Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[Wosven]

7 hours ago, Hens said:

Or send an afpub file instead of afpackage or don't include the fontfolder.

Or convert the fonts to curves.

So no tricks but common sense.

LOL, another answer à la Marie-Antoinette:  “Let them eat cake!”

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, Hens said:

But what is your point with what you wrote?

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.

[Wosven]

57 minutes ago, Hens said:

You have restricted/cloudbased fonts and you have the license to use them ,right?
Now you package them and the fonts are in that archive for you to share/install or delete, right?
Now you can re use it, provided you have the license to do so, right?

Re-read the earlier posts where we give links and quotes about those rights we have and don't have, with such services.

57 minutes ago, Hens said:

Otherwise I could rent indesign or illustrator for a month and then package/download and use the fonts forever without paying.

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.

 

57 minutes ago, Hens said:

It is also your or the clients duty to keep track of the right version/type/model and its licenses, so take notes.

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.

57 minutes ago, Hens said:

Delete the fonts from the fontfolder created with the package before sending them out.

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.

 

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

You are beginning to sound like those warnings that could not be skipped at the start of DVDs. DO NOT COPY THIS DVD. OK, we've heard you. 

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

[Old Bruce]

3 hours ago, Wosven said:

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.

I can get behind this feature improvement.

Please let us choose whether or not to include restricted fonts.

[Wosven]

52 minutes ago, Hens said:

Maybe you can get of of your high horse right now.

? 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.

54 minutes ago, Hens said:

Did you use a vcr ,if so, you were not legally copying your favorite soap or movie although you paid for the tape and the machine ,even if you buy a copy or pay the government or your provider fees to watch it.

I never had or have a TV in my adult live, and it's off topic.

55 minutes ago, Hens said:

1. Do all your images come from a client, if so, is the client responsible if they found it on the net or Serif for the programs, where you alter and use that image?
2. If you take the images yourself with a camera and store it and use it on your pc, who's responsible ,You?
3. Or Serif for making it possible to alter the image and you distributing it?
Or the camera manufacturer for providing you this tool to take the picture in the first place?

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.

 

1 hour ago, Hens said:

Unless you drew or painted a picture by hand and sold that, only then would it be authentic.
Oh wait, I forgot, the store that sold the paint, pencil and paper is the one who is responsible for the artwork.
To bad, nothing is authentic anymore.

??? 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

 

1 hour ago, Hens said:

I think Adobe could care less if some person in France is using a copy of a font in an archive.
If you would package them in bulk and try to sell them, they probably will be on your doorstep very soon.
Or use the ,as you called them, "tricks" to delete the restricted files before you hand out the package to another person.

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.

 

[R C-R]

So if copying Cloud or other restricted fonts is prohibited by the licensing terms, does this mean that using apps or services that create backups like Time Machine, Google Drive, iCloud, & many others to backup any documents that include those fonts violates the licensing terms? If so, is it the responsibility of the user or the app or service not to do that?

Along the same lines, if someone is a user of Adobe Cloud or any other restricted fonts, is it their responsibility not to include them in APub packages (or in any other document from which someone else with sufficient skill could extract them), or should the app or OS or whatever somehow make this impossible to do? If the latter, how could that be done?

[MikeW]

13 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So if copying Cloud or other restricted fonts is prohibited by the licensing terms, does this mean that using apps or services that create backups like Time Machine, Google Drive, iCloud, & many others to backup any documents that include those fonts violates the licensing terms? If so, is it the responsibility of the user or the app or service not to do that?

Along the same lines, if someone is a user of Adobe Cloud or any other restricted fonts, is it their responsibility not to include them in APub packages (or in any other document from which someone else with sufficient skill could extract them), or should the app or OS or whatever somehow make this impossible to do? If the latter, how could that be done?

Yes, even Time Machine is technically violating the license agreement. But there is a significant difference with what APub is doing. After a restore from TM, the fonts will not work in an application if there is not an active CC subscription. Whereas a APub package will allow the use of those fonts in the packaged document even if one cancels their subscription.

[MikeW]

3 minutes ago, Hens said:

What if Serif doesn't make it a font file but an affontfile that is only to be used in aff~
It is what they do with the pdf files where they change the fontname to PDF-ArialMT
 

Changing a font, a commercial and some non-commercial fonts, from one format to any other violates all but the most permissive of font licenses.

It's just a better option to not include cloud-based fonts. If a user really wants to, they can go to wherever they are stored on their computer and violate the license agreement all on their own. But, I think it wrong for Serif to aid in that violation.

[R C-R]

10 minutes ago, Hens said:

You have the options ,not use the packaging ,use it and delete illegal obtained resources, it's that simple but you keep blaming Serif for providing the tool.
No way are you obliged to use it. now are you.

For fonts that requires a subscription to use legally, it seems it would be legal to make backups/archives strictly for private use when subscribed, but it would be illegal to keep them if the subscription lapsed for any reason. Do I have that right?

But since no one can be certain that they will continue their subscription forever it probably would be best never to make any backups or archives of any kind that included those fonts. Likewise, it seems to me that apps that can create backups or archives also have no way of knowing if a user will forever be a subscriber, so once again I keep coming to the conclusion that using the fonts legally is solely & completely the responsibility of the user. 

