My take on licenses is that I only buy fonts which licenses aren't stuck in the 1980's. But on the other hand I'm using those for my own stuff sometimes. I'm not sure if this helps or not.

If the font is used in a game for a gaming console you don't need to fear that someone cracks the code and pulls out the font for desktop use. Even on a Mac or Windows game the fonts are usually put in hard to convert formats that render the font unusable for desktop use.

In a font license the part of the font embedding would affect you I think. That quite fits what you do, embed the whole font in a product that uses it, but the font can't be pulled out of it again.

It's hard to guess, as a lot of foundries are still fast asleep when it comes to solutions for modern media.

FJ

The OpenType definition of embedding purely relates to embedding fonts in digital documents. I don�t think the 3D object could be described as a document, but maybe it could is the object real or digital? The license could of course talk about embedding and define it in a different way but this would confuse the user.

I think this does boil down to the TM and the EULA. If the EULA isn�t clear on this, and few would be, I�d contact the vendor for their opinion. As for using the name, if the designer is claiming trademark in the name you need to get permission and attribute the TM. If the name could be considered generic, say Garamond or Caslon, I think you�re safe to use it. If it�s a newer font I�d go down the permissions route too, and the designer could always TM the name later, and that would cause a problem for your product.

Cheers, Si

I think you could consider it embedding if a rather common technique is used where a font file is embedded into the application. The 3D engine then either renders it in 2D as a texture or creates geometry from its outlines in (semi)real-time.

I agree with Si that a custom license would be the safest way in any case. Not necessarily the more costly even.

FJ

v, it might be helpful if you could clarify what you mean by "three-dimensional product."

When I first read it, I assumed you meant something like letters cast in metal. In other words, physical objects, like House Industries' Neutraface house numbers.

When Frank started talking about 3d digital rendering in some sort of software product, I realized that that could well be what you mean.

Either interpretation seems possible from your description, but they are entirely different things when it comes to licensing issues.

Sorry...3D = physical object. Something you put in your hands.

We did make a fast decision to push this into the prototype phase and when it's produced we will get legal and financial teams to work on it - it gets killed here that's what happens.

Even if it ends up simply being an in-house thing it's something we want.

I forgot to mention...

Thanks alot for the feedback on this. Much appreciated.

;)