typophile can really sap me. the gross sense of entitlement is particularly sickening at times. i hope marian and ross can overlook the naysayers and realize that the majority of us are simply happy to have restraint avaiable for any usage at all. thanks for the hard work!

Underware also used (still do…) a kind of 'stepped' licensing; they sold the fontsoftware bundled with a book for a VERY reasonable price, but if the purchaser went and did something serious with the typefaces, he or she was obliged to pay a licence fee. Underware did this with Sauna and Dolly, maybe with more of their products.
Not unreasonable, just as Ms Bantjers' offer and UELA is not unreasonable.

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

As Eben mentioned earlier, if the EULA spells out positive options, rather than focusing on the negative prohibition, the EULA will be clearer, as well as less likely to raise hackles. The P22 EULA clause I quoted above I think is a good model: it invites the reader to buy the higher level licenses for those purposes.

Now you have: "However, under this license *you may not use* the font software:" and the list prohibitions follows--with the prohibition that I have put asterisks in red.

Instead:

"Tiro licenses this software on two levels. The basic level includes the following uses: ....

The second level includes the following uses. These are not authorized by the basic license, and require an additional license specific to the usage: ...

To buy the basic license only and download the software, click here. For the additional licenses contact us."

Now that I look at it again, I think the biggest problem with the EULA is that it is not clear enough. "Most personal and commercial applications" gives us no specifics on what is permitted. And as John wrote above, the "identities" is not clear as everything a business publishes is part of its identity.

Perhaps, "'commercial products' and 'identities' require an additional license, and are not permitted under the basic license only. 'Commercial products' and 'identities' are defined as follows: ..."

It seems to me that the problem is not the EULA itself, which is not so much odious as oddball. I wonder how many designers have considered something similar, but not done so simple to avoid rocking the boat.

> Would it trouble you too much to curb your coprolalia and show designers some respect?

Wow. I really never thought I'd ever hear anyone use that word again as long as I lived. That's a serious blast from my past, Nick. The last time I heard that word uttered was 1990. Thanks for showing off your vocabulary.

Yours appreciatively,

The Kopralaliac (or so I was once tagged)

Thanks all, and particularly Eben, for the comments. I'll talk to Ross and see if we can get that language turned around. I spent a lot of time on the EULA overall, just to get it as clear and simple (and readable) as possible, so these points are helpful for making it even more so.

That whole "identities" thing: I remember going back and forth "identities" vs. "logos" and can't remember why I settled on the former. I will rethink, as I am now leaning toward the latter.

I will also see if Ross has any objection to making the PDF of the EULA available. It is probably an oversight. We just launched Restraint ... last week was it? And we've both been pretty busy with other things.

>I wonder how many designers have considered something similar, but not done so simple to avoid rocking the boat.

I wonder too. And I wonder how designers feel in general when they see their typeface used for a major identity, or as signature work in an ad campaign. I fully expect most to say "proud," but still I wonder.

-marian

Great typeface, bad EULA. I think that setting the security such that you can't even print it smacks of bad faith and could hurt you down the line. I don't like agreeing with Uli, but I can't fathom why you'd feel the need to make it unprintable. I don't think I could justify ever buying or (even if I bought it) using the typeface with these ill-defined, byzantine restrictions, either. It's a shame, because it's absolutely beautiful.

I don't think that the EULA is out of line at all. From the above comments it looks like it needs some clarification, but I think its restrictions are fair.

Maybe here's another way to look at it, something that I've been wondering for a while: Is it kosher to use ornaments from any font as the main element of a logo? I've seen, for example, a logo created entirely out of two ornaments stuck together, unmodified (besides the joining of the two). While that's not illegal, is it something that is encouraged, or even looked upon as okay? I'd feel weird doing that and then saying that I created it completely.

I am coming in late, but congratulations, Marian and Ross!

But even with a CD (or digital file) there are restrictions on how you can use it: but most people understand that while they can play the CD at home or at a party, if they want to use it for their radio commercial, they need to pay more: usually a lot more...

Marian, you raise a lot of interesting questions. On the practical ones, I think that Chris Lozos and William Berkson have already spoken for me. I just want to add this pre-digital example of usage restrictions placed on clip art distributed in book form:

Notice that the back cover states that the artwork is copyright free, and yet "You may use up to 10 items for any single use without fee or special permission." So anything above that amount will entail contacting the publisher and either getting permission or paying an extra fee.

So this issue has precedents, and others have gone down this road too.

Without weighing in on the EULA discussion, I'd like to say that I really admire this face. What a wonderful job.

This is similar to the quite standard restrictions placed on stock photography, in particular that you can't "licence" a photo and then make a print of it which you sell as a piece of artwork on its own merits entirely, without adding any design value.

***

However Marian, beyond that kind of use, I think your licence is a bit restrictive for a font.

AFAIK, with your licence applied to Ale Paul's font, Veer's "swash-buckle" would not be possible:

Ale Paul's font is a Veer product and the buckle is a Veer promo. That kind of relationship makes it easy to sort out. If I wanted to make a line of square cermic tiles in Restraint (even without the EULA wording as it is) wouldn't it seem like contacting the designer or foundry to see if it was OK be a wise place to start? It still seems that Anything is possible for a negotiated licensed use, but contacting the foundry will determine the specifics.

OK, not the best example, but if a font is designed to make "type art" it's a bit silly to discourage it.

OK, not the best example, but if a font is designed to make “type art” it’s a bit silly to discourage it.