[R C-R]

29 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Yes, even Time Machine is technically violating the license agreement. But there is a significant difference with what APub is doing. After a restore from TM, the fonts will not work in an application if there is not an active CC subscription. Whereas a APub package will allow the use of those fonts in the packaged document even if one cancels their subscription.

So isn't this by itself a sufficient reason for users to avoid making APub packages or any kind of backup or archive that include any restricted fonts, or for that matter any material of any kind that might violate licensing or copyright restrictions?

It seems to me that this still boils down to a dispute about if it is the responsibility of the tool user to use it only to comply with all licensing & copyright restrictions or if the tool itself should somehow make it impossible to use it in any & all noncompliant ways, even if they are just technically violations that cannot be used for any practical purpose.

I am not even sure the latter is practical, not just for the Affinity apps but for any app or service. There are too many security & privacy restrictions that would have to be compromised or bypassed for that to work.

[Wosven]

Are you getting personal for lack of arguments?

I'll just add this:

1 hour ago, Hens said:

you keep blaming Serif for providing

  

On 3/3/2022 at 5:53 PM, Wosven said:

I just think this is an error in the package implementation that need to be corrected, not another convoluted way to complicate our lives.

 

 

[MikeW]

No, no, no...

An APub package, currently, allows the use of cloud fonts indefinitely past the end of one's subscription. Completely against the license.

It is a joint responsibility, the user's & Serif's (at this point). 

Here's my guess. Serif will change this at some point at least to the second option I believe would be acceptable (the option I think the newish Feature Request is advocating for). That is, allow the user to purposefully opt to include cloud fonts in a package but have them initially set to not be included. I still believe the best would be to have no Serif-created means of including them.

If I had been in charge of the decision to include cloud fonts or not to ever include them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If/when a user complained, Serif would/could simply state that to do so violates the agreement one makes when using cloud fonts. 

[Wosven]

59 minutes ago, R C-R said:

But since no one can be certain that they will continue their subscription forever it probably would be best never to make any backups or archives of any kind that included those fonts.

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.

[MikeW]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

And if you had been at Apple or Microsoft or wherever, you could have disabled all file copying. Because the ability to copy is what you are talking about here.

No, not really. Not in the general sense. The discussion is about one specific act of copying files that breaks the user agreement. 

I feel, believe, that if the user really wants to copy those restricted fonts they are free to do so all by themselves. Serif doesn't need to enable them to do so.

[R C-R]

11 minutes ago, MikeW said:

An APub package, currently, allows the use of cloud fonts indefinitely past the end of one's subscription. Completely against the license.

So just don't include fonts in APub package files, or don't use APub package files at all. As a cloud font subscriber. you agreed to the EULA so you know the licensing terms & that it is your responsibility to follow them.

[Wosven]

  

6 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

And if you had been at Apple or Microsoft or wherever, you could have disabled all file copying.

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!

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

No, not really. Not in the general sense. The discussion is about one specific act of copying files that breaks the user agreement. 

Actually, in the general sense it is indeed about anything that breaks the EULA, so that would include software from Apple, Microsoft, cloud backup services, & so on. It is not just about APub, & in the most general sense it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

[kenmcd]

The Microsoft cloud fonts have the same license as all their fonts - which allows embedding with editing.

The Adopy cloud fonts have the ridiculous unrealistic license.

The whole concept of rented fonts is just as bad as rented software.

[Wosven]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

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...

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, LibreTraining said:

The Adopy cloud fonts have the ridiculous unrealistic license.

Be that as it may, it remains the responsibility of the subscriber to read, understand, & comply with the EULA that comes with them. In that respect, it is no different from the EULA that comes with any other software product, including apps, services, fonts, & OS's. I can't think of a single one that does not include somewhere in the EULA that it is the user's responsibility to make sure that using it does not violate copyrights or otherwise do anything illegal.

Can you?

[MikeW]

15 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So just don't include fonts in APub package files, or don't use APub package files at all. As a cloud font subscriber. you agreed to the EULA so you know the licensing terms & that it is your responsibility to follow them.

People, in general, have no idea what a EULA says. They generally don't read them nor understand them in all their ramifications if they do. The Adobe forums, from time to time, have these packaging type of discussions--Why cannot my fonts be packaged? /usually just a couple posts long as a user or Adobe points out cloud fonts cannot be packaged.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Wosven said:

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

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...

It does not matter how awkward or inconvenient it is to comply with the EULA, or even how difficult it is to explain or understand it. If you have agreed to honor it, it is your sole responsibility to do so. 

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

People, in general, have no idea what a EULA says. They generally don't read them nor understand them in all their ramifications if they do.

That is not a valid excuse for not abiding by them. If a user can't do that then they should not use the product at all.

IOW, ignorance is no excuse, particularly if it is willful, & even worse if the user clicks an "accept" button after clicking one that verifies that they have read the EULA.

[kenmcd]

17 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Be that as it may, it remains the responsibility of the subscriber to read, understand, & comply with the EULA that comes with them. In that respect, it is no different from the EULA that comes with any other software product, including apps, services, fonts, & OS's. I can't think of a single one that does not include somewhere in the EULA that it is the user's responsibility to make sure that using it does not violate copyrights or otherwise do anything illegal.

Can you?

I said nothing about that so I do not know why you rant about that to me.

Completely moot point to me as I would never rent/buy/use any fonts with stupid unrealistic licenses such as Adopy cloud fonts or any others.