Letter Head Fonts

[Lynn Normington]

This dosn’t seem fair Jason I agree with you, we often buy font’s from letterheads, perhaps we will have a re-think on this, don’ t want to be paying off someones bad debt 🙄 like you say it’s unlikely that the 32 would have paid for them anyhow.

Lynn

[Jason Xuereb]

Hey Lynn,

I’m not going to boycott buying fonts from them. I like their fonts but I think its a really childish approach at dealing with software piracy.

When I loose $1000 in lost revenue it generally equates to a fair portion of that in materials to do the job. It hits the pocket but that’s apart of business. They can say that they spend money on marketing, the website etc etc but all businesses do. Acquiring customers is never free. Punishing your existing paying customers isn’t going to do them any favors.

[David Rowland]

hm.. i haven’t read their license agreement nor have I either ‘acquired’ a font from them or ‘know’ I actually have any of their fonts on my computers.

When you get around 2000 fonts on your computers, you have no idea where they come from.

However the old Artwork industry used to operate by getting the Font on the designer computer and then do the artwork and then send to a printer the file with fonts/TIFs attached so they could open it exactly the same. Now we have PDF’s and PS that we send to the print industry, but we still receive files from clients with fonts missing and ask for the font. So where do we stand or my client stands is suddenly a font gets used for something else (as we forget to delete the font at the end of the job).

I dont have a problem naming and shaming them and recouping somehow, I am just glad it isn’t that much more expensive and out of reach like some font companies are.

[Steve Underhill]

As far as Im concerned, that Randy guy bought the font, illegally distributed it and now should pay the price on his own,
They should take him to their version of a small claims court and recoup the $944 from his side, not innocent people who may need that font now find it costs an extra $10 until its paid off.
That is pathetic in the extreme, I didnt steal it… why should I pay for it.
Also the issue of only being able to use them on one PC, If I pay for a font, (an expensive one at that) as long as I dont distribute it or pass it on I should be able to transfer it from PC to PC, as how am I meant to be able to take a PC everywhere like from home to office and if its on a laptop etc?
The font makers need to look at their policies.

[Angelique Muller]

Are they maybe just trying to make a clear statement that they don’t like to be messed with? Sending out a reminder to everyone that when you buy a font you sign a license agreement that they take very serious!??!? 😮 😮

[Steve Underhill]

They seem to be but its the wrong way of going about it, thats like me getting ripped off last year on some T shirts and hoodies that didnt get paid for at £167, then saying to my customers sorry all T shirts now cost £17 just until I have recouped the money then they go back to £15
Its a childish and unworkable approach as it will alienate customers, and just serve to send them to sign dna or other quality places.
I wrote them an email, Ill post it if they reply to it.

[James Martin]

It would be nice to work with letterhead fonts.

Half my customers think ariel is great.

bless them! 😮

[Shane Drew]

Duncan may comment, he is a member here of course.

I don’t have an issue with them being upset, I hate the piracy of fonts. That said, I’ve been guilty of handing over a font to an advertising agency in the past, because they didn’t have the font I used. I don’t do it anymore, once I thought it thru. I think the error is with the person that uploaded it to the web though. Not too many scruples in the whole affair I’m afraid.

Also, I think we’ve all been guilty of thinking that the font is public domain, when its not. Now, if someone requestes a font, I’ll google it first. If it does not show up, then it could be a pirate version, or public domain.

An advertising agency sent me artwork today, and told me the font name so I can buy it from My fonts myself. I charge the client the $35 anyway, so at least it is all legal, and I end up with the font too.

Duncan has every right to be p’d off frankly. We all complain about people stealing our own artwork and designs, and don’t think twice about passing out someones fonts that are not public domain.

That said, I no longer buy Letterhead fonts. I don’t like the way they do business, and that’s that.

I buy all my stuff from My Fonts now, and a few others that are well known here.

My fonts also have a 5 user license for a lot of the fonts, and as I have 5 computers, I have no problems with my conscience loading them on each machine.

