InTL. REVIEW BY Deza Nguembock POSTED BY Brand New

With Copyright Protectors Like These, who Needs Enemies?

Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection sur Internet (HADOPI) — more or less, High Authority Promoting the Distribution and Protection of Creative Works on the Internet — is a law project that aims to stop illegal downloading of copyright protected work; warning twice those who illegally download copyright protected work, before shutting off their internet connection for an indefinite period of time on the third infraction. While the Hadopi law won’t enter into effect until the spring of 2010, the agency of the same name has already been established and operating since early January. But the bigger story surrounding the law is Hadopi’s new identity, designed by Plan Créatif on behalf of the French Ministry of Culture and Communication: The identity included two pirated typefaces when it was officially unveiled to the public on January 8.

The primary wordmark was rendered using Bienvenue (unflatteringly scaled to 110%), a type family designed in 2000 by French type designer Jean-François Porchez for proprietary use by France Télécom. The secondary text, which renders the full name of the law, was set in Jeremy Tankard’s Bliss, used without the purchase of a license. The typographic faux pas soon snowballed into a major public relations nightmare for Plan Créatif and their client.

Three days later, on January 11, in order to disguise the truth and keep manipulating the public, Plan Créatif stepped on the gas, presented a new logo and purchased two licenses — one for FS Lola to replace Bienvenue and the other for Bliss — all in the same day. Jeremy Tankard even told French magazine LePoint that Bliss had been downloaded at 12:05 pm that day. Along with the new logo, Plan Créatif stated in an e-mail that the use of Bienvenue was a simple digital mistake and that this sketch version of the logo somehow managed to become the final version.

However, even if that were true, just an honest human mistake, then how would you explain that the January 8 logo with Bienvenue and an unlicensed Bliss was officially validated by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication and registered with INPI, the French copyright authority, on November 16 of 2009? Almost two months before. It would have probably been less embarrassing to just admit the mistake!

January 11 version of the logo using FS Lola and a now-licensed Bliss.

Was it “a digital error in the manipulation of a sketch version of the logo” as Plan Créatif claimed, or a case of blatant piracy as the critics would have it? Behind the great “digital error” story, which didn’t really convince public opinion, shouldn’t we really be talking about general bad practices, with the culprits including the very people who make laws? Even if the howler was quickly rectified in the wake of the scandal, it still placed Hadopi into the uncomfortable position of “biter bitten”, for here was France’s anti-piracy watchdog getting caught in the act of piracy. In any case, as they’d say on the X-Files, the truth is out there.

Major thanks to The FontFeed for their in-depth coverage.

DATE: Feb.02.2010CATEGORY: Government 36 COMMENTS

Karima’s comment is:

This is the first source of the news : http://graphism.fr/post/324943193/hadopi-se-dote-dun-logo-et-quel-logo

thank you

On Feb.02.2010 at 06:31 AM

buruno’s comment is:

When I first read of this font imbroglio, aside from almost puking at the utterly terrible logo, I chuckled, as many of you might have. It was like, too ironic to be true.

And, probably, that's exactly what clients will think when they hear of this: as an anecdote. Because the joke is on the agency itself.

On Feb.02.2010 at 06:53 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

This was indeed hilarious. I don't know who's more to blame? The agency for being so stupid or the government organisation supposedly primed to combat this sort of thing?

On Feb.02.2010 at 07:39 AM

Brandon Oxendine’s comment is:

This is hilarious. Ah, irony.

Oh and Deza, should the company's name read, "High AutHority Promoting the Distribution and Protection of Creative Works on the Internet"? Maybe there's not an h, I don't know, just noticed it.

On Feb.02.2010 at 07:49 AM

cj’s comment is:

adding to the hilarity is that all this stink is over a truly terrible logo.

On Feb.02.2010 at 08:14 AM

NM’s comment is:

Great pick guys!

This shows how uninterested and unpassioned this people are about the job at hand. It's like music artists (I won't say any names but some bands have done this type of "coldplay" to each other) who beg for our mercy and then copy each other chores and lyrics for better profit.

I agree with copyright suporters. Artists need to be paid for their work or face extinction but this whole faux pas is a perfect reminder of how off focus the politicians are.

And for the agency to apply unlicensed fonts, even for sketch purposes, is a shame.

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:05 AM

Safa’s comment is:

I see the head of a red-nosed clown constructed with two broken coffee mugs.

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:09 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

I can easily see it being a screwup. The timing is a bit hinkey, but in my experience the lawyers submitting copyright apps are as clueless about type, design and creative in general as the marketing guys we always joke about.

