>The license will be tailored to each project, and the fee will depend on the intended use of the fonts

First reaction: that's how I license fonts all the time :-) and it’s often a lot of work for me, the customer - like buying a car from a second hand car dealer vs going to Starbucks.

Second reaction: this model really only works if the customer has easy access to evaluation versions of the fonts.

The link on the website doesn't explain things (unless I'm clicking on the wrong one), but it sounds as though if you license the font once, use it in a book, and then decide to use it again in another book, you've got to relicense it? That seems like a lot of work for everyone. And when it's hard enough to get designers to license fonts once, it seems like it will be very difficult to get them multiple times. Yes, I know that should be billed to the client, but what if you're an in-house designer? Do I have to relicense the font for each project? Getting one's non-designer boss to agree to that would probably be pretty tough.

Interesting.
One question – to me this mostly makes a lot of sense in cases where I license a font for one project, or maybe a series. On the other hand though, I personally like the idea of building a «toolbox» of type by licensing fonts for some projects that I can later re-use for others without necessarily having to pay again.
In this case, would I have to get in touch with the foundry every time and discuss if my license still covers the new project, or whether I need a new one?

My impression is that the discussion so far, merely focusing on the license part and asking whether licensing typefaces per project is a good idea or not, misses the perhaps more essential part of the announcement which is customization of the typefaces for a given project:

Custom characters, hand-lettering or calligraphy, special weights, and even alphabets in related writing systems are all possible additions.

And this is an idea which I like pretty much. It is not about just handing over some fonts, it is about integrating a typeface into a project.

Karsten, you're right. I should've mentioned that as it is something Sumner mentioned, in his email to me:

"As far as branding goes, it gives both designers and their clients an option that is relatively exclusive and protected, but not overly expensive. In publishing the same is true but also includes the text level."

In a sense, this is a good idea, when you are licencing fonts to typographers. They know what they are buing, and that option to re-design to a need should work well.

But any ad-agency designer going to the money people telling that they really want this font for this particular work, and then telling that rights to this font are just for this job… No added value to the money people.

As an alternative licencing option this is interesting. I would consider it.

Very bold and curious experiment. An example of pricing levels would be a very interesting thing to look at.

This approach assumes the value of the project is fixed and known beforehand. This may be true for a book print, but it's hardly the case for up and coming projects with a typography component to them, e.g. a blog, a poster done 'for fun' or a logo for a startup company.

Thank you all for the feedback. Very interesting. I do not necessarily think that this kind of licensing is good for everyone. I believe it fills some niches and I think it will be useful for both independent type designers and graphic designers, and will give them a platform on which to collaborate in a win-win scenario. In my case, I am happy to set trial samples for presentations to clients or internal presentations to management. We are also willing to work with clients, and if appropriate their clients, to facilitate the optimum use of typography in their product(s). I view this as a step in establishing typography as almost always a significant part of the branding aspect of graphic design and publishing.

When a type designer has a new and original font, being able to license it at a higher price for a use such as a logotype does seem fair.

Only a few type designers, though, would be in a position to use such a licensing model; those whose typefaces are the most highly sought after. Thus, until you are a renowned type designer like Sumner Stone, it's likely not a licensing model you could get away with.

Also, of course, corporate customers that are serious about their logotypes probably will want to commission fonts for their exclusive use in any event.

The standard Restraint EULA has some restrictions on kinds of use that require a separate license and fee, which I believe are negotiated on a case-by-case basis reflecting added value (it's not my department).

I wonder if Unger's Gulliver was the first font licensed in this way? Probably not, but if not what was?

Perhaps we get informed after a while how this model is getting along.

Personally, I doubt its usability for more than a few special relationships. But, keeping font prices attractive is a major concern for everyone offering fonts, of course. I have introduced two other models: a special Periodicals licence and a Ratenkauf (Installment plan); both of which have found customers already.

