7 ms·

I think the author is probably mistaken in their understanding of something here. Foundries don't license fonts for "desktop use" on seemingly generous terms o

by cxr 5y ago

I think the author is probably mistaken in their understanding of something here. Foundries don't license fonts for "desktop use" on seemingly generous terms out of the goodness of their hearts. It's because they have no choice. Letterforms are not copyrightable. The font file†, however, is. Once a typeset character sequence is printed or rasterized and flashed on the screen, any license that a foundry cooks up trying to control that use would be unenforceable. The only leverage they have is controlling the distribution of the file. As it turns out, due to the way Web fonts work, this means they do have leverage on the Web—for technical reasons. If the foundries had a choice, they wouldn't opt to license Web fonts more generously, they'd opt to extract more money out of the traditional uses. (Note that this is written from the perspective of the way that copyright works in the US.) † EDIT: I realized just now while brushing my teeth that this might lead to further mistaken understanding when put this way. So pretend instead that I said something like "what's in the font file", and pay particular attention to <https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23>.

thayne 5y ago
Fonts can also be protected by design patents, although I'm not sure how common that is.
kjrose 5y ago
I did not know this. It makes a whole lot of sense and is totally reasonable. Does this mean that a graphics designer who buys a font can just use it at will without royalties as long as they don't distribute the file?
- zinekeller 5y ago
  Yes. That's why there are some knock-off fonts that is fully legal in the United States (apart from the name, but that's trademarks). Note: US law (for rather obvious reasons). Europe (depending on the country) has either a design trademark or a design copyright available, which means that foundries can (in theory) control their use there (in practice, uniform worldwide licensing means they go for the lowest common denominator). Asian (mainly East Asian) IP laws does have a nuance, which means that whether a design is copyrightable depends if the purpose of the said design is utilitarian or artistic.
- omnimus 5y ago
  Yes but it's complicated because everybody knows the value is in the shapes and it's gray area... many bigger agencies will ask for special licenses just to be sure. Especially if it's a logotype where font might be majority of value.
  - koboll 5y ago
    In particular, there are plenty of examples of companies putting out bounties to rogue employees who provide evidence that a business is using unlicensed software, so it's dangerous even if you can't prove through the output of the software alone that it is unlicensed.
andy_ppp 5y ago
So if I rasterise webfonts in a service I only have to pay once not per use? This sounds incorrect.
- pavlov 5y ago
  Webfonts are not licensed for server-side use at all, so you're not allowed to do this.
  - hapidjus 5y ago
    What if you do it on you desktop?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - minty_phoenix 5y ago
      Server use is typically its own license category. At the company I worked for, their server licensing was based on number of server CPUs (technically only those actually used by the service using the font) and was valid for a year meaning you’d have to re-up annually.
      - pavlov 5y ago
        I don't understand why your comment is downvoted because it's absolutely correct (for most type foundries anyway).
    - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
      The law sees in color, not black and white. If your beige tower desktop computer is talking to users on the Internet, a court can decide you should have used server licensing.
      - cxr 5y ago
        This is the right principle to have absorbed from the article linked, but applied incorrectly. For either of the hypotheticals here, it would be possible to operate in the way described, subject to some constraints. There is no reason to think that the courts would perceive any legal imperative to recognize the distinction between server licenses or otherwise on copyright grounds. Companies can't invent law and say that it applies just because they wrote down how they'd like for things to work. The technical reasons referenced earlier are what make these hypotheticals untenable, not law.
comex 5y ago
> Once a typeset character sequence is printed or rasterized and flashed on the screen, any license that a foundry cooks up trying to control that use would be unenforceable. That's not true. Distributing letterforms wouldn't be a copyright violation. But if the font distributor shows the buyer some text and requires them to click "I Agree" before downloading the font, then they have a valid contract, which can impose whatever obligations they want, including usage restrictions. Note that copyright licenses may not always be contracts, in cases where the recipient doesn't explicitly agree to them. Notably, the GPL is designed to work without needing agreement. From the GPLv2's text: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. Though, the GPL has been enforced in the US as a contract anyway. [1] But license agreements which you have to explicitly agree to are unquestionably contracts and enforceable as such. Contracts are somewhat more difficult to enforce than copyright. You can usually only recover actual damages rather than statutory or punitive damages, and you can't use the DMCA as a shortcut to enforcement before going to court. But that's far from saying they're not enforceable at all. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_c...
- cxr 5y ago
  Saying flatly "that's not true" is too bold. I don't have a responsibility to answer for what you think I'm arguing, only what I'm actually arguing. (And equivocating on my words doesn't change that.) > if the font distributor shows the buyer some text and requires them to click "I Agree" before downloading the font, then they have a valid contract Right. But if they don't agree, then no legal mechanism exists to keep the "customer" from getting those shapes from someone who doesn't impose a contract, since anyone can peddle the same letterforms without violating copyright.
  - comex 5y ago
    > But if they don't agree, then no legal mechanism exists to keep the "customer" from getting those shapes from someone who doesn't impose a contract, since anyone can peddle the same letterforms without violating copyright. Sure, if you clone the font. But if you clone the font you can also distribute the clone as a web font. What's the difference?
2bitlobster 5y ago
Some interesting notes: professional font designers regularly copy each other's work. However, if you ask a legitimate font designer, they will trace another font. Where they get in hot water is if they copy and/or manipulate the actual Bezier points from another file (at which point they are copying the code). I remember going to a font design conference a long time ago, and some elite well known designers were aghast at another well known font designer for copying the bezier points directly off of another font and then manipulating the points from there. It's a crazy little dance they do to keep things legit.
- randombits0 5y ago
  I’d like to suggest that if a “crazy little dance” is required to “keep things legit”, it’s not.
  - httpsterio 5y ago
    If you use OCR to copy the entierty of a book and it became legit after doing so , I'd argue that the laws around that make little sense.
    - randombits0 5y ago
      I was only suggesting a failure in law. Merely scanning is not creative and not protected. As for fonts specifically, while I am not qualified to describe creative elements versus prior art, I think we can all agree the the field of commonly used fonts is quite well within the realm of the public domain. Font foundries only exist to squeeze unearned profits from only minor and non-expressive additions to that that is already well within accepted public art for many hundreds of years. They are swindlers and con artists.

