Seems as if everything here should be clearly called out in your contract with the font supplier (ie the font EULA you agreed to) and your legal contract with the client (which you also agreed to).

If you want to extract yourself from these legal obligations then you probably need to talk to an attorney and not a bunch of font geeks or programmers.

If your contract with the client calls for fonts along with all other assets to be handed over to them, and the font EULA does not allow for transfers then you're best bet would be to refund the client the cost of the license or simply license it on their behalf.

But what about that argument from the programmers that nothing like the font EULA or anything set by the type foundry has any validity since fonts are software and as that all laws on Software overwrite any EULA or limitations given from the foundry?

How do you guys deal with this situations? How do you work this out with clients?

>But what about that argument from the programmers that nothing like the font EULA or anything set by the type foundry has any validity since fonts are software and as that all laws on Software overwrite any EULA or limitations given from the foundry?

I would not take legal advice from programmers. Even if you are a "one disk company" - ie one licensed copy of PhotoShop, one licensed copy of Visual Studio, one copy of Mac OS, installed on multiple machines that's one thing, you can take that risk. But are you in a position to pass on this level or risk to your clients?

Thing here is that one of the programmers has a BA on something I forgot, so he may have a few good points hard to argue. He does know about law and the legality of software. He understands just fine that one can't just make copies of photoshop and give them away. Since he is stuck in the middle of us as a studio and the client he is trying to benefit the client and keep them happy. This is why he is claiming that the fonts should be (THEY HAVE TO BE, coz foundries have no opinion on this matter according to him) able to be given away fully to the client as long as we delete them completely from our systems.

if anybody has some links where I can see in detail font copyright information and a big plus would be if I could see if software laws overwrite ANYTHING set by the foundries.

So the license your company accepted for Photoshop is legally binding but the one you accepted for the fonts is somehow worthless?

>Thing here is that one of the programmers has a BA on something I forgot,

The funniest thing I've heard all day! Thanks ;-)

Sad thing is that someone here will likely give you an answer that supports your desire to rip off the font designer, and you'll be happy. Best of luck with that.

What?

Did I say I want to do the wrong thing? Did I "f" say I want to rip off the typographer? I don't ever want to do this, this is why i am asking for some good reads, comment and links so i can better articulate my reason to the client.

I am arguing AGAINST giving the font away for free. I (we) support typographers, except the clients and the programmers who are giving us a hard time.

WE DO NOT WANT TO GIVEN IT AWAY FOR FREE!! We already talked to all these people and politely explained the situation and we sent them to the proper links so THEY can purchase the font legally. WHY IS THIS MY FAULT NOW?

It's not about me! I just wanted some input, links, comments, thoughts on regards to the EULA of fonts and the general software laws so that I CAN MORE CLEARLY EXPLAIN THIS to the clients.

Jesus christ.

You have to decide how to deal with the situation where you can either expense a font purchase to a particular project (as "materials"), or cover its cost as part of general operating expenses (as a "tool").

Sorry, there are no easy answers.

Some font EULAS do allow transfer, providing the new licensee accepts the terms of the EULA.

...if anybody has some links...

You can study EULAs of different foundries online.
Google a foundry name and "EULA".
Or search a multi-foundry distributor such as MyFonts.

>Did I “f” say I want to rip off the typographer

Yes Jesus...

"a big plus would be if I could see if software laws overwrite ANYTHING set by the foundries."

You're specifically looking for a loop hole - not links that support the position that EULAs are legally binding.

Think about this…

You are young, never done anything illegal on regards to fonts and software… then you argue against some clients and a programmer that has a degree in law or some stuff like that and had a career change and turned into a computer geek and claims he actually does know about this. As a young person, it's hard to face this and properly state reasons to NOT give away or distribute fonts.

See what I am saying now? I just wanna be more armed and prepared so I can wisely discuss this stuff in favour of us (designers, typographers, etc…).

>Did I “f” say I want to rip off the typographer

>Yes...

NO I DID NOT. I Said the client and the know-it-all programmer want to do that and that I oppose to doing this as it is totally unacceptable for me.

>“a big plus would be if I could see if software laws overwrite ANYTHING set by the foundries.”

>You’re specifically looking for a loop hole - not links that support the position that EULAs are legally binding.

Exactly. These people are trying to find loopholes everywhere to argue in favour of pirating fonts. Not me.

This is why I came here to find out what some professionals and typographers that frequent this site can say. To see what my fellow posters could suggest since actual type designers post in here.

Your company accepted a EULA, paid a type designer some money to licenses some fonts. Now "these people" say the EULA you accepted is worthless and you are free to do anything you like with the fonts. Surely it's up to "these people" to come up with links to support this, and for your attorney to decide if, under Canadian law, your company wants to take on the risk associated ignoring the EULA terms.

Sorry that you’re taking offense, but your posts so far have indicated that you're doing their work for them.

First, if you want legal advice, HIRE A LAWYER. Do you know what smart people call guys who get their legal advice from the internet? Losers. Because when we end up in court with you, you lose, because we have the sense to hire a lawyer. At least pick up the Graphic Artists Guild Pricing and Ethical Guidelines. If you don’t learn to stop being lazy and thoughtless about legal issues now it’s going to cost you a lot of money one day.

