Wosven

I can see your point of view, but it doesn't dispense the app to be properly coded and avoid this. Since it's not what an user of a cloud fonts service would want in the end. If he subscribes, it's to get more fonts available legally. But the user accepted the EULA, and the ones of the Affinity apps (I can't remember, but I suppose there was some...). What would be the other solutions? For the Cloud fonts services to automatically disable the fonts if an Affinity app is running, or simply refusing to activate if one of the apps is installed? Should Apple and Microsoft stores ban the apps if people or fonts services complain? Perhaps there's some sort of EULA when installing developpement tools, with rules to respect and abide for. Perhaps a list of actions to avoid. I think there was one when I installed long ago the Apple one.

I already answered this one, and told you how your suggestion is out of proportion, when it's Affinity apps that need to work differently.

What you should understand is that the Cloud font subscription depends of an account, and this account is personal, and can be linked to only 2 computers on which you can install the apps. That's certainly why the copy of the file is forbidden. To ensure that only people with an active account can activate and use them. It's simple: if you open a package that need those fonts, you need an account and to activate them. Third apps aren't allowed to copy them, since doing so go against the EULA they accepted.

??? Yes. The same way as when in a store, items are displayed in front of me, and I can steal them. But I don't. Do I get a medal now? I think I winned an aureole earlier...

But in this case, the app do it and people won't know unless they search and display hidden fonts. Since they are using this cloud service, they could not notice the apps did an illegal copy, and after opening a package, they can think that the fonts used are the ones activated by the cloud service, instead of the copied ones. Of course it's important for students or other users of copyrighted material to know and understand the rules. And it's easier today with this kind of service and sites providing free material, with only the need to add the credits. But they aren't responsible for the way the app is coded. Usually, as any other user, you don't suspect an inocuous app of doing such things. If you want, you choose to use a specific app for doing an illegal action.

We did that one too, in "sevices funéraires" (funeral services). Usually, when people retire, we try to do at least a flyer with the worst typos or errors made and also nice things

You're completely messing things here. Copyrights for images are about the final use. It'll be different for printing, for using on a web site, or for a video. When you buy an image, it'll depend for example of the size of the image in the final document, of the number of printed copy (the price will be higher on a national newspaper than for you local one). You'll have full resolution image depending of the needed size you'll print or use the image on your web site. And if for print, the usage is usually unique, it can also be for a length of time, like for web site. Sometimes, people need to buy for the length of time of an advertising campaign, or longer, for few years. Professional are usually require some sort of ethic. We won't distribute image provided for producing documents. We or the client will buy the image, and provide the file to the one working on the document. Another or different people can work on the same document, access the images, copy them on their computer, etc. On important document or publication, we can also have someone decicated to work on the colours of the photography, to ensure the best results when printed. In the end, an archive will be kept, and we'll delete the working folder from our computer. Later, people will check publications, to keep an archive if the image was printed (sometimes, clients want different options, and that's the way to know which picture was used and which photograph to retribute). The number of time the file was copied has nothing to do in this.

I didn't tested Vivadesigner, and can't test Cloud Fonts with Scribus' packages, but QXP and ID don't do it, and they are the main DTP apps, able to package documents. Which other apps are able to copy those fonts? I can't remember any other app doing this mentioned in this forum, and I'm talking about copying the font's file, not embedding it in PDF.

That's simple: the problem come from the way Affinity apps handle fonts they shouldn't copy. Avoiding the use of a very useful and interesting service students can have today — instead of all the mess we had to do without —, is out of proportion. Especially since the problem doesn't come from the cloud service, but from Affinity apps! And needing to teach them that the apps will do illegal stuff, that they should be aware of this, and do special actions to stay legal? It's like when I need to explain a feature, and should add a set of instructions to avoid bugs or errors (like exported images with more pixels than the document's size). It simply confort them in the idea that we didn't wanted to spend enough money to give them acces to PS or other apps, but gave the cheap ones that need extra work. And that saddens me, since I was the one to introduce the apps, full of hopes, and part of the team that tested them (after useing them for a while for personal use). They were deemed not professional apps enough to do more than minor work. And this bug will just add to the list.

Did you check the print setting when printing from APub? It look like you're printing in booklet mode instead of simple mode.

Simply disabling copy of fonts not in the usual folders, for example. Usual directories meaning the font folder, the current package folder and the "Document fonts" folder of any archived ID file*. * If APub is able to read and use those fonts when opening an IDML file, if not, they need to be manually installed, and the fonts not copied.