After a near miss or two, I ALWAYS send files around only very carefully. Since I know that the lawyers have to submit only B&W copies with one image per sheet, for example, I will try not to let them have such a thing until it's done, so there's no chance they send the wrong one.

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:38 AM

abu’s comment is:

LOL, this is such a stereotypical hiccup that one wonders if it could be a premeditated prank by some copyleft-promoting Plan Creatif's designer. I can imagine him selling the client on the "d" and "p" stems of "diffusion" and "protection" embracing the "o" of "ouvres" while screaming "goatse! goatse!" in his mind =D

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:58 AM

Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:

Nice work Brand New. Rooting out bad design - and now scandal too!

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:59 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

How funny... terrible logo.

On Feb.02.2010 at 10:15 AM

Alphonse’s comment is:

This is hardly a terrible logo. Some of you people need to chill.

On Feb.02.2010 at 10:43 AM

Dennis’s comment is:

Big Brother is not only a jugged-eared cyclops suffering from seasonal eye irritation, it's a thief, too?

This'll fly under the radar like a watermarked stock photo of a business man leaping for joy on a Powerpoint made for sleepy in-house fire training meeting for a mid-sized company in Iowa City.

On Feb.02.2010 at 11:02 AM

Alex Dima’s comment is:

As much as I loath what the logo stands for, I must say it's pretty nice.

I get the idea of protection and, as someone mentioned before, goatse. That pretty much sums up the idea behind Hadopi: a bunch of a-holes trying to protect a deprecated business model.

On Feb.02.2010 at 11:04 AM

Manny’s comment is:

I don't give a shit if the clients know or not.
Plan Créatif are hacks.

Jean-François Porchez and Jeremy Tankard are two of the best typographers working today. I imagine they spent many months crafting and refining each letter.

Plan Créatif obviously don't care about type design or even know how to use it.

They should stick to what they know, bland marketing bin filler.

On Feb.02.2010 at 11:24 AM

Design's Dirty Secret’s comment is:

Thanks for posting this.
I would absolutely LOVE IT if House Industries, Mark Simonson, and Letterhead Fonts followed-up on every designer or studio that uses one of their fonts to verify if each entity actually owns a license. (LetterHead actually does once-in-a-while and good-on-'em!.)
I really wish they all would because the same designers that refuse to pay for their fonts wouldn't hesitate to relentlessly sue the pants off anyone who swiped their design work without paying for it.
If House earned $1 for each time I saw their now umbiquitous typeface 'Neutra' slapped on something, (I saw it on 5 consecutive ads in Martha Stewart's 'Living' magazine) their whole team could retire tomorrow on all my sightings this week alone.

This story reveals a practice that's been going on for too long without anyone talking about it. We're all guilty to some degree, I myself have a bunch of fonts that I got from school, friends and random jobs but piracy of trendy fonts is bad enough that I hesitate to jump in to the font design business because I know how rampant font-piracy is in our industry.
The thing that bugs me the most is to have paid (gladly) the well-deserved 'admission fee' to use some painstakingly and beautifully crafted fonts from awesome and inspiring font studios only to see other rogue, 'me too' designers using them as well without paying for them. The ratio of those who paid for Neutra and those who 'borrowed it is probably 25/75, 40/60 at best.
I think paying for your fonts is what separates the hacks (litteraly) from the professionals. If you can't appreciate the font enough to pay for it you're a hack and you're probably using a pirated version of Adobe CS too. I end-up spending anywhere from $500-$1,000/yr on fonts and it's money well-spent as well as an investment in that studio or individual.
I'd like to see a dedicated post on this issue on Brand New.

Anyway, great post. And thanks for a great forum.

On Feb.02.2010 at 12:04 PM

Deshler’s comment is:

A digital error? Is the designer had the typeface on hand without a license, the file was obtained improperly. End of story.

On Feb.02.2010 at 02:13 PM

Sacha’s comment is:

What your story doesn't say is that the brand "hadopi" was actually already claimed by someone 6 months ago: (in french)

http://www.lexpansion.com/economie/actualite-high-tech/hadopi-marque-deposee-par-un-particulier_224604.html

On Feb.02.2010 at 03:05 PM

Enoo’s comment is:

Actually, what was fun is that this story came out very soon after (or before, can't remember) another one, in which the 'youth version' of the French government party (UMP) also used illegally a song in one of their adverts.
That's very ironic for people that pretend to fight for copyright respect and against piracy. :)

About the logo itself, well, I guess it depicts things well : enclose/protect a big zero ... zero knowlegde on the subject.

