Vespers3D: Curse My Expensive Font Tastes
by Rubes · 01/25/2009 (10:20 pm) · 13 comments
Without question, some of the best advice I've been given on the business of indie game development has come from Tom Buscaglia, the Game Attorney -- probably one of the best attorneys representing game developers. Much of this advice comes from his Game Dev Kit, a set of information and forms for start-up game developers, which in my opinion is an excellent resource for any small start-up indie. Above all, the best advice is:
This can end up being quite the chore, and it's good practice (especially for the small indie developer who is working primarily on his own) to keep a "master asset list" to track all of these assets and their ownership or licensing status. It also helps to bone up on some of the basic legal issues surrounding appropriate documentation of ownership, and to make sure you take care of those issues sooner rather than later. It's far too easy to slap a sound, musical clip, or texture into your game, even as as a placeholder, and then completely forget about it. Believe me, it sucks to have to track down that dude who helped you with your title music a couple years back because you never asked him to verify and transfer the IP over to you.
One of the assets which, I think, is most often overlooked in this respect is fonts.
Fonts are one of those things that I think a lot of people take for granted -- your computer comes with a whole mess of them installed, and it's easy to find hordes of free ones online. They're often passed around as easily, freely, and inappropriately as MP3s. But for games, fonts are an asset just like anything else, and unless you own it or are licensed commercially, you can't sell it. So the solution is to create your own or buy an appropriate commercial license, unless you want to stick with boring public domain fonts.
The problem for me is that I have a special thing for fonts. I love fonts. I collect them. I hoard them the way some women hoard shoes. I'm a regular customer on MyFonts.com and if they offered a frequent buyer rewards program I'm sure I'd soon be platinum level.
So for me, finding the font that is just right for use in Vespers is a long, exhaustive research project. Right now, we're using two main fonts in the game, one for the text input and output windows, and the other for most everything else (the main logo, menu items, titles, buttons, and so forth). The font for the text windows is not a large concern for me, as long as it is clear and legible at multiple sizes, and has at least some interesting style to it. Early on, I settled for a font called Flute, which is shown below. Flute is a pretty cheap font -- I think it originally sold for $8 and last I checked was free on MyFonts.com -- and there shouldn't be any problem getting an appropriate license for our use. The other font, however, is a bit of a problem.
Flute
Until recently, the font I have been using for all of the good stuff is called Cezanne, by P22 Foundry. Those folks make a lot of very high quality fonts that are used widely for commercial purposes. In fact, I've seen Cezanne in a lot of places -- on TV, in print, even on the cover of my local phone book. It's an extrordinary font that I think is absolutely beautiful, and of all of the fonts I've researched, this one really stands out from the others. I hesitate to say that it is perfect, but damn if it isn't close to that.
P22 Cezanne
But unlike many font foundries, you have to write to P22 if you want to use their fonts commercially and get a special license, like for what we're doing. And, of course, they responded by asking a wild amount of money for this, on the order of $1,500 -- half for embedding the font, the other half for the commercial license. Now, I understand this, of course. This font is a work of art, and it makes sense for them to expect an appropriate license payment from someone who wants to make piles of money on a product the appeal of which is due, at least in part, to their craftsmanship. But given that we're a small indie company with a development budget in the low five digits, this represents a large fraction of our overall development costs. I tried a little negotiation, and they offered an alternative licensing plan that is less expensive, but it's still a lot. So I've been looking at alternatives.
I've always thought, for some reason, that the main font in the game should be a handwritten font. I'm not entirely sure why, I just feel like it communicates the feel of the game (from the Abbot's perspective) the best. So I'm looking to maintain that, but there are only so many options. Once you get past a few good ones, most handwriting or calligraphy fonts start getting far too curly, decorative, or perfect. And I'm not that easy to please.
Suffice it to say that I haven't come across another one yet that has jumped out at me as a clear replacement for Cezanne, but there are a few options. The best of the bunch is a font called Whitechapel, from Blambot, a foundry that specializes in comic fonts and lettering. It's a nice handwriting font that I think conveys the right image, although I still think it's a step below Cezanne and it doesn't completely satisfy me. So when Blambot told me that our use of the font constitutes "redistribution of a derivative work of the font" which would cost $500 for an appropriate license, I thought, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Whitechapel
One of the problems here is that our use of the font is a little atypical. Often under most font licenses, it's illegal to include the font file itself, such as the TrueType file, with a distributed game. But with games powered by the Torque Game Engine, you don't need to include font files with your games -- the Torque engine takes all of the fonts used in the game and creates a special kind of bitmap file for each font and size. The characters are basically rendered to a bitmap and stored for later display. There's no way to reverse engineer it, and no way for clients to take that bitmap and somehow install it on their machine. Nevertheless, many of these companies still believe that this constitutes embedding and redistribution.
