字体许可敲诈
Monotype font licencing shake-down

原始链接: https://www.insanityworks.org/randomtangent/2025/11/14/monotype-font-licencing-shake-down

一家Monotype公司的代表发起了一场令人担忧的宣传活动,类似于网络钓鱼攻击。他们通过领英联系了不同部门的许多员工,发送紧急且可能具有误导性的消息。尽管内部已向设计和数字团队发出警告,但该活动还是触及了采购团队,并被管理层指示回复。 最终,一名采购员工确实参与了互动,出于正当目的试图保护公司免受版权问题的影响——他对此并无过错。随后,由于内部沟通不畅,问题陷入停滞;数字团队完成了一项合规审计,确认公司没有问题,但未能通知Monotype公司。这需要多个团队重新介入,最终解决问题并澄清公司的立场。这起事件凸显了在处理潜在安全问题时,持续的内部沟通和快速跟进的重要性。

## Monotype 许可恐吓策略 一家公司详细描述了与字体供应商Monotype的一次令人沮丧的经历,Monotype通过未经请求的LinkedIn消息发起了一场许可“敲诈”。 尽管此前没有任何关系,也没有任何违规证据,Monotype声称存在许可违规。 该公司最初驳回了该消息,但Monotype通过联系大量员工升级了事件,引发恐慌,并消耗了大量员工时间来调查这些指控。 评论员指出这是一种恐吓策略,认为Monotype可能希望有人回应并无意中承认某些事情。 许多人同意这种情况应该立即转交给法务部门。 几位用户分享了与Oracle和其他大型公司使用侵略性策略的类似经历,通常会导致完全禁止使用他们的产品。 该事件引发了关于字体许可公平性的讨论,并提出了固定费用模式的建议,以及对虚假指控进行法律追究的必要性。 最终,该公司确认没有发生违规行为,但这一过程浪费了大量资源,并引发了对Monotype商业行为的担忧。
相关文章

原文

Fishing (phishing?) around

What the Monotype rep did next is kind of what a malicious hacker does when they’re trying to get someone from your company to click on a link that’ll install malware on your computer. Over the next couple of weeks, the rep messaged a dozen or so more people from different parts of the business, hoping to hook just one person who would reply to the scary message they were sending.

Now I’d already emailed my design, brand, and digital team colleagues to tell them about this mass-messaging campaign and our plan of action for it, but the Monotype rep expanded their campaign to include people from our procurement team, who I hadn’t thought to forewarn.

So not long after, I received a message from one of my procurement team colleagues who’d been forwarded that LinkedIn message from their senior manager with an instruction to deal with this. I explained to my colleague that, as far as I could tell, this Monotype campaign was similar to the domain name scams the procurement team is already familiar with. So please sit tight till our digital team colleagues have completed their audit and then we’ll figure out which one person should start the conversation with Monotype.

But, like any successful phishing campaign, the Monotype rep’s LinkedIn messages eventually reached someone who did respond. This was another person in the procurement team and, just to be completely clear, I don’t blame them for responding. They were just doing their job of protecting our business from potential copyright liability.

Being forced to deal with the issue

Since I’d handed this over to the digital team, I hadn’t kept track of how things were progressing. I was brought back into the discussion when our brand manager included me in an email thread between her and the procurement person who’d responded to Monotype.

I quickly brought this second procurement person up to speed with our earlier plan of action and then I looped in the digital team again. Turns out the digital team had completed their audit, found that we were in compliance, but had gotten busy with other work so no one had responded to Monotype. *sigh*

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com