Completely right, I'm too used to write ID. It was simply XPress, and XP in the old days, and today QXP. Certainly not, that why I didn't understood people suggesting this in the first place. I was just wondering, since I don't have those old PDF — or they are buried somewhere and I don't want to search and test —, how printers managed those files, and the kind of errors they produced (we didn't used Pitstop in those days). It's simply curiosity, that's not really important, but if we had known, we would have tried to do better. Usually, most problems came from us, users forgetting to update links, or using low resolution images. The restricted font happened only once, since we were careful afterward. Or today, when clients don't look at the specification we send them, but it's different. Some problems, needing special workflow for converting the PDF, are due to exotic PDF libraries, probably not set properly in the original apps, or without possibility to modify the settings finely. But those are mainly legal ads or classified ads send to us. With small ads containing too many errors, flattening the files to raster image is the faster solution.

Hi and welcome @Digitalfox Arial is a Windows font. So it should be available by default. Arial MT is an older version, probably installed by a different app, (it's not even available on Win7). Theorically (I can't do the test, not having Arial MT), you should be able to disable or best, uninstall Arial MT, and the system won't have problem, and will only use the last version of Arial shipped with Windows 10.

Did you found the newlink for the help file? https://creativepro.com/files/kahrel/indesign/batch_convert.html

Nearly a decade ago, when switching from QXP on OS X to ID on Windows, we had a problem with a PDF that didn't even end up in the "Error" folder of Pitstop, but there wasn't any usual error in the document preventing it to pass the Pitstop test. We had to connect to Piststop server and check the logs, to learn than the file was rejected since using an OS X system font. It wasn't one of the usual system fonts (like Geneva, or other fonts with capitals' names), but one of the extra font family shipped with the OS at the time. If this happened with this old Pitstop server, I'm wondering how printers manage such problems today, and if they need to convert the fonts to curves when it happens (if they are embeddable). But talking with this printer teach us that she was dreading when we send her QXD's PDF, since they always needed to work on/modify the files. (At least with QXP versions prior to 8.5). This kind of problems isn't new, and if other apps can give an easier way to manage those restrictions, Affinity apps certainly can. Perhaps you can't remember the time when computers were sparse, only few in a room for all the school, with limited access and options, and you really learn your job once you had a job... I wouldn't mind being a student today and having my own computer, possibly a Creative Cloud subscription for education, and access to a variety of fonts I can simply activate. It's always a pleasure while in the commuter train, to see students opening their computer or tablet and working on their school or personal projects... (most of the time it's drawings, not DTP). We did the same, but with a booklet and a pen.

Since the one for the cloud fonts is only 4 pages long, and easy to read, for once I can say "I read it". usually, I just search and check some specific points hoping it'll be understandable before agreeing or not. But most of the time, they're done in a way that prevent people to read them. "read" is more appropriate, since a lot of users agree without reading. Those are usually simple: you can only quote part of the text (and quote is a limited part of the text, too much, and it's copying).

What I means was: imagine being with your students, and needing to read them the Adobe EULA before explaining them they have to package their files for archiving and other needs, since it's important, but they also need, since packaging breach this EULA, to display hidden fonts and delete them... if they use a subscription. The next step is their parents complaining...

You can think this way if packaging is a feature you don't need to do often, for example only on the bissextile years... But it begins to be an hindrance if you do it few times a week... And imagine the akward time when in training, you need to explain this to people...

In the last years, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. were and are working on new fonts, and modifying their OS consequently. If it was as simple a this, they would have done it. There's certainly bigger minds than ours on those projects, and the ramifications involved... but it's also possible they forget!

The purpose of the subscription model is to keep people subscribing And since fonts are really important, it's a nice way to do it. People can use older apps until a point where they won't work on new OS, the same for the fonts. But if you only need few apps for working, accessing a large panel of fonts is really better. After few years of working with the same fonts, even a large panel, you usually want something new, and those services meet these needs. They also help designing contents more suited to the client's ideas, without requiring a final purchase.

Are you getting personal for lack of arguments? I'll just add this:

? Aren't you the one taking the piss out of it? (Sorry, the traslation seems more rude than the french version, or at least the translation of the translation sound so!) If you just mean that in our youth,we were less respectful of other people rights or especially copyrights, you're right. But working with people that live from those incomes tend to make us more responsible and mature. I never had or have a TV in my adult live, and it's off topic. Also off topic, but I'll try to answer: 1. I'm working with clients, providing their images, sometimes Goggling them, and as a publisher, responsible for the content I publish, I need to check copyrights. So, I'll take care of only using images we have rights to reproduce. For the ones of our Photographic studio/agence, we also need to check with the photographs if we want to crop them, to respect their intend, and be carefull, since it's real people, in real situations, to not use the images out of context, with a different meaning. It's also necessary to use the provided caption, and not create a different one to illustrate the article. For those images (cf. "responsability" below), we're responsible to archive, order, add meaningful and translated captions in different languages, add them to internal and external databases for selling them, creating invoices depending of the use, the media, the quantity, etc. We do the same if needed with images or illustration we buy, of course. And we always provide copyrights info next the image, especially the photograph or illustrator name, instead of simply the publisher/site like I can see in some publications. 2. I don't publish them, or mostly for personal or familial use, and sometimes I use them for an illustrative end in some works, but really, I'm not a photographer, and there's enough doing good images around. "Who's responsible?" Responsible of what, exactly? Of their backup? Of their use? --- In the context of the fonts copied illegally, of course Affinity apps are responsible to not implement and provide a mean to package files without infringing the law. --- 3. I'm altering my own images, or the ones provided by small clients unable to do nice pictures (remember the era of low resolution images taken with phones, that people insisted to put on the cover of their magazine? Thoses, I had to try to embellish, not always with great success. But it's part of the job, the same way my copyeditor coworkers try to convert bad articles to intersting ones, or at least ones you'll read to the end. When working with more professionnal contents, it's easier, since we barely need to modify the elements provided. And there's also a major difference between decorative or illustrative contents and images we can modify, and "photo de presse" (press picture?), that shouldn't be, to keep integrity. In my work, I've got responsabilities. For example, I won't distribute files (images or text) provided by clients. I won't distribute fonts provided by my employer, or the magazines and documents we produce and sell, since it's our livelyhood. It'll be counterproductive. ??? You're on your own track, isn't it? I keep the ownership and moral rights for the paintings, drawings, digital or on paper I produce personaly. If you want to start a thread about this king of subject, that is sometimes nearly philosophical, why not, but usually, a legal framework is set for this. Today, we can read them in the legal terms of use of sites like Adobe or other content's publisher, in the past it was delimited by my contract with the"Maison des Artistes" in France, listing what was considered possible copyrighted work, doable and not,etc. I'm not sure where we're going, but I hope there's mention of fonts soon, since it's the thread subject I can assure you that some companies are paid to check the use of fonts in documents, probably not your last pizza flyer, but when your products are more widely distributed. And they'll come to check things if needed. That's why we trey to have good habits, and to remind people of doing things properly. Somethings can be retroactive, and it's better to avoid them from the start. Again, I don't want anymore tricks or bugs in the apps. I want to spend my time working and creating, not dealing and wasting time on tricks and bugs. Because in the end, what makes me happy is doing a good job, and having a nice time doing it, and they are no part of it.

You can avoid reading my posts. If you're tired of them, think of me needing to write tree time the same things for people not reading the earlier ones

Re-read the earlier posts where we give links and quotes about those rights we have and don't have, with such services. You can't, since you're not allowed to copy them, so not allowed to package them. But nothing restrict us to enable them when needed with our subscription. So the problem is only with the way Affinity apps packages those fonts, and not allowing us to choose the fonts we can package: it's all or nothing. No, only if they provide the fonts depending of their design chart. In most of the case, we choose the design and the fonts, and produce all their printed documents. For those using a design chart, they usually provide the fonts, and in this case, the version is important too, so if it's not part of a subscrition, we usually package them to be sure to use the right fonts for this specific client, and only him. They won't be installed on the system, or will be uninstalled after each work, to not use them in other documents. That's why font manager apps, or easier: packages able to read the fonts packaged are really interesting. Using packages can also provide, if for any reason, like a bugged font manager that you need to disable*, an easy option, replacing its use. We're not allowed to copy them, and we want the Affinity apps do do things right from the start. Why is it so difficult to understand that we don't need a nthieth trick in our workflow???? *With a version of ID, that all the coworker needed to use, I had this specific bug when using Suitcase non or subscription version. But it was easily dismissed using the "package trick", and I didn't wanted a full re-installation, since my coworkers had another and different bug, with same OS and apps, that was far worst to manage.

I can return the question, since you quoted my explanation without re-reading or understanding it, and answering another time would mean rewritting a similar answer. You don't seem to understand the use of a package: it's an archive containing the needed files to be able, in a day, a month or x years, to open the same file, do the needed modifications to resend to print or update for a new version. I barely understand how rasterizing the text or using PDF would help me do this... in the old days, publishers only kept the PDF, and that's why it's so difficult today for them to reprint book correctly, since they need a huge work of converting PDF to workable files, or worst, scanning books. Technology today prevent this hassle, using assemblages/archives/packages... a common task in our DTP apps. This way, we can archive a document, send a creation to our client, or simply give a document to a coworker. The problem is, as clearly stated in the title: Fonts allowed in a packaged file So we're discussing this, not convoluted ways to do completely different actions not suited to this need.