Oh, forgot this link

http://www.fontmonster.org/project_management/public/master.asp

see who else is already involved.

Jim

the 'cut and paste' generation?

It's a Max Kisman quote.

I have been burned by this sort of project before.

People are asked to invest time and effort in submitting material to a book. In essence, it's a competition, with free content for the publishers. It's spec work, which is unprofessional, and a no-no for AIGA, GDC members.

It's great for the celebrity designers who provide the "keystone" for this commercial venture, they are guaranteed free advertising. But for the rejects, well, we're just no-talent suckers, aren't we?

IndieFonts does it right.

In what way does indie fonts do it right?

You do know that all the foundries involved in Indie Fonts, had to pay for the space?

Firstly I think Indie Fonts is great, and it is working well for us. But foundries don't get a cut of the revenue, they get 100 books, which they can sell to get back the money spent on being in the book. I don't have the figures in front of me but I think it cost us about $2000 (including the postage to get them to the UK).

While this was a deal I am happy with, others may not have the money to do this.

Would it be better to charge designers to be in the fontmonster book and self publish?

The fontmonster book is aimed at young designers, it will be published by Booth Clibborn Editions, a very well respected design publisher, and is aiming to be a Typography Now for a new generation.

I understand that people may not get the difference between this and a clip art book, really its just the quality of the stuff in the book, and the way in which it is promoted by the publisher.

I also understand that people may not want to be in the book.

I'm trying to find a polite way of saying this, but it's not coming out that way. I really don't understand the difference between this and a clip art book. Presentation? There are lots of ways clip art is being proffered these days. One more iteration won't make it any more respectable to me. The people who create the content get recognition, nothing else. The purchasers are rewarded, once again, for avoiding pay-per-use. Is it any wonder illustration as a way of life is nearly dead?

I'm truly curious, not being mean about this point: The editors get... what? An advance against royalties for putting it together? Royalties after a certain number of sales? Or only recognition? If its only recognition, then only the publisher will profit by the contributions, which is bad enough. Booth Clibborn isn't publishing it for "recognition" I suspect.

I'm sure some young and inexperienced type designers and illustrators will find recognition an appealing prospect. But I've learned that recognition for giving away something for free leads to recogntion as an easy touch. You attract what you encourage.

It's not something I want to do anymore. I'm only posting my position on giveaways as a bit of discouragement to any young designers who think lots of experienced ones are rushing to this opportunity. I'm not. I think reinforcing the idea of pay-per-use is the only way to turn the tide and get respect for the work we do as illustrators and type designers.

That said, I'm turning 40 and am WAY less concerned about all these issues. There is a whole range of work out there for every audience. My audience is the one with money to spend. To each his/her own. Publish away!

Joe

Thanks for your support, Anon.

Indie Fonts "does it right" because, as Stephen points out, it involves a "fair trade". Contributors get what they pay for. They prepare the artwork (some of it to template), and it gets printed. It is, in effect, a book of advertisements.

Another acceptable model for a type book that covers a variety of foundries is Allan Haley's "Cool Fonts...", published by Rockport. This is a proper book, because it has a writer who chose the content, and a designer who gave it a consistent look.

Too bad if you can't afford to be in Indie Fonts, and Allan didn't pick you for his book. (That's me on both counts.) But that's no reason to create spec work.

Booth Clibborn should know better than to exploit "young" designers for the "young" design market. That doesn't make it OK. And the design "names" involved should know better than to take advantage of this kind of set-up. The paradigm is reinforced -- put up with the crap when you're starting out, and reap the benefits later. But only a few do -- there has to be a better way.

>Now there's nothing wrong with freeware, but the people who go out to buy a book full of freeware are not very likely to be the same people that are going to help you build your career.

I'm sorry but this is my point, even if expressed by an "Anonymous".
Putting myself in the shoes of a very young potential buyer I feel an abyss between what Typography Now represented and what a book like the one Jim's working on could do.

I'm the first to say Max Kisman has never received the credit he deserve while other people have received far more credit than they deserve, but I cannot help but share most of what Joe VanDerBos (hey Joe!) and Nick have said.

For me it's not something simply centered around trade ethics. You need flexibility as long as you care about not breaking anything apart. What I dislike about such things is the mixture of things without anything to share.
This sort of thing buries your own work under the work of any other, it's mutual, and in the end makes ANY given work anonymous.
While I think (in a timeline) often is not so important WHO does a specific thing as long as someone does it, I want also *criteria* in what I buy. What I usually try do do is exactly the opposite of a book of this kind.
No editorial direction at all, nothing left for history.

Sorry, it's not aimed to anyone in particular, but to Max I can just say this kind of idea maybe gives you some exposure, but will never work any good in the long term. It will work good just for design leeches ready to copy your clipart to their hard drive and produce endless meaningless mimic acts. OK for f***ing italian "designers" which pirate all day and are worried just to cash and not at all by what they do.