On Feb.02.2010 at 04:09 PM

Erwin’s comment is:

What's even more fun is the unusually small amount of comments this post has garnered!

No opinions on the subject? Too painful for some perhaps? It's awfully quiet, I find it a funny coincedence!

On Feb.02.2010 at 05:07 PM

cheap r4’s comment is:

Great review.I look forward to Hadopi complying with the law and seeking to have its services cut off after two more violations.Thanks.

On Feb.02.2010 at 10:19 PM

rlc’s comment is:

Unfortunately, this sort of thing probably happens more often than not. Personally, I try to stay away from fonts that I do not have the legal rights to use but as a designer starting out I don't have the money to spend $100+ for a font so I tend to only use a few basic fonts. Also, copyright laws regarding fonts are not as publicized as those for music, movies and software so the knowledge of them is limited.

Design's Dirty Secret,

Do you think you're better than everyone else? I understand what you are saying (somewhat) but the way you wrote it makes you seem a bit arrogant.

In your first paragraph you say, "If House earned $1 for each time I saw their now umbiquitous typeface 'Neutra' slapped on something, (I saw it on 5 consecutive ads in Martha Stewart's 'Living' magazine) their whole team could retire tomorrow on all my sightings this week alone."

How do you know that the font used in those ads was not purchased?

And then you go on to say, "I think paying for your fonts is what separates the hacks (litteraly) from the professionals."

I understand what you are saying but then are you contradicting yourself? By what I read, you would then be considered a hack.

We're all guilty to some degree, I myself have a bunch of fonts that I got from school, friends and random jobs but piracy of trendy fonts is bad enough that I hesitate to jump in to the font design business because I know how rampant font-piracy is in our industry.

Also, when I go to the site you've linked your name to (www.andreweclark.com) and I'm just guessing this is you, I see a taken idea...the etch-a-sketch you use for your background image. Now, I'm not sure if this is a copyright violation but it certainly is not a one-of-a-kind original.

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:00 AM

Virginia’s comment is:

@ Erwin
I too have noticed the lack of comments on this post and I think it speaks volumes.

@ ric,
I don't think Dirty is saying everyone has stolen Neutra. At least that's not what I understand. They are just pointing out the vast unlikleyhood that everyone and their dog has purchased it, because in-fact, everyone and their dog is using it.

This Hadopi situation is a classic comedy of errors. I think this could happen to any one of us If someone went to the trouble of playing detective. This story illustrates how unjustly careless we've become with regards to digital rights.

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:49 AM

Andrew’s comment is:

ric,
Touché. You win.

On Feb.03.2010 at 01:12 AM

gradinko’s comment is:

Sometimes just out of curiosity I go and check the prices for legit fonts and design software. I typically find that a family of fonts or Adobe CS costs as much (or often more) as the monthly salary of an art director in Bulgaria where I am from. That takes care of any seeds of guilt in me and I go on to happily use pirated fonts, images and software in my professional work. Want to call me a hack? Could I care less?

On Feb.03.2010 at 07:41 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

I just wish there were a better way to try different typefaces on for size. Setting it on the foundry's website is an interesting exercise, but it really doesn't tell us how well that face will work for our purposes. How many thousands should we pay for fonts that we just want to try, only to rule them out?

On Feb.03.2010 at 07:51 AM

Jake’s comment is:

This situation only adds tremendous amounts of credibility to their wonderful organization. They will be taken so seriously with this great logo and story behind it.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:14 AM

Alphonse’s comment is:

@ Gradinko

That's no excuse. I can't afford a porsche, but it doesn't give me the right to steal one.

Stealing typefaces is absolutely unnecessary considering the number of free ones out there, not to mention the ones that came on your OS.

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:26 AM

Wolfetone’s comment is:

Here is an idea; why don't you typeface designers create a new purchasing scheme? Look at iTunes, etc. How about $5 for the Alphabet and $0.25 for each number/symbol/glyph thereafter? What if I just want Helvetica Light and could care less about the rest of the family? Figure it out.

Honestly, you 'typophiles' need to get over yourselves. Maybe spend less time reminiscing in nostalgia & feigning a smug sense of superiority, and more time actively marketing your product. Times have changed, stop relying on guilt as your sales pitch. Adapt!

*Note. I have never -nor do I intend- to purchase or pirate a font. But I'm awfully tempted by the latter.

On Feb.04.2010 at 05:03 PM

santiago’s comment is:

It will be funny and more ironic if HADOPI dissolve Plan Créatif XD

On Feb.05.2010 at 02:18 PM

Teresa’s comment is:

Is it possible the group in question did not have the proper license for this particular use of the font? I've noticed a trend nowadays with small foundries specifying that an additional fee must be paid if a font is to be used in or as a logo.

(It's got me kind of freaked out I might overlook the fine print and be greeted with a cease and desist order, to be honest – anyone else noticed this?)

Maybe I'm giving them too much the benefit of the doubt, but the truth is we don't know the particulars. I am glad it has spurred such a lively discussion, though! Thanks for the post.

On Feb.07.2010 at 03:30 AM

Atlanta accident/personal injury lawyer’s comment is:

Seems like they've stepped on themselves a little on this one.

On Feb.08.2010 at 03:57 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

disgusting

On Feb.11.2010 at 03:41 PM

FG’s comment is:

That logo is uninspiring and amateurish, and doesn't seem to serve its intended purpose.

Re pirating fonts, it's something a lot of beginning designers (like students and freelancers starting out) do, especially when they can't afford to buy licences for higher-quality fonts and don't want to resort to going to dafont.com and downloading crappy fonts with sloppy kerning and incomplete character sets. I don't think that it automatically makes you a hack—the commenter who said that seems to assume that all graphic designers have an endless supply of money with which to pay for type. It's a sort of elitism that I've noticed in the graphic design community for a while, and I think that it's problematic.

I think Wolfetone's idea is compelling, and I've mentioned a similar strategy elsewhere—an iTunes-like model might do well for typographers who wish to make sure that designers do buy legitimate licences. Typography currently works with an old-fashioned business model that's more suited to the days when type was metal or Letraset transfers, rather than digital files that can be digitally copied without physically depriving the designer of any actual object. Each face could be sold separately, and you could pay more for different character sets, depending on what you need. The music industry has adapted to modern consumer needs through iTunes, selling each song at a low price in order to promote sales. iTunes has been tremendously successful, encouraging people to buy music who wouldn't do so otherwise. Type could do something similar, offering simpler faces without advanced typography for about $5 per SINGLE face, and higher prices for fonts with advanced typography. Full families could be purchased similarly to iTunes' albums.

Right now, type is grossly overpriced, which BREEDS piracy. This isn't a defence of it, but the current industry is courting it by overcharging and adopting an elitist attitude towards people who can't afford their fonts, but want to improve the quality of their work. This is not to denigrate designers' work—indeed, designers have worked very hard to create their type—but the prices that they sell these fonts for can be quite exorbitant, especially for design students and beginning freelancers who don't want to constantly resort to using Mac and Windows system defaults and bad free fonts. A designer working for a small business who needs to buy a particular font for a job is probably not going to be able to afford some of the fonts that are on sale today, even if they include the price of the font in the job's rate.

It is pretty ironic that the design agency charged for creating a logo for an organization devoted to PREVENTING copyright violation used unlicensed fonts, though.

On Feb.23.2010 at 03:51 PM

Poor College Student’s comment is:

@Gradinko and Wolfetone:
The problem is larger than just fonts and software. We need to make EVERYTHING affordabe for everyone so that we can ALL buy whatever we want.

I hate how fancy, expensive, well-designed vehicles are sooo darn pricey! What's up with that? I wanted to buy a really nice car the other day but they wouldn't let me because I only had 5k.
Now, I don't believe in stealing but if that's the only way I can get the car I want, then that certainly becomes a serious temptation.

Seriously though, if everything were affordable there wouldn't be any stealing or pirating and no hunger.

We need all the really nice and shiny stuff in the world that is really expensive to be made cheaper so that students and other people who don't have a lot of money can all get in on the love.

Basically, poor people need to be able to have all the same things as the rich people have so that we can compete on the same level as the rich so the world can be more fair.

@FG:
Agreed. An iTunes model would be great with loads of categories of expensive items categorized like Amazon. -Only nothing's over $20

My 2¢

On Feb.23.2010 at 07:43 PM

Felix Felix’s comment is:

@Poor College Student

I can't tell if you're a sarcastic Poli-Sci student or just really really optimistic about solutions. Businesses will charge what they feel is a price the market will pay. To think everyone will ever be able to afford everything they want is ludicrous (not the singer).

@all
In the case of fonts, it's a chicken/egg scenario. Designers charge more because they know they lose revenue to piracy and piracy excuses its action because of prices.

On Mar.18.2010 at 10:33 AM