English 
Français 
Español 
Deutsch 
Italiano 
Português 
Forum
33 posts
Sites Redistributing daFont Fonts
Quoted[esign] said 
I'm happy with the information contained within my fonts. "Vague" is your opinion, I think "Do Not Redistribute" is clear if you understand English. I can't see how it can be interpreted differently; would someone think "Do Not Redistribute" means don't redistribute your computer screen because it's showing that text on it?
Two of the three definitions of "redistribute" at dictionary.reference.com refer to distibution in an altered form: "to alter the distribution of, apportion differently" and "to distribute again in a different way, reallocate". If someone makes your font available on another site, with all files intact, this could be considered distribution, rather than redistribution, hence my use of the term 'vague' to describe the terms of use for your font.
How is that relevant if I've fixed it (better still, how is it relevant to this discussion)? New designs are created to solve design problems; small grey text was one of those problems. I honestly didn't think it needed to be big, but I was wrong and now it's big and there's a link to obtain a commercial license and it also says "thanks for downloading Pic0 from dafont.com" so it's clear where it originates from unless the poster's been removed.
This is relevant if other sites are distributing, (or redistributing) v 1.0 of your font, rather than the v 1.1 update. Unless someone reads the five pixel high grey text, they could easily mistake v 1.0 to be a free font, without any restrictions.
Pico is the first commercial pixel font I made, then I created another pixel font called Zepto (my first free font) and after seeing how many people downloaded it on MyFonts.com I wanted to distribute a free version of Pico, to make it fair for the people who bought (and buy) Pico commercial licenses, I released a trimmed version called Pic0 which is pronounced the same but with the whole H4x0r naming thing which was also indicative of its $0 price. The name Pico came to me because it's a prefix for SI units with a factor of 10^-12 which is quite small, like the font (not 10^-12 small but you should get the gist), but mostly it had a nice ring to it. I hope that answers what I was referring to in the statement "Like Pico but free".
Two of the three definitions of "redistribute" at dictionary.reference.com refer to distibution in an altered form: "to alter the distribution of, apportion differently" and "to distribute again in a different way, reallocate". If someone makes your font available on another site, with all files intact, this could be considered distribution, rather than redistribution, hence my use of the term 'vague' to describe the terms of use for your font.
I'm not sure what changes you made to this font between the v. 1.0 from May, 2009, and the v. 1.1 from January, 2010, but the .png graphic has changed completely. In the older version of the .png, you state "Like Pico but free, hence the name Pic0", but the notation that "Pic0 is free for personal use" is in light gray text, only five pixels high, which makes it easy to miss, and unable to be read unless the graphic is magnified.
How is that relevant if I've fixed it (better still, how is it relevant to this discussion)? New designs are created to solve design problems; small grey text was one of those problems. I honestly didn't think it needed to be big, but I was wrong and now it's big and there's a link to obtain a commercial license and it also says "thanks for downloading Pic0 from dafont.com" so it's clear where it originates from unless the poster's been removed.
This is relevant if other sites are distributing, (or redistributing) v 1.0 of your font, rather than the v 1.1 update. Unless someone reads the five pixel high grey text, they could easily mistake v 1.0 to be a free font, without any restrictions.
It should be noted that the name of your font, when pronounced, is "Pic zero", as opposed to "Pick-Owe". "Pico" is a font designed by Masayuki Sato for Maniackers Design in 2008, (his font doesn't resemble yours). Perhaps you could tell us the font to which you were referring in the "Like Pico but free..." graphic from v 1.0
Pico is the first commercial pixel font I made, then I created another pixel font called Zepto (my first free font) and after seeing how many people downloaded it on MyFonts.com I wanted to distribute a free version of Pico, to make it fair for the people who bought (and buy) Pico commercial licenses, I released a trimmed version called Pic0 which is pronounced the same but with the whole H4x0r naming thing which was also indicative of its $0 price. The name Pico came to me because it's a prefix for SI units with a factor of 10^-12 which is quite small, like the font (not 10^-12 small but you should get the gist), but mostly it had a nice ring to it. I hope that answers what I was referring to in the statement "Like Pico but free".
I seem to have been wrong about the pronounciation of your font name. The zero and the capital O in the font used for this forum look very much alike. If it is a captal O, then it would not be possible to have two or more of your Pico, your PicO, and the Maniackers Pico installed at the same time, as they all have the same font name. This adds further ambiguity to the interpretation of the .png graphic in v. 1.0 posted on dafont in May, 2009, as the Maniackers' Pico had already been released by that time.
My point was that the terms of use for JasonArthur's Rough Typewriter are crystal clear and explicit, but your terms for PicO can legitimately be misinterpreted. I'm not an apologist for the fly-by-night font sites that obtain their files from dafont. I'm just suggesting that, when you have specific intentions with reference to the use and placement of your font, you should express those intentions with precise wording, preferably within the font header or the license information contained within the font file, where people can read them even if the supplemental files have not been included.