Second you should put your font licensing terms in the contract and have it worked out BEFORE the client signs it. Third, if you have a repeat client who insists that the font license be transferred back to them at the end of the job, don’t buy non-transferable font licenses when working with that client. If you really, really want to transfer the license, pester the designer to grant a non-transferable license.

Thanks for nothing.

Client here was billed for the project, and of course the font purchase was part of the whole cost. Now couple of weeks later, they want that font because they said they paid for it.

I for one, being a simpleton, would think that the font licence now belongs to the client, not to the studio (i.e. the studio purchased the font on behalf of the client). The client then should ensure that their usage is in accordance with the original licence, or upgrade it as needed. The studio would not be allowed to keep a copy of the font for their own use. The client however could allow the studio to use the font for their own jobs.

In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

nvmd

> Client here was billed for the project, and of course
> the font purchase was part of the whole cost.

did you bill them _specifically_ for the font? if so,
i'd say that they bought it, so they own it, not you.

and of course they will want the font, because they
might need to change something in what you did...

so give 'em the font, and erase it from your machine.
what they do with it will then be of no concern to you.

even if you didn't bill them for the font _specifically_,
handing it over is the easiest way to extricate yourself
from a situation which has already become unpleasant.

so use your head.

and if they want you to do any work for them again,
tell them your overhead cost will require a purchase
of a font in _your_ name, which _you_ will then own.
if they say that you can use _their_ copy of the font,
say you don't roll that way, and don't want to start...

better yet, turn down the job. unpleasant clients have
a nasty habit of repeating their unpleasantness later...

-bowerbird

did you bill them _specifically_ for the font? if so,
i’d say that they bought it, so they own it, not you.

One doesn't BUY a font. A font (or any other software) is LICENSED. Anyone who wants to use it needs to have a single license. So the fonts cannot be given to the client, even if they were charged for it. If the clients want to use it, they need to purchase their own license.

Or if the font foundry would allow it: A transfer of the license from the studio to the client might be possible. But even this needs some written statement from the foundry. One cannot just give the fonts away like a book or something ...

A transfer of the license from the studio to the client might be possible. But even this needs some written statement from the foundry.

Absolutely. Perhaps this is what the above-mentioned "programmers" meant?

> One doesn’t BUY a font. A font (or any other software) is LICENSED.

oh please. get off the semantics. they don't help.

i'm telling vectorm the client paid for the license...
so vectorm should hand over the font to the client.

if he was gonna bill the client for the font (license),
he should've bought it in their name to begin with.
(which is why concern with "transfer" is misplaced.)

it seems he wants to bill them for the font (license),
and then keep it himself. it's no wonder, then, that
the client is now calling bullcrap on the whole thing.

-bowerbird

why doesn't the system eliminate duplicate posts?
i mean, seriously, it can't be hard to detect them...

-bowerbird

oh please. get off the semantics. they don’t help.

Sure they help. The difference between buying and licensing is the core of the VectorM's question.

i’m telling vectorm the client paid for the license...
so vectorm should hand over the font to the client.

Again: it doesn't matter who paid for the fonts. What matters is who is has a license to install and use the fonts.

if he was gonna bill the client for the font (license),
he should’ve bought it in their name to begin with.

No, if they would license the font in the client's name, the studio would have no license to use the fonts for the design work in the first place.
They client has to account for all the costs associated with the project, but that doesn't mean they "own" any of the tools (hard- or software) that were used to fulfill the project.

why doesn’t the system eliminate duplicate posts?

Oh, it's the system's fault. Does the lift come down faster for you when you push the button twice?

i'm only clicking the button once.

but even if i clicked the button 83 times, is there any reason
why it should post the exact same message more than once?

-bowerbird

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

> The difference between buying and licensing
> is the core of the VectorM’s question.

there's absolutely no difference between the two
that is of relevance to any aspect of this question.

not in the mind of this non-lawyer, anyway...

> Again: it doesn’t matter who paid for the fonts.
> What matters is who is has a license
> to install and use the fonts.

vectorm's client paid for the font, so the license
to install and use the font belongs to that client.

the client let vectorm install and use the font to do
work for them, and now that he's done, he should
erase that font from his machine. and the client
should be given the font they have paid to license,
since it appears that they do not have it presently.

if vectorm thought the client would pay for the font,
but vectorm would get to have the license in his name,
then i'd say he is the one who is badly mistaken here...

if vectorm hadn't billed the client specifically for the font,
but rather bought it using money from his own company,
and bundled the cost into his overall billing for the project
(in exactly the same way that he bundles the cost of his rent
and his computers and all his other overhead), then fine,
the license belongs to _him_ and not to the client, and he
has every right to explain this in great detail to the client.

> No, if they would license the font in the client’s name,
> the studio would have no license to use the fonts
> for the design work in the first place.

if font-designers want to try to enforce such silliness,
good luck... but that can only erode the willingness of
your customers to actually do what's expected of them,
which will cause you even more problems down the line.

-bowerbird

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Ooops! :-P

if you were going for 83, you fell short... :+)

-bowerbird

I lost count so gave up early - I think every click generated a post though... and hey I'm top of the list too!

But somehow 83 total for the week!

Oh mighty sword-wielding Si, cheat route to Top Typophile.