Here's my little contribution to the thread. I've been licensing few fonts in the last years, mainly for books projects, and the relationship with the type designers, besides the fonts quality, has always been an important issue for me. Sumner Stone (nice to see him here, by the way) has always been very supportive and collaborative when asked, via e-mail, about particular features of some of his fonts - Cycles and Magma, specifically; and even when asked about other, more generic typographical matters. Kent Lew, whose Whitman I regulary and happily use as a book cover type, even gave me interesting and insightful layout advices. I will also mention Jurgen Weltin and Veronika Bunian as very collaborative designers. Other type designers, who I will not mention here, and to whom I sent physical copies of the books set with their types, didn't even answered to my e-mails (maybe they didn't like the result). That is to say: the relation with the type designer is very important, at least for someone, like me, working in a independent, amateurish graphic environment (at home, when kids are sleeping), but with a appassionate and genuine approach. But yes, I agree that not every type designer can afford such a use-based kind of licensing; thought I also also believe that licensing font famlies for hundreds of euros or dollars via big font sellers (as I have seen) could not be the best way to sell fonts - not to big graphic studio, who can afford those prices, but to single users.

Thank you very much for that Nicola, and I am very interested to hear your experiences Andreas and I congratulate you on your innovation. I am pleased that there is now a forum going on to discuss this approach. There is nothing new about it except the attachment of a name, and I claim no authorship what so ever as far as the idea is concerned. If it is useful to those reading this forum that is great. I am just trying to find ways to diversify my business. I also think that the role of typography as the primary material of branding in its broadest application has been undervalued. I believe more collaborations between the users of type and the type designers will benefit everyone including, of course, the client.

Only a few type designers, though, would be in a position to use such a licensing model; those whose typefaces are the most highly sought after.

Rubbish. Stock photo designers have been selling their work on a per-use basis for decades and the buyers have often had no clue who stood behind the camera. When the people who sell design tools treat said tools as if they have value as more than a cheap commodity there are plenty of users who respond in kind.

I view this as a step in establishing typography as almost always a significant part of the branding aspect of graphic design and publishing.

I hope this works well for you Sumner. When I started Dunwich Type Founders I followed the lead of House Industries and Typetrust; putting licensing restrictions on my own designs regarding use in logos, identity systems, and stock graphics. I have stated on Typophile many times that type licensing needs to be more than the one-license-fits-all-uses model, and I am happy to see a designer of your stature has similar opinions.

Right on James.

Good idea Sumner, thanks to share Tiffany (via FB).

I think this model of a licence by computer, as any software wasn't the best solution when started, as for any design project, illustration, photo follow each member of a team and stop to be used when the project is over. But the fonts are different and this always caused some trouble.

Despite that I like this idea, I'm not sure how its easy to follow because fonts are generally handled by the computer and stay on some font folder even when a project is over (not the case for images, illustration, etc.) Perhaps with new capacities of Mac OS who activate the necessary fonts when you open a document… will be more easy?

Typekit and others in fact use this method and make the all thing more easy for users. They paid a monthly fee for some uses, we as typeface designers, receive a fee based on uses and number of websites. All are happy and when our fonts stop to be used for a website, they don't stay on the computer of the designer of this website. So its really by project or by use. http://typekit.com/foundries/porchez-typofonderie

Clearly a different way than to sell "life" license to graphic designers.

Last but not least, I have recently updated my end user licence on same way as House Industries to take a common example requesting various things such logo use and I request now that my fonts be credited on the colophon (note that this last thing is in fact on French authors rights law…) http://www.typofonderie.com/alphabets/licence/

.

Despite that I like this idea, I'm not sure how its easy to follow because fonts are generally handled by the computer and stay on some font folder even when a project is over (not the case for images, illustration, etc.) Perhaps with new capacities of Mac OS who activate the necessary fonts when you open a document… will be more easy?

I do not consider ease to be especially important. In a this context fonts are a tool handled by professional designers. Professional designers are by definition an intelligent class of workers. Given some of the complex tasks designers handle I do not think it too much to expect them to sort the particulars of font licensing before finalizing a design. If a designer really finds dealing with case-by-case font licensing terribly challenging he probably needs to find a line of work that is not so intellectually trying. In larger design shops whomever signs off on production should have no more trouble dealing with font licenses than he would with stock photo licenses, paper choices, special ink mixes, web hosting, etc.. In short: yes this licensing is more complicated for designers but dealing with it is their job.

