![]() Many questions come to mind when reflecting on this. The price is similar in both cases, which means the subscription model is never cheaper, not even in the unlikely case of using the font only for a few months. Meanwhile, the foundry site and other distributors offer the license as a one-payment purchase (e.g. If they were acquiring the web license in MyFonts, they had to commit to an annual payment (e.g. While studying this case I could confirm the font was also available from other distributors and on the foundry site. ![]() They trusted the platform they often used for licensing fonts and they didn’t check in other places. While buying the font licenses, they discovered the cost for the web was a recurring payment, tying the client to the distributor and exceeding the budget over time. ![]() They presented the proposal using trial fonts and calculated the license cost to fit the estimate. The budget for the project was limited, having a maximum amount for licensing fonts. A design studio wanted to license a webfont for a client. I will briefly describe the experience that made me especially reflect on this. It is impossible to think about fairness if not fair to everyone affected. Needless to say, when I ask about “fairness”, I consider all the people involved in the trade (font distributor, font author, buyer, licensee and font user). A considerable percentage of people (32%) voted strongly on this, thinking the subscription model for webfonts is a scam. The results of the voting are almost balanced, 41% think the subscription model for webfonts is fair-not “unfair”-and 59% agree this is an unfair model. The question was simple and plain-with all the ethics implied in the word “unfair”-Do you think the annual subscription model for webfonts is unfair? I acknowledge I positioned myself when formulating the question, choosing the word “unfair” instead of “fair” and offering two affirmative options but only one for disagreement. In terms of pricing, we can differentiate two main models for licensing webfonts, “pay as you go”-I call it a subscription to be less ambiguous- and “pay once”.īefore writing this article, I wanted to get a first impression of people’s positions so I did a quick poll. I was surprised to note there is little debate or discussion on this. Some articles offer information on the topic and compare the different licenses available. Some have made an effort in simplifying font licenses but webfonts is still a case worth discussing.įrom all the types of use you can make of fonts, the web is probably the format where we find more differences, both in the licensing model and the pricing. What may be complex for us, who work in the type industry, can become a nightmare for font users and design studios that acquire licenses for their clients. It is a common practice since different foundries and distributors handle licenses in many alternative ways. A few weeks ago, I had to advise a design studio on licensing fonts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |