Artwork by 
The Suicide of Design
Author of this post: Chuck Green | About Blog Authors »>
Recently and yet again, I was asked for a copy of a font. Someone I thought of as a legitimate designer asked me to e-mail a font I paid for so they would not have to. Though it has happened many times, this “I’m a shoplifter so you must be one too,” attitude never ceases to amaze and insult me. Is my attitude extreme? I think not. In fact, I believe the pilfering of images, fonts, and software is not just benign cheating or victim less crime, I think of it as professional suicide. Here’s why:
1. Minimizing the value of other people’s work minimizes ours.
Every knowledgeable graphic designer understands that good design and development require creativity, technical knowledge, and resources. A typeface designer not only conceives of, draws, and refines every turn and corner of every letter of the alphabet; they also craft sets of numbers, symbols, ornaments, and a standard set of foreign characters. Add ligatures, alternative characters, and width and weight variations and a single typeface family can easily represent literally thousands of individual images.
So ask yourself this: “Does type design have any merit or value?” If so then, “Should a type designer be compensated for the hours they work?” And finally this, “Should type designers donate their vision and craft so we can profit from it?”
2. Voluntary compliance is the key to professional survival.
But why should we pay for software? At the beginning of 2008, the retail prices of Adobe Creative Suite 3 (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc.) and the Apple 30-inch Cinema HD Display were both $1799. So why are virtually 100 percent of the monitors paid for while some estimates say as much as 35 percent of software is pirated? Because of a convenient misconception. I guarantee you that most of the people who use pirated software would not pick up a $1800 monitor and walk out of a store without paying for it. The monitor has weight and form to it, it represents a value that the software does not. It is convenient to think that the monitor has some value the software does not. But walking off with the software is no less theft.
A free society is dependent on voluntary compliance with the law. If we ever get to the point that we must rely on enforcement for compliance, the game is lost.
3. Solidarity of purpose is the cost of admission.
Your adoption of the common goals and interests of our profession is the price of admission to it. If you expect to be treated ethically and fairly by your clients and colleagues you need to do the same. The same holds true for all of the resources we employ—fonts, hardware, teaching materials, photographs, illustrations, and so on. My client hires me for the messages I craft to communicate their ideas and the imagery and technology I employ to create them. They pay, in no small part, for my knowledge about how all these pieces fit together, where to get them, and how to use them. Every designer’s work, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, is built on the work of others. A communications designer does not work alone—ever. The people and organizations that supply us with the creative elements and tools for our work depend on us to share our profits with them. Depriving them of their share is not only selfish; it will result in the death of our profession by our own hand.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Well written article…
April 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Treat others fairly, they will treat you the same way. Great article !
April 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
this is great article for designers, they should read this
April 17th, 2008 at 9:39 am
While I basically agree, I also have to disagree on some points, namely the price of the work result being offered. Unfortunately, unlincensed copying of restricted works and monetary compensation for the author of the given work are two different things in our society. Big corporations always strive for market domination and thus the ability to dictate any price. The price tag on software or other digital work is often completely arbitrary and not related to the amount of work that has been done to create it. Don’t get me wrong - I am more than willing to pay for the things I’m using, be it software, hardware or services, but I want to be able to bypass the “big corporation” amount of money that does NOT go directly into the pocket of the creative persons involved. It is well known that corporations charge multiple times the amount of money for a product than what was invested to create it - or worse - than it’s actually worth.
If the software industry would charge reasonable prices AND assure to the customer that the biggest part of the money goes directly to the creators, I’d feel more at ease buying software or fonts.
Meanwhile, I continue to use open source software, fonts and operating systems wherever possible, because these people are able to provide high quality software for FREE, while others can’t do this even for money.
Not because I do not want to pay for anything, but because I’m not willing to put up with greedy corporations and people whining about their content being used without their consent. Have a look at the chinese product pirate machinery, then talk about people ripping off fonts again.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Thanks for your comment. I understand your concerns, but allow me to add this:
The creative person IS the big corporation.
You can track any organization back to a person or a small group of people with an idea. They believe in their idea to the extent that they are willing to invest their time and resources to give it life.
That “system” of people with the idea worked within the “system” in which they live–one that is loosely organized to provide basics such as shelter, food, security, transportation, and so on.
Now imagine that one of the people developing the idea uses a telephone one day. In doing so, aren’t they acknowledging their need for and faith in that system? And by paying their phone bill aren’t they compensating the worker who mined the ore that produced the bolt used to assemble the tower on which the lines are strung that make their call possible?
We can agree that some groups of people seem to receive an unreasonable amount of compensation for the idea they developed, but beauty of our system is we are free to replace it with our own alternative. The critical piece, and what I was originally talking about, is that we play by the rules of the game we find ourselves a part of. That we abide by the rules of the current system until we replace it with a better alternative.
Imagine for a moment the billions of creative thoughts and ideas contributed by the hundreds of millions of people who have made it possible for me to click on a key and make what I type show up on your computer–it is staggering.
To define everything solely in terms of our personal world would ignore the contributions of all those who made our way of life and work possible.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think the best thing to do is to try find for free first, or even still. Because some people on internet find, steal it and then sell to you. And you pay, what the point then.