I do have permission to use another font, Secret Scrypt, a very cool font from another very cool font foundry called Canada Type. It cost a mere $30 for its commercial fee. It's a bit heavy for my tastes, but it was actually the first font I started using for Vespers, so I may end up just going back to the start with respect to fonts.
Secret Scrypt
Curse my expensive font tastes.
Quote:"Quite simply, you can not sell what you do not own."So basically, any and all assets put into a game must be owned by the legal entity (company or individual) that owns the game, or they must have an appropriate license from the actual owner of the asset. Once you really get elbows deep into the development of a game, you quickly realize how complicated this can become due to the many categories and sheer volume of assets that are needed for game development. Every model, every texture, every musical piece or sound clip -- all of it must either be owned by the company making and selling the game, or they have to be licensed to sell it commercially.
This can end up being quite the chore, and it's good practice (especially for the small indie developer who is working primarily on his own) to keep a "master asset list" to track all of these assets and their ownership or licensing status. It also helps to bone up on some of the basic legal issues surrounding appropriate documentation of ownership, and to make sure you take care of those issues sooner rather than later. It's far too easy to slap a sound, musical clip, or texture into your game, even as as a placeholder, and then completely forget about it. Believe me, it sucks to have to track down that dude who helped you with your title music a couple years back because you never asked him to verify and transfer the IP over to you.
One of the assets which, I think, is most often overlooked in this respect is fonts.
Fonts are one of those things that I think a lot of people take for granted -- your computer comes with a whole mess of them installed, and it's easy to find hordes of free ones online. They're often passed around as easily, freely, and inappropriately as MP3s. But for games, fonts are an asset just like anything else, and unless you own it or are licensed commercially, you can't sell it. So the solution is to create your own or buy an appropriate commercial license, unless you want to stick with boring public domain fonts.
The problem for me is that I have a special thing for fonts. I love fonts. I collect them. I hoard them the way some women hoard shoes. I'm a regular customer on MyFonts.com and if they offered a frequent buyer rewards program I'm sure I'd soon be platinum level.
So for me, finding the font that is just right for use in Vespers is a long, exhaustive research project. Right now, we're using two main fonts in the game, one for the text input and output windows, and the other for most everything else (the main logo, menu items, titles, buttons, and so forth). The font for the text windows is not a large concern for me, as long as it is clear and legible at multiple sizes, and has at least some interesting style to it. Early on, I settled for a font called Flute, which is shown below. Flute is a pretty cheap font -- I think it originally sold for $8 and last I checked was free on MyFonts.com -- and there shouldn't be any problem getting an appropriate license for our use. The other font, however, is a bit of a problem.
Until recently, the font I have been using for all of the good stuff is called Cezanne, by P22 Foundry. Those folks make a lot of very high quality fonts that are used widely for commercial purposes. In fact, I've seen Cezanne in a lot of places -- on TV, in print, even on the cover of my local phone book. It's an extrordinary font that I think is absolutely beautiful, and of all of the fonts I've researched, this one really stands out from the others. I hesitate to say that it is perfect, but damn if it isn't close to that.
But unlike many font foundries, you have to write to P22 if you want to use their fonts commercially and get a special license, like for what we're doing. And, of course, they responded by asking a wild amount of money for this, on the order of $1,500 -- half for embedding the font, the other half for the commercial license. Now, I understand this, of course. This font is a work of art, and it makes sense for them to expect an appropriate license payment from someone who wants to make piles of money on a product the appeal of which is due, at least in part, to their craftsmanship. But given that we're a small indie company with a development budget in the low five digits, this represents a large fraction of our overall development costs. I tried a little negotiation, and they offered an alternative licensing plan that is less expensive, but it's still a lot. So I've been looking at alternatives.
I've always thought, for some reason, that the main font in the game should be a handwritten font. I'm not entirely sure why, I just feel like it communicates the feel of the game (from the Abbot's perspective) the best. So I'm looking to maintain that, but there are only so many options. Once you get past a few good ones, most handwriting or calligraphy fonts start getting far too curly, decorative, or perfect. And I'm not that easy to please.
