The Case for a User-Friendly EULA

From Fontlab Wiki

Table of contents

1 Moving to www.EEULAA.org - see us there!!

1.1 I Hate EULAs
1.2 Suggestion #1: Consider allowing more output devices per license.
1.3 Suggestion #2: Permit server installation.
1.4 Suggestion #3: Laptops are computers too.
1.5 Suggestion #4: Allow us to burn the midnight oil at a different location.
1.6 Suggestion #5: Write EULAs for dummies.
1.7 Suggestion #6: Let us move on.
1.8 Suggestion #7: Grant us limited rights for service bureau usage.
1.9 Suggestion #8: Let there be embedding all around.
1.10 Changes Are Already in Motion.

[edit]

Moving to www.EEULAA.org - see us there!!

by Tiffany Wardle

This article first appeared in Interrobang 2, a 2004 publication from the Society of Typographic Aficionados (http://www.typesociety.org/). It is reproduced with their permission.

[edit]

I Hate EULAs

I believe in what they protect. But I hate the language in which they are written, and that each foundry from which I license type has a completely different set of licensing terms.

Type foundry EULAs: Who allows what? (Copyright SOTA 2004)

Whether acquired by electronic download or snail mail, each typeface typically comes with a document that spells out our rights of use. This document, better known as an End User License Agreement (EULA), is a legal contract that we have entered into by licensing a typeface. It is necessary not only to read the EULA, but also to understand it. This is easier said than done. Most EULAs are written in language more easily understood by lawyers. Granted, this is no excuse - it is our responsibility as users to understand the legal contracts that are attached to the typefaces we have licensed. Although it is easy to install and begin using a new typeface immediately, it's in our best interests to first ensure we are entitled to use it the way we intend to.

I am not a lawyer - I am a graphic designer. I use fonts in my work and for sheer enjoyment. I pay licensing fees, and I want to adhere to the terms of each unique EULA, but sometimes it is difficult. I humbly request more standardization in the agreements between type designers and distributors and their clients, the end users. I also ask that the language be simplified.

It might be easier to understand the legal issues associated with typeface licensing if we think of typefaces as font software. We are not purchasing a font, we are actually licensing the right to use software on a certain set of hardware. It is often stated (incorrectly) that we have purchased a typeface, but that's not the case. We don't own a typeface, and it's not ours to do with what we will. This is an understandable mistake that many people make. It's time that we come to terms with the fact that most of us do not realize what we have gotten ourselves into by licensing a typeface.

I'm on the side of the end user, and I have empathy for the type foundries. But while EULAs are necessary, do they have to be so confusing? It's safe to say that there are least 100 unique EULAs in existence. This doesn't even take into account extended multi-user licenses, enterprise-wide licenses, font embedding licenses, or streaming and web server licenses.

Each of the standard EULAs has different clauses prohibiting this while allowing that. While I realize that total standardization may not be possible, how about some basic commonality?

While I'm asking that foundries simplify their EULAs, I'll also point out that there are resources available on the internet that can assist end users in gaining a better understanding of typeface protection and usage. The American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) has developed the Design Business and Ethics series with a section devoted entirely to use of fonts. TypeRight proclaims itself an organization existing to promote typefaces as creative works and to advocate their legal protection as intellectual property. Monotype created Fontwise, a company that can help larger corporations maintain control over their licenses. The Fontwise site features a licensing guide with a useful faq and Eight Golden Rules about font licensing.

It's from these golden rules that I take inspiration. I have eight simple suggestions that could really help designers and other font licensees. My suggestions could effectively eliminate the need for many of the complicated sub-clauses used in EULAs and help to clarify the usage rights granted to the licensee.

[edit]

Suggestion #1: Consider allowing more output devices per license.

The offices in which most of us work, whether as a freelancer or an employee, generally have more than one output device. Most EULAs, however, only allow for one output device. This seems impractical. While a given typeface may only cost $40 US, to use it on multiple output devices, we'd have to license the typeface twice. Consider EULAs such as that of Emigre. They use the term device and leave the math up to the licensee. Their EULA allows for six devices. A studio with three CPUs can use the given font on three output devices.

[edit]

Suggestion #2: Permit server installation.

This suggestion follows the logic of the first. Most EULAs do allow for at least five cpus at a given location. Of these, only a few allow for either server or lan (Land Area Network) installation. Those EULAs that allow for more than one cpu should also allow for installation on a network. If we're allowed to install fonts on servers, we could more easily reduce the illegal copying of font software that would otherwise be available on multiple desktop devices.

[edit]

Suggestion #3: Laptops are computers too.

This suggestion is a little more confusing because it's really two requests in one. First, more foundries need to qualify laptops under the description of allowable cpus. The laptop computer is quickly becoming standard equipment, allowing for transport of work between home and office. For font licensees to be reasonably expected to follow the letter of the EULA law, laptops need to be factored into the equation.

Second, while there are some EULAs that do allow a laptop to be used as one of the licensed computers, most do not allow for travel or home use. If the licensee has not reached the limit of allowable cpus at the main site, foundries should consider granting the right to use the font on a home or laptop computer (for client work only, of course).

[edit]

Suggestion #4: Allow us to burn the midnight oil at a different location.