I think Rob should have a policy here that fonts can not be exchanged. We could supply an ai or eps without a problem, and most do, but the wholesale posting of fonts is, I feel, a no no.

I’ve seen fonts loaded here that are under $au20 ea to buy. Then you see it get download umpteen times. If you can’t afford an investment under $au20 to be ‘legal’ I’d question if you are in the right business in the first place.

Granted, some are stupid prices, over $600 for one I had to price the other day, I just tell my client, pay the $600 or I can find something similar in the public domain. Amazing how the decide the exact font is not that important 😉

Rant over

[Harry Cleary]

While I agree with Shane about the morals of consciously stealing others work……I think the point here is …..who Letterheads are choosing to penalize.
Quite simply, until Microsoft, the music biz, (and everyone else involved in selling and profiting from copyrighted intellectual, artistic and design content on the web) put some real money into research and development then this practice will continue. And maybe, just maybe it isn’t possible to police and like Radiohead these companies will have to depend on the morals of people like you Shane to make their profits. We are in a whole new era and the rules aren’t the same anymore. If that doesn’t suit, then they will have to find another way to sell their creations.
You cannot penalize others for the crimes of a few. That’s just bad business.

BTW how many brushies have paid for the fonts that they have stored in their heads 😀 😀

[Shane Drew]

quote Harry Cleary:

While I agree with Shane about the morals of consciously stealing others work……I think the point here is …..who Letterheads are choosing to penalize.
Quite simply, until Microsoft, the music biz, (and everyone else involved in selling and profiting from copyrighted intellectual, artistic and design content on the web) put some real money into research and development then this practice will continue. And maybe, just maybe it isn’t possible to police and like Radiohead these companies will have to depend on the morals of people like you Shane to make their profits. We are in a whole new era and the rules aren’t the same anymore. If that doesn’t suit, then they will have to find another way to sell their creations.
You cannot penalize others for the crimes of a few. That’s just bad business.

BTW how many brushies have paid for the fonts that they have stored in their heads 😀 😀

Thats my point Harry. My Fonts, Sign DNA are changing the way they do business. Multi user licenses are one way around the idea.

And like me, if you don’t like they way anyone does business, vote with your feet. Letterheads are not the only font supplier out there.

I changed from them ages ago, when they decided to enact the policy that the font did not stay on your computer. They may have changed that now, but I have no reason to go back. My Fonts, Font Bros and Sign DNA do me fine at the moment.

I smile at you comment that rules aren’t the same anymore :lol1: Theft has a new definition then? :lol1:

Seriously though, I’m not saying I’m perfect, far from it (just ask the wife!) but I am saying that these font creators have a right to make a living, just as we do. I see no crime in the designer expecting reimbursement if we, the user, see a need to use his/her designs.

In this instance, as usual, Letterheads take the bully approach, it is their right I guess, but I don’t have to buy from them, so they have, as a direct result of their poor (my view) business approach, lost my future business.

If a few others had the same view, then they would be forced to rethink their business plan, or live with the consequences.

In terms of morals, I hope I’m not the only one that tries to ‘do the right thing’. I’m sure we all rely of customers with morality, to make a living… don’t we? 😛 I am, at the end of the day, a customer too?

[Steve Underhill]

quote :

In this instance, as usual, Letterheads take the bully approach, it is their right I guess, but I don’t have to buy from them, so they have, as a direct result of their poor (my view) business approach, lost my future business.

Exactly what I said to them in my email.
I said its like Adobe or Corel charging a million pounds for a copy of draw or photoshop, just because there’s millions of illegal copies out there,

[Harry Cleary]

quote Shane Drew:

I smile at you comment that rules aren’t the same anymore :lol1: Theft has a new definition then? :lol1:

[/quote]

Yes, Shane the definition changes all the time in the ‘real’ world, just look at the depositions in our tribunals here!! One man’s definition is different to another………I think the Radiohead experiment was really interesting with regard to the topic.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/digitalworld/a … ead_e.html

[Shane Drew]

This message on Letterheads fonts should also ring some bells for members here;

I have witnessed someone sharing Letterhead Fonts. What can I do?
Please contact us immediately. We appreciate and reward those who help us with cases of piracy. Your help allows us to continue our craft. You do not have to give your name or any personal information.