I seem to have been wrong about the pronounciation of your font name. The zero and the capital O in the font used for this forum look very much alike. If it is a captal O, then it would not be possible to have two or more of your Pico, your PicO, and the Maniackers Pico installed at the same time, as they all have the same font name. This adds further ambiguity to the interpretation of the .png graphic in v. 1.0 posted on dafont in May, 2009, as the Maniackers' Pico had already been released by that time.
My point was that the terms of use for JasonArthur's Rough Typewriter are crystal clear and explicit, but your terms for PicO can legitimately be misinterpreted. I'm not an apologist for the fly-by-night font sites that obtain their files from dafont. I'm just suggesting that, when you have specific intentions with reference to the use and placement of your font, you should express those intentions with precise wording, preferably within the font header or the license information contained within the font file, where people can read them even if the supplemental files have not been included.
My point was that the terms of use for JasonArthur's Rough Typewriter are crystal clear and explicit, but your terms for PicO can legitimately be misinterpreted. I'm not an apologist for the fly-by-night font sites that obtain their files from dafont. I'm just suggesting that, when you have specific intentions with reference to the use and placement of your font, you should express those intentions with precise wording, preferably within the font header or the license information contained within the font file, where people can read them even if the supplemental files have not been included.
Again I'm going to bring up relevancy; what does my font's naming have to do anything with this topic? As for the poster, the 1.0 package is old, 1.0's poster has been fixed (as you know) and I can't change the old files those clone sites are holding on and I wouldn't want to anyway because they shouldn't provide the files to begin with.
Just looking at the licensing information on the font files preloaded on my Mac, only Monotype fonts have lengthy licensing information like Rough Typewriter. Yes I could put lengthy licensing information in my fonts like few do but I can't see anyone abiding by the EULA better or clone sites not redistributing my fonts because that information is in the font file, those that are honest and take licensing seriously will contact me if they're confused.
Re: Relevancies of font names: In Windows, you can't use two installed fonts with the same name at the same time, even if the file names are difference. It may be possible if the files names and menu names are different, but that would solve one problem and create another.
For example, I can't use both an .otf and a .ttf version of a font like Garamond at the same time, even if one file is named GARA.OTF and the other is named Garamond.ttf, because both have the same font name internally. Dual use on a Mac may be different. As far as Windows is concerned, Pico and PicO ar the same name, because the naming is not case sensitive. If someone using Windows has the Maniackers Design Pico already installed, it would have dibs on the menu name if they installed either version of yours without uninstalling that one first. You wouldn't have this problem with Zepto, because, as far as I know, yours is the only font with that name.
Would a lengthy EULA inside your font prevent clone sites from distributing your font? Probably not, because Rough Typewriter has such a EULA, and those site are appropiating it anyway. The difference is that JasonArthur's terms of use cannot be legitimately misinterpreted. That is certainly not true of v 1.0 of Pico. Masayuki Sato from Maniackers Design could also have objections to your use of 'his' font name as well. That's all I have to say in this thread, so I'll let you have the last word.
~bito
For example, I can't use both an .otf and a .ttf version of a font like Garamond at the same time, even if one file is named GARA.OTF and the other is named Garamond.ttf, because both have the same font name internally. Dual use on a Mac may be different. As far as Windows is concerned, Pico and PicO ar the same name, because the naming is not case sensitive. If someone using Windows has the Maniackers Design Pico already installed, it would have dibs on the menu name if they installed either version of yours without uninstalling that one first. You wouldn't have this problem with Zepto, because, as far as I know, yours is the only font with that name.
Would a lengthy EULA inside your font prevent clone sites from distributing your font? Probably not, because Rough Typewriter has such a EULA, and those site are appropiating it anyway. The difference is that JasonArthur's terms of use cannot be legitimately misinterpreted. That is certainly not true of v 1.0 of Pico. Masayuki Sato from Maniackers Design could also have objections to your use of 'his' font name as well. That's all I have to say in this thread, so I'll let you have the last word.
~bito
... I'll let you have the last word
I understand you can't have two fonts with the same "internal" name installed, I appreciate the fact Maniackers Design has a font called Pico as well which would create such a conflict, my fault for not looking outside of MyFonts.com for names (I assumed that if the name Pico was available on MyFonts that it'd be the only font with that name). I'm sure that many people would agree with me that the name of my font Pico and even the old Pic0 poster text you mentioned (which was fixed long ago, except on the sites which shouldn't have Pic0) has nothing to do with "Sites Redistributing daFont Fonts" and that's what I mean by relevancy.
But I guess enough of that now; let's get back to "Sites Redistributing daFont Fonts"; font author experiences, solutions, opinions, anything besides the naming of my fonts and old .png graphics...
@d[esign]:
Which site offered you money? Maybe I should request to have my fonts removed as well
Which site offered you money? Maybe I should request to have my fonts removed as well
Pi Luo said
Which site offered you money? Maybe I should request to have my fonts removed as well
As funny as it would be for a whole bunch of font designers to ask this webmaster for money, I don't really want to promote any of those clone sites here.
Something I noticed along the same lines quite by accident by typing some of my font names into google image search, was a group of embroidery web sites selling converted patterns of some of my freeware fonts for up to $9.99.