We understand that typefaces are actually font software. Some of the larger font software companies allow for use of the licensed software at home if the location is only used for a certain percentage of time. Isn't it reasonable then, that access to the software should be continuous? It should be made clear that the font software from the office isn't to be used for anything but the licensee'swork. If an end user wants to use a font from the office on personal projects, that end user would be required to obtain a personal license.

[edit]

Suggestion #5: Write EULAs for dummies.

Help us do the right thing by writing in a kinder, simpler language. Is it fair that the EULA should speak in a way that covers all bets? I understand that the use of legalese is necessary, to some degree, whenever a contract is being formed. But it should be constructed in a way that makes all terms absolutely clear to licensees. For example, including a simple chart with each EULA could quickly communicate basic allowed usage.

[edit]

Suggestion #6: Let us move on.

Allow us to transfer our licenses to another location. This could potentially generate more paperwork, but the extra effort might be well worth it. For example, Designer A at Studio B knows that typefaces are not free, but his boss doesn't believe in paying licensing fees. Why buy fonts? We have plenty already. Instead of stirring the pot, Designer A licenses type out of his own pocket, assuming that when he leaves Studio B, the type he licensed can go with him to his next job. The caveat? Many EULAs don't allow the transfer of a font license. Why shouldn't the typefaces follow the person who legitimately licensed them? True, there is no absolute guarantee that the fonts have been deleted from the first location. But in the spirit of healthy customer relations, a certain degree of trust must be endowed on the licensee. If someone is paying font licensing fees, give him the benefit of the doubt and let him do the right thing.

[edit]

Suggestion #7: Grant us limited rights for service bureau usage.

If service bureaus had to license every font used by their customers, they would have more licenses than most design studios have. With so many digital typefaces available from numerous sources, it's unreasonable to expect a service bureau to have everything a client might use.

Some foundries have taken steps in the right direction by offering greatly discounted pricing of their libraries to service bureaus. This could be taken a step further. If a service bureau is not using the fonts for its own projects, couldn't it be thought of as another form of output device for temporary use? Yes, I'm asking for another output device, in another location. And this is a perfect segue into my last suggestion.

[edit]

Suggestion #8: Let there be embedding all around.

The Portable Document File format (pdf) is the future of sharing documents. In fact, it's the present of sharing documents. A greater allowance for embedding in the pdf format could remove many, if not all, excuses for under-the-table copies of the fonts being made. I am not suggesting allowing wholesale embedding in eBooks or any other instance where additional rights management is needed. What I am suggesting is allowing embedding for simple document sharing, proofing, and service bureau use.

In casual discussion groups, the point has been made time and time again that one reason embedding is disallowed is that font data can be easily extracted. I have not personally attempted to extract embedded fonts from documents, so I don't know whether or not it is possible. But those in the know have stated that, even if we were to successfully extract a font, we still wouldn't have access to the kerning or spacing that comes with the original, legitimately licensed font. Using a typeface without spacing and kerning is similar to eating cake without frosting. We may have the basic letterforms, but we couldn't set a decent line of type to save ourselves.

Many foundries allow embedding, but only with incredibly restrictive clauses attached. Some allow for print and preview only for non-commercial and in-house only. This doesn't even allow for sending documents as proofs to clients. Further still, in some instances we need prior or written consent to embed. In fact, of all the EULAs we read, only one specifically allowed pdf embedding for service bureau use. Kudos to Emigre for such progressive thinking.

[edit]

Changes Are Already in Motion.

While researching EULAs, my colleague Nathan Matteson and I created the chart (see Who Allows What? on pg. 8) that accompanies this article. I sent the chart to the included foundries in hopes that they would correct and clarify their EULAs for us. Several foundries quickly responded, saying they were about to change their EULAs, and asked that their revised terms be included on the chart. Whether my communication brought the issue to their attention or it was already on their radar, it's clear that foundries are interested in improving their EULAs.

I recommend that all type users read a foundry EULA before licensing type. Make sure the terms of the EULA are clear and understood - don'tbe afraid to ask questions. Foundries could create fonts that have all kinds of copy protection attached. Instead, they trust us to follow the terms of the EULA, and we are legally and ethically obligated to do so. Without this trust, the agreements can only become more complicated. Let us work together for a kinder, gentler EULA.

Tiffany Wardle, a graduate of the typography program at the University of Reading, is a graphic designer and educator living near Salt Lake City. The dedicated virtual librarian at Typophile.com, Wardle always pays her font licensing fees, and reads every EULA she can get her hands on.

Retrieved from "http://fontlab.wikidev.net/The_Case_for_a_User-Friendly_EULA"

The Case for a User-Friendly EULA

From Fontlab Wiki

Moving to www.EEULAA.org - see us there!!

I Hate EULAs

Suggestion #1: Consider allowing more output devices per license.

Suggestion #2: Permit server installation.

Suggestion #3: Laptops are computers too.

Suggestion #4: Allow us to burn the midnight oil at a different location.

Suggestion #5: Write EULAs for dummies.

Suggestion #6: Let us move on.

Suggestion #7: Grant us limited rights for service bureau usage.

Suggestion #8: Let there be embedding all around.

Changes Are Already in Motion.

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox