Yes that would require a special font license/commercial license as it states.

The Bembo EULA would allow you to use the font without any further arrangements.

The Red Rooster EULA is much more restricted. If you find it too restrictive, you might shop for a similar font:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/cooper/light/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/nicksfonts/packard-patrician-nf/regular/
or even:
https://www.fontfont.com/fonts/oneleigh/regular

Bembo

2.License Grant. You are hereby granted a non-exclusive, non-assignable, non-transferable (except as expressly permitted herein) license to access the Font Software (i) only in a Licensed Unit, (ii) only for your Personal or Internal Business Use, and (iii) only subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

«Internal Business Use» means, as far as I know, that you don’t provide access to the fonts to any other party. If you design a product label and deliver the printed labels to your client, the fonts themselves are only used internally by you, so you should be OK with this licence.

I think with the Red Rooster licence you would also be in the clear because it permits «Examples of non-commercial, not-for-profit permitted usage include PDF documents supplied to Service Bureaus, printers» which would be what you do.

For Bembo, internal business use "shall not mean any distribution whatsoever of the Font Software or any component or Derivative Work thereof". I would interpret that as they're saying you can't distribute the software itself, which seems logical.

I interpreted that as one can use the font(s) for whatever business use they'd like (invoices, graphics, etc) but not for commercial use.

Annabel, it's great that you're worrying about this. But there's no way Adobe would mind you using one of their fonts in any way at all as long as the font itself doesn't get redistributed. Adobe is even in the refreshing minority of foundries that allows modification of their fonts.

If Red Rooster is restrictive, fugetaboutit (and tell them you did, so they straighten up).

hhp

If folks in a typography forum can't agree what they mean, how could the foundries expect average users to understand?

But how would the lawyers make a living relishing their propensity for sophistic argumentation without Ambiguity?

hhp

Well, the Bembo EULA makes no mention of end products, only the software, and it is hard to imagine they intend to say that a document one prints with that font can only be read within the company. For further certainty, you could buy Bembo from Adobe. They say:
"14.7.1 You may use the font software with the Software on Computers as described in Section 2 and output the font software to any output device(s) connected to such Computer(s)." They certainly place no restrictions on how you use the printed product.

Red Rooster, however, states:
"A Special Font License is also required for...commercial merchandising and goods for sale, (such as clothing apparel and accessories), physical goods, unique branding situations, and any and all other unique or new applications or future technologies."

Given that Red Rooster asked about revenue from your client, I think it's safe to say they intend their EULA to be restrictive.

-Chris
The Monotype EULA (for Bembo), says

You may embed static graphic images into an electronic document, including a Commercial Product, (for example, a “gif”) with a representation of a typeface and typographic design or ornament created with the Font Software as long as such images are not used as a replacement for Font Software.

This wouldn't make sense if they were also saying that you couldn't use the font for anything that constituted commercial use. They'd be contradicting themselves.

BTW if you buy a font from Adobe you [only] need to abide by their EULA, not the EULA of origin.

hhp

Jeez, Hrant—

When you nail it, you nail it. Mathematicians seldom if ever, go to court…

Creative professionals license/buy fonts. Creative professionals use those fonts to make things, such as labels. EULAs typically don't mention this use, probably because it's understood that this is what fonts are for.

However, I agree font licenses are generally badly written, and many of the confusing clauses in these licenses are intended to limit the redistribution of the font file itself and not its day to day use to make things like labels.

Si—

You are so right; God forbid that we, as a community, get together and come up with a single, commonsensical EULA that even Ryan could understand…

Thanks for all of the replies everyone, I really appreciate the discussion.

It's refreshing to see it's not just the 'average user' that gets confused by the ambiguities and lines of words in EULAs.

Having said that, I still feel none the wiser as to what to do !

I did think Red Rooster looked quite restrictive, and wasn't something I wanted to get into as my first step into licensing a font (Thanks to John Nolan for suggesting alternatives to Packard).

I'm going to try contacting the Bembo creators again - I'd really like their say-so that it's ok to use for my purpose.

Thanks again everyone

They're dead. :-)

hhp

You know what I mean !