Hear, hear.

1. The @ symbol in Cycles is awesome, many designers I know want their @ to align like that.

2. Does this whole thing eventually bring back typesetting as a third party job?

3. Isn't it a graphic designer's job today to colour correct photographs, kern headlines and customize fonts for nameplates and titles?

"3. Isn't it a graphic designer's job today to colour correct photographs, kern headlines and customize fonts for nameplates and titles?"

I hope thats either sarcasm or a total lack of understanding of what graphic design is.

Martin

As a designer who works with a variety of clients (including some large corporations), I would not license a font with use-based licensing. Sometimes one project will be used in the future as the basis for another project, and I might not know up front that that will be the case. The second project may not come for months or years. I simply don't want to have to worry about accidentally using a font against the EULA, and I don't want my client to have the perception that I am nickel-and-diming them by raising my price to cover extra licensing when they already licensed a font once.

I usually license fonts for myself without charging the client (especially if it is a font I can use again). However, use-based licensing would mean I would have to charge the client since the font could only be used on that one project. My projects are not usually big enough to absorb an extra licensing fee.

If the client made a special request for a font I wouldn't turn them down, but I'd make sure they understood the licensing ramifications. Same with Rights Managed images. These days, I rarely recommend a rights managed image to a client, and if I do (or they request one) I make sure they understand exactly what that means. I've had some unpleasant conversations when a client asks to use an image in a second piece, and I have to remind them that they will need to pay to license the image again.

I do feel the same way about EULAs that forbid pdf embedding. I never know when a client will say, "Oh, yes, and please also make a pdf we can post on the web." or "We decided that we'll be putting that print ad in our email newsletter."

Obviously if I want to licence a particular typeface, I must accept whatever licensing model and conditions the vendor offers. That said, I can choose to avoid models that aren't convenient for me, and buy from someone else. And certainly, unless a client was demanding a certain typeface in a project (and I generally avoid clients who tell me how they want something designed), I would tend to avoid typefaces licences with the use-based model. Betty covers the salient issues well.

I think typeface designers who want to go to a use-based model should consider continuing to offer the standard "royalty-free" licence as well. I haven't seen any examples of pricing myself yet, but I would expect to pay less to licence a typeface to, for example, set one book, than I would for the "use it for anything, any time" licence. I prefer to pay more for the latter for its flexibility and ease of management.

If a designer really finds dealing with case-by-case font licensing terribly challenging he probably needs to find a line of work that is not so intellectually trying.

If they don't like case-by-case licensing, they just won't buy your fonts. No need for them to go find another line of work, unless and until case-by-case licensing becomes the norm.

Designers who can handle today's existing EULAs well may very well be able to deal with case-by-case licensing well, too. The already-existing and larger problem, IMO, is that most designers do not in fact deal with the differences in today's licenses very well. Most just pay the license fee and then do with the fonts whatever they think is covered by the license, or ought to be.

Therefore, I don't think this majority of today's users/buyers are going to both license and pay on a case-by-case basis. To me the question is, will they just license other fonts in the first place, or license and neglect to pay for future use?

Of course, if the licensors of *your* particular fonts are a specialized elite who "get" font licensing and have no problems with this stuff, then maybe it will work fine as a business model. But I don't expect this model to take over the font world in a hurry.

Cheers,

T

The already-existing and larger problem, IMO, is that most designers do not in fact deal with the differences in today's licenses very well.

I think that has a lot to do with today’s licenses mostly being simple variations on the same all-you-can-eat formula. There’s a great deal of language being recycled between different foundry licenses and they all look a lot alike. If font licenses start to vary more, and if the licenses are comprehensible, I think designers will adapt.

To me the question is, will they just license other fonts in the first place, or license and neglect to pay for future use?

Again, the stock photo industry has done pretty well even losing money here and there when someone neglects to pay for an image when it gets used the second time around. And if House can get the new web Photo-Lettering system to take off the users might not even get the fonts to begin with.

But I don't expect this model to take over the font world in a hurry.

