6 ms·

I don't get the outrage here. Basically, this Web design company used a proprietary font to make a website for a client, that they then included as a self-host

I don't get the outrage here. Basically, this Web design company used a proprietary font to make a website for a client, that they then included as a self-hosted font file for the website that they deployed. They only had access to this font through their Creative Cloud SaaS license, which almost certainly doesn't let them take the proprietary IP they have access to and resell it in a package to anyone that pays them. I don't think it's unreasonable of the owner of the IP to ensure that their IP doesn't effectively become freeware just because they signed a bulk license with Adobe. It would be like, because you licensed your song to Spotify for a per-play fee, that would mean anyone can rip it from Spotify and use it in an ad without a license? It also doesn't seem onerous for the web designers to ask their clients to buy a copy of the font that they specified. I've had to do that for websites before.

ceejayoz 3y ago
OP states "We have used the font Proxima Nova on a website for our client using the Adobe Web Project method." This method is not self-hosting. If I go click the "add to web project" button, it gives me a `<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://use.typekit.net/foobar.css https://use.typekit.net/foobar.css">` embed to use.
- MattyMc 3y ago
  Wow, OP is on fire. Sounds like another lawsuit could be coming their way.
skhr0680 3y ago
Typefaces aren’t meant to be IP in most countries. So to me, companies rent-seeking on fonts is gross
- mminer237 3y ago
  Typefaces ≠ fonts This is evidenced by the fact that no one seems willing to clone popular typefaces because making a font is a lot of work even if you have a guide.
  - skhr0680 3y ago
    > Typefaces ≠ fonts I always get angry about "x but on a computer" patents, and the "typefaces ... but on a computer" court case lights a similar fire in my belly. > This is evidenced by the fact that no one seems willing to clone popular typefaces because making a font is a lot of work even if you have a guide. The 1,000,000 Helvetica clones out there disagree with this statement
    - mminer237 3y ago
      Unlike a patent, a copyright only protects a specific expression. There's nothing stopping you from using said typeface on a computer. If it's so easy to clone, why not just clone Proxima Nova and be in the clear? What exactly is copyright law stopping people from doing? It's literally only protecting their work in the font. If they did a lot of work, you can't call selling it "rent-seeking" and surely it's worth protecting and incentivizing. If they did little work, then little is protected. Anybody can use it by doing an even smaller amount of work.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  What? These things take ludicrous amounts of time to produce, on top of several years of experience to gain the baseline skills required to make a typeface that's even remotely palatable. We absolutely should preserve commercial incentive for people to make IP of such importance (both functionally and artistically).
  - pseg134 3y ago
    Give me a break, we are talking about fonts here. If there was never another font created 99.9% of the world wouldn’t notice or care.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Exactly, this is why every typeface you see in the world is a free one. /s Nothing is stopping people from making nor using free fonts and yet many people and organizations freely choose to spend thousands of dollars on something that they perceive to be "better."
  - anthonyskipper 3y ago
    If we made it illegal to charge money for, we would have just as many good fonts as we do now. We should just change the law to outlaw making money this way.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      What? Why would someone spend decades of their lives mastering a craft like typeface design if there were no way to make money from it? How could someone justify it?
      - anthonyskipper 3y ago
        That is like asking how could linux exist. Use your brain and imagine. We would likely have many more great fonts than we do today if you outlawed charging for them because people would no long have a protectionist mindset. It would be easy for people to modify existing ones so they worked better for various issues, and it wouldn't stop people creating beautiful new ones for whatever reason they wanted like art... or like linux. Sometimes the world works better without capitalism though that might be hard to believe.

ceejayoz 3y ago

OP states "We have used the font Proxima Nova on a website for our client using the Adobe Web Project method." This method is not self-hosting. If I go click the "add to web project" button, it gives me a `<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://use.typekit.net/foobar.css https://use.typekit.net/foobar.css">` embed to use.

MattyMc 3y ago
Wow, OP is on fire. Sounds like another lawsuit could be coming their way.

skhr0680 3y ago

Typefaces aren’t meant to be IP in most countries. So to me, companies rent-seeking on fonts is gross

mminer237 3y ago
Typefaces ≠ fonts This is evidenced by the fact that no one seems willing to clone popular typefaces because making a font is a lot of work even if you have a guide.
- skhr0680 3y ago
  > Typefaces ≠ fonts I always get angry about "x but on a computer" patents, and the "typefaces ... but on a computer" court case lights a similar fire in my belly. > This is evidenced by the fact that no one seems willing to clone popular typefaces because making a font is a lot of work even if you have a guide. The 1,000,000 Helvetica clones out there disagree with this statement
  - mminer237 3y ago
    Unlike a patent, a copyright only protects a specific expression. There's nothing stopping you from using said typeface on a computer. If it's so easy to clone, why not just clone Proxima Nova and be in the clear? What exactly is copyright law stopping people from doing? It's literally only protecting their work in the font. If they did a lot of work, you can't call selling it "rent-seeking" and surely it's worth protecting and incentivizing. If they did little work, then little is protected. Anybody can use it by doing an even smaller amount of work.
ethanbond 3y ago
What? These things take ludicrous amounts of time to produce, on top of several years of experience to gain the baseline skills required to make a typeface that's even remotely palatable. We absolutely should preserve commercial incentive for people to make IP of such importance (both functionally and artistically).
- pseg134 3y ago
  Give me a break, we are talking about fonts here. If there was never another font created 99.9% of the world wouldn’t notice or care.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Exactly, this is why every typeface you see in the world is a free one. /s Nothing is stopping people from making nor using free fonts and yet many people and organizations freely choose to spend thousands of dollars on something that they perceive to be "better."
- anthonyskipper 3y ago
  If we made it illegal to charge money for, we would have just as many good fonts as we do now. We should just change the law to outlaw making money this way.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    What? Why would someone spend decades of their lives mastering a craft like typeface design if there were no way to make money from it? How could someone justify it?
    - anthonyskipper 3y ago
      That is like asking how could linux exist. Use your brain and imagine. We would likely have many more great fonts than we do today if you outlawed charging for them because people would no long have a protectionist mindset. It would be easy for people to modify existing ones so they worked better for various issues, and it wouldn't stop people creating beautiful new ones for whatever reason they wanted like art... or like linux. Sometimes the world works better without capitalism though that might be hard to believe.