Suffice it to say that I haven't come across another one yet that has jumped out at me as a clear replacement for Cezanne, but there are a few options. The best of the bunch is a font called Whitechapel, from Blambot, a foundry that specializes in comic fonts and lettering. It's a nice handwriting font that I think conveys the right image, although I still think it's a step below Cezanne and it doesn't completely satisfy me. So when Blambot told me that our use of the font constitutes "redistribution of a derivative work of the font" which would cost $500 for an appropriate license, I thought, "Thanks, but no thanks."
One of the problems here is that our use of the font is a little atypical. Often under most font licenses, it's illegal to include the font file itself, such as the TrueType file, with a distributed game. But with games powered by the Torque Game Engine, you don't need to include font files with your games -- the Torque engine takes all of the fonts used in the game and creates a special kind of bitmap file for each font and size. The characters are basically rendered to a bitmap and stored for later display. There's no way to reverse engineer it, and no way for clients to take that bitmap and somehow install it on their machine. Nevertheless, many of these companies still believe that this constitutes embedding and redistribution.
I do have permission to use another font, Secret Scrypt, a very cool font from another very cool font foundry called Canada Type. It cost a mere $30 for its commercial fee. It's a bit heavy for my tastes, but it was actually the first font I started using for Vespers, so I may end up just going back to the start with respect to fonts.
Curse my expensive font tastes.
#2
01/25/2009 (10:32 pm)
True, but there's only so much arguing I can do. I sent a long e-mail describing precisely how the font is used and how Torque deals with it, but without much luck. I'll try a phone call next week, perhaps that will work.
#3
01/25/2009 (11:16 pm)
I think you bring up a topic widely over looked. Licensing can be a huge pain, for example is it legal to use an anti virus that is free to use for personal use on the same computer you'd use to make portions of your game that you'll maybe one day sell? Questions like this overload me when I think of trying to stay legal in every way shape and form. 
#4
I have one here everyone can have for free :)
AndyH_LCD
01/25/2009 (11:36 pm)
Try www.fonts.com/ as their prices are very reasonable. Alternatively go to www.dafont.com/ and use as a reference to draw your own fonts (you must not just save and use).I have one here everyone can have for free :)
AndyH_LCD
#5
It's the same reason you can take screenshots of 3D models you didn't create with programs like Daz3D or Poser and use them for sprites legally/commercially.
Try some reading a bit before you shell out thousands for these fonts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface#Legal_aspects
01/26/2009 (2:11 am)
I think you may be misunderstanding your legal rights when it comes to using fonts commercially. As I understand it we are free to use fonts with Torque any way we want so long as we don't redistribute the actual source font files (usually .TTF). Fonts are considered software in the eyes of the law. Since Torque creates it's own files which represent the characters those files become another piece of software which is owned by you.It's the same reason you can take screenshots of 3D models you didn't create with programs like Daz3D or Poser and use them for sprites legally/commercially.
Try some reading a bit before you shell out thousands for these fonts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface#Legal_aspects
#6
The other point, as I mentioned, is that this particular use is a bit atypical -- at least, atypical as far as a lot of font companies are used to. So most font licenses don't specifically cover this type of use, which is why I just started with the simple route of describing the actual use to the font owner and seeking permission.
I would be very careful of assuming that, just because Torque creates its own bitmap representation of a font, the resultant UFT file is something that is "owned" by the Torque licensee. That's a fairly simplistic view of things that I think could potentially get someone in trouble, but I agree that it requires further investigation and research.
Edited for civility
01/26/2009 (3:07 am)
Well, part of the point of all this is that I'm not planning on shelling out thousands (or even hundreds) for fonts. Perhaps I should re-emphasize that.The other point, as I mentioned, is that this particular use is a bit atypical -- at least, atypical as far as a lot of font companies are used to. So most font licenses don't specifically cover this type of use, which is why I just started with the simple route of describing the actual use to the font owner and seeking permission.
I would be very careful of assuming that, just because Torque creates its own bitmap representation of a font, the resultant UFT file is something that is "owned" by the Torque licensee. That's a fairly simplistic view of things that I think could potentially get someone in trouble, but I agree that it requires further investigation and research.
Edited for civility
#7
I've recently been trawling through font licensing and was much relieved when I found the ones I wanted didn't cost an arm and a leg (though they were a little more pricey than Flute for a commercial license).
I also found that a few companies that do commercial fonts, also have free ones available (such as some of Ray Larabie's older work).
01/26/2009 (3:30 am)
Nice font flute.I've recently been trawling through font licensing and was much relieved when I found the ones I wanted didn't cost an arm and a leg (though they were a little more pricey than Flute for a commercial license).
I also found that a few companies that do commercial fonts, also have free ones available (such as some of Ray Larabie's older work).