Basically they take your font and convert it into their required data so they can use it on embroidery machines and the like.
None of them have ever asked my permission to do so, and they insisted they had the right to do so! haha!
needless to say that is why I added a lengthy clause into my EULA forbidding it in the future without my written consent or a licensing agreement stating they bought the rights to do so.
If you make popular display fonts check ebay and google for people using your fonts, i'm sure some of yas will be surprised as I was! haha.
best regards
Larry Yerkes
Basically they take your font and convert it into their required data so they can use it on embroidery machines and the like.
None of them have ever asked my permission to do so, and they insisted they had the right to do so! haha!
needless to say that is why I added a lengthy clause into my EULA forbidding it in the future without my written consent or a licensing agreement stating they bought the rights to do so.
If you make popular display fonts check ebay and google for people using your fonts, i'm sure some of yas will be surprised as I was! haha.
best regards
Larry Yerkes
WolfBainX said
Something I noticed along the same lines quite by accident by typing some of my font names into google image search, was a group of embroidery web sites selling converted patterns of some of my freeware fonts for up to $9.99.
Basically they take your font and convert it into their required data so they can use it on embroidery machines and the like.
None of them have ever asked my permission to do so, and they insisted they had the right to do so! haha!
needless to say that is why I added a lengthy clause into my EULA forbidding it in the future without my written consent or a licensing agreement stating they bought the rights to do so.
If you make popular display fonts check ebay and google for people using your fonts, i'm sure some of yas will be surprised as I was! haha.
best regards
Larry Yerkes
Basically they take your font and convert it into their required data so they can use it on embroidery machines and the like.
None of them have ever asked my permission to do so, and they insisted they had the right to do so! haha!
needless to say that is why I added a lengthy clause into my EULA forbidding it in the future without my written consent or a licensing agreement stating they bought the rights to do so.
If you make popular display fonts check ebay and google for people using your fonts, i'm sure some of yas will be surprised as I was! haha.
best regards
Larry Yerkes
Hey, copyright still protects you in this instance. ANYTHING on the internet is instantly protected by copyright. Your font, unless clearly indicated "Free for all uses" is still protected by copyright and anyone attempting to rebrand your work would be subject to legal issues. I'd let them know that you'd like to be compensated fairly for your work (Perhaps a percentage of profits they've received from reselling your work) otherwise let them know that you'd be hiring an attorney (whether it's true or not this would let them know that you know your rights and they've violated them.
This is all within US Federal law under copyright code.
Oh I know bro..I already took care of that one haha!
I was just letting others know they are doing that.
I was just letting others know they are doing that.
The term 'for personal use' can be interpreted differently by different people. If someone uses a font to print some posters advertising a small gig by an indie band, is that personal use or commercial? How about if the font is used on a website that has no advertising revenue? If someone uses only the glyphs in a demo version, would that be considered commercial use? For many commercial fonts, there is a freeware clone or knockoff. If the small time users of shareware fonts knew in advance that they had to pay a license fee, many would just chose a different font that had no such restrictions.
I definitely agree metaphasebrothel...I get emails all the time asking to use my fonts for various things, most of the time it falls under personal use so I just thank them for letting me know about how it's being used and wish them luck.
My licensing is simple..if it's just for a super small project I don't care,I've donated the use of my fonts to a bunch of bands I liked and other people like for charities and such, If a business is planning on selling a lot of items using one then a small license fee shouldn't be a problem.
I made my licenses real easy..anything up to 1000 units or for a small commercial web site it's $5.00,up to 5000 units it's $10.00, and for a unlimited unit license it's $25.00. For OEM packages and other such uses that fall outside of a general license it would have to be worked out with the company on how they plan to use it.
I'm not looking to get rich off fonts, it's just a hobby I enjoy. Pretty much all the money i've made from it I've used to buy my software haha.
and those crazy contracts give me a headache haha!
best regards
Larry
My licensing is simple..if it's just for a super small project I don't care,I've donated the use of my fonts to a bunch of bands I liked and other people like for charities and such, If a business is planning on selling a lot of items using one then a small license fee shouldn't be a problem.
I made my licenses real easy..anything up to 1000 units or for a small commercial web site it's $5.00,up to 5000 units it's $10.00, and for a unlimited unit license it's $25.00. For OEM packages and other such uses that fall outside of a general license it would have to be worked out with the company on how they plan to use it.
I'm not looking to get rich off fonts, it's just a hobby I enjoy. Pretty much all the money i've made from it I've used to buy my software haha.
and those crazy contracts give me a headache haha!
best regards
Larry
I have 2 fonts on here with over 200,000 downloads (not counting the uncountable unauthorized redistributing) and have not received nearly as many inquiries about commercial use. Obviously there's a lot of people who just like to collect fonts but it makes me wonder how much theft is going on.
i agree. we posted our own fonts to dafont and dafont only. other websites need permission to use dafonts fonts. they cant just use them and say they are their own fonts.
All times are CEST. The time is now 13:53