by cxr 5y ago

thayne 5y ago

Fonts can also be protected by design patents, although I'm not sure how common that is.

kjrose 5y ago

I did not know this. It makes a whole lot of sense and is totally reasonable. Does this mean that a graphics designer who buys a font can just use it at will without royalties as long as they don't distribute the file?

zinekeller 5y ago
Yes. That's why there are some knock-off fonts that is fully legal in the United States (apart from the name, but that's trademarks). Note: US law (for rather obvious reasons). Europe (depending on the country) has either a design trademark or a design copyright available, which means that foundries can (in theory) control their use there (in practice, uniform worldwide licensing means they go for the lowest common denominator). Asian (mainly East Asian) IP laws does have a nuance, which means that whether a design is copyrightable depends if the purpose of the said design is utilitarian or artistic.
omnimus 5y ago
Yes but it's complicated because everybody knows the value is in the shapes and it's gray area... many bigger agencies will ask for special licenses just to be sure. Especially if it's a logotype where font might be majority of value.
- koboll 5y ago
  In particular, there are plenty of examples of companies putting out bounties to rogue employees who provide evidence that a business is using unlicensed software, so it's dangerous even if you can't prove through the output of the software alone that it is unlicensed.

andy_ppp 5y ago

So if I rasterise webfonts in a service I only have to pay once not per use? This sounds incorrect.

pavlov 5y ago
Webfonts are not licensed for server-side use at all, so you're not allowed to do this.
- hapidjus 5y ago
  What if you do it on you desktop?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - minty_phoenix 5y ago
    Server use is typically its own license category. At the company I worked for, their server licensing was based on number of server CPUs (technically only those actually used by the service using the font) and was valid for a year meaning you’d have to re-up annually.
    - pavlov 5y ago
      I don't understand why your comment is downvoted because it's absolutely correct (for most type foundries anyway).
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    The law sees in color, not black and white. If your beige tower desktop computer is talking to users on the Internet, a court can decide you should have used server licensing.
    - cxr 5y ago
      This is the right principle to have absorbed from the article linked, but applied incorrectly. For either of the hypotheticals here, it would be possible to operate in the way described, subject to some constraints. There is no reason to think that the courts would perceive any legal imperative to recognize the distinction between server licenses or otherwise on copyright grounds. Companies can't invent law and say that it applies just because they wrote down how they'd like for things to work. The technical reasons referenced earlier are what make these hypotheticals untenable, not law.

comex 5y ago

> Once a typeset character sequence is printed or rasterized and flashed on the screen, any license that a foundry cooks up trying to control that use would be unenforceable. That's not true. Distributing letterforms wouldn't be a copyright violation. But if the font distributor shows the buyer some text and requires them to click "I Agree" before downloading the font, then they have a valid contract, which can impose whatever obligations they want, including usage restrictions. Note that copyright licenses may not always be contracts, in cases where the recipient doesn't explicitly agree to them. Notably, the GPL is designed to work without needing agreement. From the GPLv2's text: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. Though, the GPL has been enforced in the US as a contract anyway. [1] But license agreements which you have to explicitly agree to are unquestionably contracts and enforceable as such. Contracts are somewhat more difficult to enforce than copyright. You can usually only recover actual damages rather than statutory or punitive damages, and you can't use the DMCA as a shortcut to enforcement before going to court. But that's far from saying they're not enforceable at all. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_c...

cxr 5y ago
Saying flatly "that's not true" is too bold. I don't have a responsibility to answer for what you think I'm arguing, only what I'm actually arguing. (And equivocating on my words doesn't change that.) > if the font distributor shows the buyer some text and requires them to click "I Agree" before downloading the font, then they have a valid contract Right. But if they don't agree, then no legal mechanism exists to keep the "customer" from getting those shapes from someone who doesn't impose a contract, since anyone can peddle the same letterforms without violating copyright.
- comex 5y ago
  > But if they don't agree, then no legal mechanism exists to keep the "customer" from getting those shapes from someone who doesn't impose a contract, since anyone can peddle the same letterforms without violating copyright. Sure, if you clone the font. But if you clone the font you can also distribute the clone as a web font. What's the difference?

2bitlobster 5y ago

Some interesting notes: professional font designers regularly copy each other's work. However, if you ask a legitimate font designer, they will trace another font. Where they get in hot water is if they copy and/or manipulate the actual Bezier points from another file (at which point they are copying the code). I remember going to a font design conference a long time ago, and some elite well known designers were aghast at another well known font designer for copying the bezier points directly off of another font and then manipulating the points from there. It's a crazy little dance they do to keep things legit.

randombits0 5y ago
I’d like to suggest that if a “crazy little dance” is required to “keep things legit”, it’s not.
- httpsterio 5y ago
  If you use OCR to copy the entierty of a book and it became legit after doing so , I'd argue that the laws around that make little sense.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    I was only suggesting a failure in law. Merely scanning is not creative and not protected. As for fonts specifically, while I am not qualified to describe creative elements versus prior art, I think we can all agree the the field of commonly used fonts is quite well within the realm of the public domain. Font foundries only exist to squeeze unearned profits from only minor and non-expressive additions to that that is already well within accepted public art for many hundreds of years. They are swindlers and con artists.