#8
Here's the link: nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm
Supposedly "typefaces" (a bitmap version of a font is considered the "computerized" version of a typeface per US code below) are not copyrightable in the US, but actual fonts (the vector file) *are* copyrightable because they are considered software.
Now, that FAQ is relatively old, so the relevant laws may have changed, but it should be pretty easy to verify, and probably consult with a lawyer.
So Rubes, I think Blambot and P22 are probably taking their liberties with you, when they know full well (given they're in the business of fonts and all) that bitmap fonts aren't copyrightable. Or perhaps they simply aren't aware, but I find that unlikely. However, this really only applies to the US. In other countries, bitmap fonts can be copyrighted.
Here's the bit regarding typefaces. The legality of actual fonts is explained below the area where this is on that page.
* - This is a pretty important distinction. Essentially, because a typeface really is just a set of points on a grid *representing* the discretized version of a "font" design (which *is* technically software, since it contains the vector representations of each glyph's paths), they decided it wasn't really "art" (pictorial, graphic or sculptural) OR software in the sense that either a painting (etc.) or a font file are.
@Rubes, I'd consult with a lawyer to be sure, but as long as you don't distribute the .TTF, you might be good to go to use the P22 font. Now, I'm sure P22 thinks they deserve $1500 for their typeface (or rather, a computerized version of the typeface), but apparently Congress doesn't agree :P
Edit: Personally I find the font vs. typeface thing incredibly interesting (as I did when I first saw it, due to trying to figure out this same issue) simply because of the fact that it appears to be one of the very few times that Congress acted *VERY* logically. A typeface, as defined, *isn't* art, nor is it software. So I find their reasoning to be absolutely spot on, which, needless to say, I don't find to be the typical case :)
01/26/2009 (7:46 am)
@Joe, I think the Wikipedia article doesn't shed enough light on the issue, but your post jogged my memory and I found the page I read some time ago. Here's the link: nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm
Supposedly "typefaces" (a bitmap version of a font is considered the "computerized" version of a typeface per US code below) are not copyrightable in the US, but actual fonts (the vector file) *are* copyrightable because they are considered software.
Now, that FAQ is relatively old, so the relevant laws may have changed, but it should be pretty easy to verify, and probably consult with a lawyer.
So Rubes, I think Blambot and P22 are probably taking their liberties with you, when they know full well (given they're in the business of fonts and all) that bitmap fonts aren't copyrightable. Or perhaps they simply aren't aware, but I find that unlikely. However, this really only applies to the US. In other countries, bitmap fonts can be copyrighted.
Here's the bit regarding typefaces. The legality of actual fonts is explained below the area where this is on that page.
Quote:"...The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable 'pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work' within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101." H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Congress, 2d Session at 55 (1976), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Cong. and Admin. News 5659, 5668.So if you read between the lines, Congress essentially decided that because a typeface is merely the relationship between discreet elements that make up a given glyph*, it's not really a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work".
It's also in accordance with the one court case I know of that has considered the matter: Eltra Corp. V. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 208 USPQ 1 (1978, C.A. 4, Va.).
The U.S. Copyright Office holds that a bitmapped font is nothing more than a computerized representation of a typeface, and as such is not copyrightable.
* - This is a pretty important distinction. Essentially, because a typeface really is just a set of points on a grid *representing* the discretized version of a "font" design (which *is* technically software, since it contains the vector representations of each glyph's paths), they decided it wasn't really "art" (pictorial, graphic or sculptural) OR software in the sense that either a painting (etc.) or a font file are.
@Rubes, I'd consult with a lawyer to be sure, but as long as you don't distribute the .TTF, you might be good to go to use the P22 font. Now, I'm sure P22 thinks they deserve $1500 for their typeface (or rather, a computerized version of the typeface), but apparently Congress doesn't agree :P
Edit: Personally I find the font vs. typeface thing incredibly interesting (as I did when I first saw it, due to trying to figure out this same issue) simply because of the fact that it appears to be one of the very few times that Congress acted *VERY* logically. A typeface, as defined, *isn't* art, nor is it software. So I find their reasoning to be absolutely spot on, which, needless to say, I don't find to be the typical case :)
#9
Hrmm, interesting. If one takes a look at 37 CFR 202.10 "Pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works", the picture of why typeface isn't covered by 202.10 becomes a bit clearer:
01/26/2009 (8:18 am)
Well, I looked up the relevant Code of Federal Regulation, 37 CFR 202.1 "Material not subject to copyright" on bitlaw. It was last updated in 2005 according to the site. At the very bottom of the bullet point list: "Typeface as typeface" exactly as the FAQ site quotes. Safe, I guess, to say it hasn't changed since '96.Hrmm, interesting. If one takes a look at 37 CFR 202.10 "Pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works", the picture of why typeface isn't covered by 202.10 becomes a bit clearer:
Quote:(a)(Emphasis mine, as well as in my prev. post)
In order to be acceptable as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form. The registrability of such a work is not affected by the intention of the author as to the use of the work or the number of copies reproduced. The availability of protection or grant of protection under the law for a utility or design patent will not affect the registrability of a claim in an original work of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship.