Fontmonster has been giving free fonts away since 1998. Fontmonster.org is an outlet for the designers who give away fonts there. The designers in fontmonster have gained exposure and made connections through the site.

We have done a free font project with Max, Erik Spiekermann, Jorge Alderete, Malcolm Garret and Designer Shock, and has acted as a stage for unknown designers to be seen by the design community (and developed in to other collaborations)

If fontmonster had not been online a lot of fonts would not have been published, used etc and I think that would be a waste. I know that at least one of the designers to do free fonts on fm got a job because of it.

For me the book is a development of that idea, its an outlet for designers to produce creative work...

I'm not against a book like this. I'm intrigued by ideas of 'open source' visual design. I think a designer could have fun with a book like this.

What I didn't like is the 'pitch' claiming that by contributing to this project a designer will actually benefit from exposure. There is nothing to be gained from the contributor other than having a bit of fun. And that's fine. Don't try to sell it as more than that, though.

Also, having to sign away all rights to work that will be simply used by the publisher (and subsequently 'maybe' used in the book and, if so, then given away) is simply spec work. And that's bad. Granted, I'm not really sure if this is different than any 'invitational submissions' Rockport book or some such thing.

Darrel, I get where your coming from on the brief, and I agree it's a bit hardsell.

The contract is actually with fontmonster, a not for profit organisation run by a collection of designers, so no big bad publisher can take the stuff and mess people about, the editoral board control the content up to the release of the book, and it will only be used in the book.

The book aint a big money making scam, if it did make money that profit would be split between the publisher who has risked money on the venture and fontmonster, which like I say is a not for profit organisation and I guess we'd use it to keep fm online (hosting costs etc) or self publishing a second book. But even the most generous estimates put the profits at $2000 - $3000 if it makes a any money at all.

A few thoughts:

If my work is so good big clients and publishers alike line up at my door,
why should I care about a book with free clip-art design?

If my work is so mediocre I feel threatened by the publication
of a free clip-art design book, shouldn't I worry about more important stuff?

What is the difference between clip-art and stock photography
or illustration? the price? or the decisions we, as designers, make in order to
choose the images that are right for the project?

If I need a high-quality, versatile, extended typeface family for a big corporate
identity project, I know where to look for it. If I need a fresh, insolent,
rebellious typeface for a guerrilla marketing project, I might not look for it
at the same place.

Given that all the details are in the open, aren't we all adults enough
to decide wether we want to participate or not in any project?

The fact that my work is offered copyright-free in this book, or copyrighted
in the latest AIGA annual, is not going to deter students, serious designers,
amateurs or pirates from copying it, draw inspiration from it, ripping it off,
referencing it, abusing it or, simply, laughing at it.

>If my work...

It's not about my work. It's about social justice. I don't like to see people exploited, particularly in my profession. Therefore I oppose spec work of all kinds.

"This is a great new idea
for the cut and paste generation that has sprung from the digital snowball that occurred during the
1990

I don't see how Indie Fonts relates to this project. IF is a
specimen book of fonts for retail sale. Nothing else. Those
who submit were given very specific guidelines to make
the book a font specing tool for graphic designers. In
return, the foundries are given a print venue for their fonts.
It's a very fair trade and worked well on both volumes.

I'm unsure how you intend your book to be used, Jim. Is it
a tool, sourcebook for inspiration, coffee table book?

When I read the discussion, I realize that so many of the 'moral' values have changed in the last decades since I have been a professional designer. I was shocked that the photocopy machine made it much easier than the reproduction camera to reproduce line art work and type. At that time you could easily copy any typeface from any type specimen book for a headline. No problem for the inventive designer. The introduction of the desktop computer made the darkroom obsolete. And not only the darkroom, the type setter as well. And designers thought it was great to put hard working people out of business.

Or what? Computers then made designers obsolete, because everybody can be a designer. And why not? So you're on you own and nobody will help you. It's do or die. Some will be lucky (who would have set up a reasonable business) and some are screwed (who would think they were artists). Some survived and some barely make it. The thing is: it's all around. In music, In art, in business, in science, in politics. in advertising. You're not alone!

If you think you're so great, well, get your act together, and eithter fight it all or sew everybody, be happy and retire. Or, be just ahead of it. ALL THE TIME. If you are such a champ you claim or think you are, you should know better, and deal with it accordingly, rather than whine.

This book will come and go and will mean nothing more than any other great book as a sign of the times when we look back to it. And, Typography Now made a lot of things happen.

To be honestly, under the (and my personal) current circumstances, I am happy with any exposure I can get. In Indie Fonts as well as the Fontmonster book, or an article in the Argentinean Tipografica magazine or the Brasilian Tupografia. In spite of my reputation or career. But I might have different expectations or even a different strategy then others of what I think I can get out of it.

There are no ethics, but there are... A changing world demands adjustments and flexibility. I think it's so great that younger designers then me, worry about stuff their generation made me realize that the evolution in this profession won't stop with yourself. All is relative.