I've recently been approached by a small-time scrapbooking entrepreneur who wants to make a set of rubber stamps out of a couple fonts of mine, and possibly stickers, and stencils, and who knows what else. Although on the one hand such exposure could be great, on the other it could get out of control. I know Stuart Sandler and Richard Kegler, among others, have talked in these forums about some of these issues, but I wondered if others might have opinions about licensing digital fonts for non-digital adaptation/reproduction or use as "principal art."
I'm struggling to come up with license terms that protect my interests without simultaneously scaring away potential users of the fonts. P22 has developed an excellent Fair Use clause in their EULA which might serve as a model for smaller foundries to emulate, which draws a distinction between personal, professional, and commercial uses. Is it kosher to borrow clauses from other people's EULAs? Although I wouldn't crib P22's license agreement in its entirety, it does contain concepts I'd like to work into my own EULA. My "foundry" is both very small and very young, and exposure might be good for its own sake. I want the fonts to be out there in the world, getting used, you know? On the other hand, exposure in the scrapbook market is probably a dead end, commercially. There are font foundries of every size, and the license terms that make sense for one company might or might not make sense for another. Then again, perhaps a foundry is just as big as its ambitions and its professionalism.
A royalty-based commercial license makes the most sense, but I think it would be difficult to apply when both the user and the fontmaker are relatively small operations. At the moment I'm leaning toward a one-year "experimental" license for a flat fee. When the year expires both parties can review how it worked out and renegotiate for a royalty-based commercial license or terminate their relationship. Any thoughts, fellow fontmongers?
