7 comments

  • Marc Olivier LapierreMarc Olivier Lapierre, 3 years ago

    When confronted with the fact that their use of the pirated font for profit was akin to someone using a pirated song for profit, they responded by saying that the comparison was a stretch–that a music artist would be a known entity with a level of general exposure, whereas a font could be assumed to be free.

    Incredible. I wish I knew who said that so I can make sure I never give them money.

    7 points
  • Matthew StrömMatthew Ström, 3 years ago

    Here’s the thing–fonts just don’t get the respect they deserve, despite being one of the oldest forms of intellectual property.

    Nailed it. More conversation on this will hopefully lead to more awareness of font licensing, and better models that discourage piracy.

    7 points
  • Kyle DeckerKyle Decker, 3 years ago

    Ironic that this massive banner appears immediately after an article bemoaning that someone thought their font was free:

    Free Fonts & Graphics!

    7 points
  • Tareq IsmailTareq Ismail, 3 years ago

    "they responded by saying that the comparison was a stretch–that a music artist would be a known entity with a level of general exposure, whereas a font could be assumed to be free."

    That was hard to read. So sad that people see Fonts like that nowadays. It's such a beautiful art form.

    3 points
  • Dan Amyot, 3 years ago

    I am in 100% agreement with the article, fonts should be properly licensed and paid for. Period.

    Although I do feel like this situation came about because of how confusing font licenses can be. You have to read a long document written in "legalese" which can be very hard to understand. Sometimes I have a seemingly simple question about the license but cant see anything in the license that sounds remotely like my question. Is it ok because it wasn't mentioned? or is it not ok because it wasn't mentioned? Where can I learn about how to read/understand a font license better?

    I know I've seen some vendors try and distill these licenses down to easily understandable points and I greatly appreciate that, it should be more common to avoid these kinds of problems. I'm not saying these complete licenses should go away, but that there should also be a simpler version that's easier to understand for a lay-person.

    2 points
    • Peter Nellius, 3 years ago

      I couldn't agree more. Font foundries deserve to get paid for their work, but these licenses are all cryptic. A nice readme file bundled with the font could go a long way with clearing up usage questions. It seems a bit unreasonable that the average user of a font should be expected to have legal expertise when it comes to fair usage.

      1 point