Nor do I. But I think that it makes sense for novel designs that might not be commercially viable when sold under the existing model, but could turn a profit pretty quickly if sold at a higher price for use in high-end advertisements.

think that has a lot to do with today’s licenses mostly being simple variations on the same all-you-can-eat formula. There’s a great deal of language being recycled between different foundry licenses and they all look a lot alike.

I've had occasion to carefully read several dozen different font licenses in the recent past, and I disagree rather strongly.

If font licenses start to vary more, and if the licenses are comprehensible, I think designers will adapt.

Again, I disagree: the variance is half the problem, and not a solution.

However, if you are saying that the wording/language of the licenses is part of the problem, then I agree: that's the other half of the problem, IMO. But given that the purpose of the licenses is to be legal contracts, and that they are generally written by lawyers, I don't see that problem going away.

So, to sum up: the fact that licenses vary wildly is half the problem, and that the licenses are in legalese the average person can't understand is the other half of the problem.

Cheers,

T

I note in passing that the PDF Specimen Books must now be purchased.

"3. Isn't it a graphic designer's job today to colour correct photographs, kern headlines and customize fonts for nameplates and titles?"

I hope thats either sarcasm or a total lack of understanding of what graphic design is.

That was partially sarcastic of course, and this is obviously not what Graphic Design is about mainly.

I was wondering if Design studios are willing to take things as far as commissioning type designers more custom lettering and minor font customization based on the type designer's existing typefaces, or whether these will still be considered in-house operations.

How about paying licenses according to size used?
http://spiekermann.com/en/airtype/

I've been an independent graphic designer for 21 years and now I design typefaces too, but my experience has been the same as its_betty, above. I've never charged a client for a font purchase. I've absorbed it as a business cost and added the font(s) to my library. I have an open mind about this whole business model, but since just about all my clients are nonprofits I know they will balk at the idea of paying a license fee to use a font family. The average client does not realize that a piece looks good because of the fonts you chose, whereas it's easy for them to imagine what it would look like without that stock photo. I may be very particular about the fonts I use, but if the client thinks another font would do just as well I can't pass on the cost of using the font I select. So I fear that usage licensing will raise my overhead. It will definitely be easier for larger design firms to pass on these costs, just like they charge for copies, faxes, etc.

Juliet, you, and other designers in your situation are fortunate to have many good fonts available at relatively low cost. That is the reason you have been able to pursue your business as related to fonts in the way you have. This seems quite a good fit with your clients, evidently. I do not believe use-based licensing to be the solution for everyone. It is a niche and it diversifies my business. It is still possible to license very useful text and display fonts in the old manner from Stone Type Foundry. They cover a wide range of uses and include the recently released ITC Stone Sans II. There are therefore now three tiers of fonts in my library. 1) Those that have been licensed in the usual fashion and are licensed also for distribution by other foundries. 2) Those that have been licensed more recently but with a much narrower distribution than 1 and will only be licensed on the use-based model as of June 1, 2010. 3) Those that have never been licensed to anyone for anything. Cost and exclusivity go together. I simply want the fonts to earn their living.

"I simply want the fonts to earn their living."

A wish shared by all of us.

Chris

A really interesting idea, and certainly worth trying.

That said, however, I would not buy type licensed this way. I buy tools and use the tools - I don't rent them and pay per-use.

If I had to add the additional layer of deciding what, among the 400-some-odd families I own licenses to, could be used for which project ... I would simply not use that type, and move onto something that respected the purchaser and user - because I don't see that as exclusive of respecting the maker.

In fact, I'd just go ahead and delete any files I had that were that difficult to use, period, and I'd do the same in the office I manage. Too complicated, too much room for error. We've spent a lot of time making sure we never use any type we're not entitled to use; I can't add to that burden, unfortunately.

Like Juliet, I absorb the cost of type and spread it into my invoicing. I don't bill clients specifically for type - it wouldn't be ethical to do that if I were going on to use the type for other projects.

But Sumner should be congratulated for trying something new, and I'm certain there will be situations where this will make sense for clients and designers. Just because it doesn't work for me doesn't mean it won't work for some folks.

I want to thank all of you and especially Miss Tiffany for this discussion. Very useful from my point of view.
Sumner