Easy for someone to point to UKSB’s. I’ve seen Sarah Font distributed here in the past, until it was removed by the mods.

Being caught would open a can of worms for Rob that I’m sure he could do without.

[Shane Drew]

Harry, because they ‘got away with it’ and got some music for free, it somehow makes it right? Radiohead potentially lost 1.2million sales, but thats OK because the made a handsome profit anyway?

On that thinking, they estimate in Australia that 20% of drink drivers never get caught. On the radiohead experience, the government should be reconsidering DUI as a ‘crime’ then.

The way I see it, its the law until the law is changed.

Piracy is theft, as of today. When they decide that Piracy is legal, heaven help us all… 😮 It will not be long after that when I suspect we’ll be owned by the chinese…

[Harry Cleary]

All I am saying is…..you have to leave morals out of the solution to this…..just wont work….if its profit you are after.
Radiohead ‘potentially’ lost 1.2million but they did make profit…..and if you come sideways to this maybe the immoral thing is to be making 1.2million profit!
Prehaps the internet is a communist conspiracy!!! 😀 😀

[Andrew Boyle]

I agree…………adobe piracy created amazing returns for them due to awareness….in all sectors [55% creative].

I’m sure a lot of people have bought sarah script due to awareness………I may be wrong 😀

Who is Sarah….Is she pretty and normal 🙂

[Rod Young]

quote Shane Drew:

I don’t have an issue with them being upset, I hate the piracy of fonts. That said, I’ve been guilty of handing over a font to an advertising agency in the past, because they didn’t have the font I used. I don’t do it anymore, once I thought it thru. I think the error is with the person that uploaded it to the web though. Not too many scruples in the whole affair I’m afraid.

Making the original font file available to a print bureau or the like is standard operating procedure (SOP). Otherwise, you run the risk of the metrics being slightly off if they had to substitute a similar alternative. However, the expectation is that bureau only use the font for the job at hand. Foolish on their part to upload font for public download.

quote Harry Cleary:

Quite simply, until Microsoft, the music biz, (and everyone else involved in selling and profiting from copyrighted intellectual, artistic and design content on the web) put some real money into research and development then this practice will continue.

Long story short, anything you encrypt or put some manner of protection on, the protection can be reversed. By the same token, the people that seek to exploit unprotected works have an abundance of time within which to pursue their hobby. Through protection can be reversed, it takes time to organize the tools. Though files can be found by searching around, it takes time to do so.

For people that earn a living, they don’t really have time to reverse engineer or spend time on these questionable warez sites. Such people need a convenient means of having legal files made available to them, without some onerous protection that wastes their time by forcing them through hoops. The iTunes store is an excellent consumer example of providing convenience without extra gimmicks, such as monthly subscriptions that Microsoft and the music industry have been trying to enforce.

For the people that can’t afford the convenience, as already mentioned, they would need to resort to more time exhaustive means of acquiring files. However, the people that would do this are largely either 1) students, or 2) unemployed. Neither of these groups makes significant money, so spending research on increased copy protection against them is equivalent to building a fence around a green lawn. But this is meaningless because anyone that wants to walk on the grass can merely "jump the fence."

In other words, students and the unemployed are not customers. Maybe they are potential future customers, whereby having employment they would pay for the convenience of legal files. However, for media companies to craft onerous file protection schemes that inconvenience ALL customers for the sake of a minority that didn’t have money anyway, well this is essentially a mistake that has been holding back the media industry.

Regards,

Rod

[Rod Young]

Someone asked me about this. By SOP, I meant Standard Operating Procedure. I’ve edited my original post (OP), to avoid any confusion (URG).