I don’t think Marian and Tiro are discouraging people from using the type, just making sure that the designer is fairly compensated for the use of her work to produce said art.

I make the distinction between dingbat usage, which is about isolated glyphs, and the fact that the Restraint artwork is a part of a font system for recombining glyphs in different manners, so Restraint is not much different than other ornament fonts such as a couple I have, Columbus (Monotype/Saunders) and Granjon Ornaments (Lanston/Giampa).

James, it is a discouragement to have to contact the foundry and negotiate, rather than just use the font.

Re: the EULA as a PDF: it is posted so that it is perfectly readable online; a printable version is supplied with the font. This is a small detail that Ross has set up for his own reasons.

>if a font is designed to make “type art” it’s a bit silly to discourage it.

Not even remotely. Make as much art with it as you want, just don't sell it for profit without negotiating compensation with me. With Restraint you can make fancy borders or shapes or headlines for magazines, brochures, company stationery, CDs, band posters galore. You can even make tiles for your own personal fireplace, but if you want to sell "art" that is actually my art, I deserve a cut in that.

Some people here, and some people not here have looked, or will look at the EULA and say, No Way. Not only am I not concerned, I'm happy to have turned those people away. I really don't need their $45 that badly. For those who want to use it in good faith, have fun with it, and make some clients happy I say Hello and Welcome; I'd love to see what you make and how you found working with the font.

I have to say, as a font it's piles of fun. Once you get the hang of the system, it's highly addictive. Myself, I'm still discovering the possibilities.

But hey, Check It Out! I made the top of the Hottest list on Typophile! Too bad it wasn't all slavish devotion, but the discussion has been interesting. I've always had a fascination with issues of copyright.

Oh and one last thing ... wouldn't it be cool if my EULA prompted future font buyers to actually notice and read their EULAs? Because I can tell you, right now they don't. The vast majority of people in the design community don't even know what a EULA is, even when you spell it out.

-marian

Weirdly prophetic font title ;)

I think it is a very logical and obvious EULA.

There.

The vast majority of people in the design community don’t even know what a EULA is, even when you spell it out.

That’s probably because only a few of them are paying for their fonts to begin with.

>The vast majority of people in the design community don’t even know what a EULA is, even when you spell it out.

So R&M have set up an elaborate labyrinth in which to entrap the unsuspecting font purchaser - and we are helping by contributing to a thread that will become part of the permanent record. Those inscrutable BC islanders!

I think it is a very logical and obvious EULA.

There

For the record, I tend to agree with you; it's an unusual EULA sure, but it's a bit of an unusual font...

elaborate labyrinth in which to entrap

Actually it's got pretty good wayfinding, and a well-marked exit.
:)

-marian

but if you want to sell “art” that is actually my art, I deserve a cut in that.

It's not your art.
For all but the most obvious "single dingbat = artwork" usage, it becomes their art, merely by combining the glyphs.
That's the essence of typography, and by making a font with combinable glyphs, you have accepted that ethos, moving your work from the realm of art to that of design tool.

you have accepted that ethos

Even though you are right that this is the way 99.9% of font users think about their fonts I have to disagree. EULAs are just culture. Culture is invented & reinvented. It's is true that there is an established culture in font sales. And Marian is clearly bucking the established cultural assumptions*. But the culture of type sales has changed over & over. There is no reason to think that it will remain as it is today forever, or that it can't be split into a variety of modes in the future.

Obviously what people actually do is a whole other issue as well.

It might be that following the established mode is smartest, or most lucrative, or satisfying. Or not. But irrespective of how it turns out in the end I respect Marian's right to try new models of Font licensing. Perhaps it will be a useful lesson to us. Hopefully we will pay attention not simply to the EULA itself but to the way the buyer experience is crafted.**

* That is of course why I suggested going well out of the usual way to point that out to a buyer before they buy.
** If that sounds creepy then - tough.

Great thread for a great font.

Tamye took the words right out of my mouth.

I think the EULA is *absolutely* appropriate. The typeface design is not only a "dingbat" font, if you want to simplify it, but it also enables the person who chooses to license the font to use a little of Marian's lettering/design skills. Anyone who licenses it will know that too. "Hey we can't afford to have Marian do some work for us, let's just license the font and ask about extended licensing."

More and more type designers are having to decide how to charge for their work. Which is the key, of course, as it is their work to price and our choice to make.

In regards to our 3-letter friend please don't feed him.

I have to disagree. The EULA does allow Marian and Ross the right to control how the font is used in a basic license situation. Art or not.

In regards to established ways of selling. I say buck the trends. Reinvent the wheel. Make a better wheel. Not every EULA works for every font design. I once argued for a single EULA, but I know after doing more reading and delving deeper into this black art that it just isn't possible. Why? Because you cannot separate the typeface designer's perceived value from the actual value. They are one in the same. Font A will never be the same as Font B. Even Wedding Font A will never be the same as Wedding Font B. Foundries value and price their fonts differently. If the people shopping and licensing aren't saavy enough to understand the differences it isn't the foundries fault.

Well said Tiffany.
There is room for innovation in pricing, marketing, and licensing.
I don't see art here, any more than Zuzana Licko's Whirligigs or this week's No. 3 at Myfonts:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/subcommunications/subikto-two/ and countless other picture fonts.
But perhaps I'm wrong and they're all art.
Actually, that's distinction is irrelevant.
The difference is staked on Marian's reputation and the quality of her work, and perhaps that's what it takes to make the difference -- in a similar manner to the different pricing and licensing that foundries of different reputation and ability can exercise for "plain" type fonts.