#10
The whole subject of whether a typeface is (or should be) copyrightable is an interesting one that has been argued for many years. While it is true that the U.S. does not allow copyright of typeface design, it's not altogether straightforward. A good example is something I found here:
Not a whole lot more clear than before, but it's a start.
01/26/2009 (4:41 pm)
Thanks for the additional information, Ross. I agree it's a pretty fascinating topic, and I'm a bit surprised to read that a typeface is not thought to embody creative authorship in its form. That almost seems counterintuitive to me.The whole subject of whether a typeface is (or should be) copyrightable is an interesting one that has been argued for many years. While it is true that the U.S. does not allow copyright of typeface design, it's not altogether straightforward. A good example is something I found here:
Quote:
It is true that the USA Copyright Office does not copyright typeface design. However, that does not mean that typeface does not have some restrictions. Specifically in the Copyright Ruling of 1988 it says regarding typeface: Useful articles are not protected except to the extent the articles contain artistic features capable of existing separately and independently of the overall utilitarian shape. Variations of typographic ornamentation [or] "mere lettering" are not copyrightable. So, the question here is: does your logo contain artistic features capable of existing separately and independently of the overall utilitarian shape?
If your answer is "Yes" then you are dealing with something that has a copyright, and anything you create from it would be seen as a derivative. What to do? Some typefaces have been around for centuries and are open to fair use as their creators copyright has expired. Other typefaces are new or adaptations. Your instinct to contact the type foundry, which sold you the font, was the right one. Ask first, get permission. Most type foundries have user agreements printed with the disks they supply or posted online at their websites. All user agreements are not alike. Read through them and see if permission is already granted. If the foundry does not hold all the licensing to the typeface then they should be able to provide you with the name of the artist who created it.
Now you might be saying to yourself, "Hey, if I outline the typeface and make it a graphic, won't I be able to call it my own?" Not so according to The TypeRight Guide to Ethical Type Design: "The data in a font is protected by law, so you are not allowed to take it to create your own font. This misconception has encouraged piracy and the illegal production of ultra-cheap font CD-ROMs by individuals and companies that profit at the expense of original designers' efforts."
Lettering artist are underappreciated, even in comparison to illustrators and graphic artists. Just like illustrators and graphic artists they live from the licensing of their work. Negotiation over their licensing should be do the same way you negotiate with your photographer or copywriter. And as with working with any professional, you will be pleased with how easy, and affordable, it is achieving a favorable result.
Not a whole lot more clear than before, but it's a start.
#11
I think if you consult a copyright lawyer, and explain that your use is *exactly* as the Copyright office defined a "computerized version of a typeface" (i.e., bitmap font), you can get a definitive answer on this.
Although it might be easier (if you don't need the font for anything other than the logo that is) to just hire an artist to do a one-off logo of similar style to the P22 font.
I agree that the decision is somewhat counter-intuitive, unless you take into account the definition of typeface as presented in the CFR 202.1. I think it came down to the fact that they didn't want to count the binary rasterized version of a font at a particular resolution to be "art" under CFR 202.10.
01/26/2009 (6:50 pm)
Well, I think this line is important: Quote:Variations of typographic ornamentation [or] "mere lettering" are not copyrightable.So I guess it comes down to whether or not you consider the font to have artistic features existing independent of "variations of typographic ornamentation," which personally I don't think it does. Of course, that's just my opinion, which means nothing :P
I think if you consult a copyright lawyer, and explain that your use is *exactly* as the Copyright office defined a "computerized version of a typeface" (i.e., bitmap font), you can get a definitive answer on this.
Although it might be easier (if you don't need the font for anything other than the logo that is) to just hire an artist to do a one-off logo of similar style to the P22 font.
I agree that the decision is somewhat counter-intuitive, unless you take into account the definition of typeface as presented in the CFR 202.1. I think it came down to the fact that they didn't want to count the binary rasterized version of a font at a particular resolution to be "art" under CFR 202.10.
Torque Owner Joe Melton