Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[MikeW]

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Applications are just tools. It is users who do the copying. The fact that somebody has made a GUI to do copying is neither here nor there. Otherwise would you hold photocopier manufacturers to account for photocopying books and other copyrighted material? That's the logic of your argument.

Yes, no.

While, in your example, the copier manufacturer is not held legally liable, a person using that copier can be. If I take copyrighted material to a copy center, they (the business entity) can be held responsible for allowing making the copies, whether it is myself or an employee making those copies. There is legal precedent in the US for this.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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.

If the font file can be exposed in the file system, then it can be copied.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

While, in your example, the copier manufacturer is not held legally liable, a person using that copier can be.

I do not think anyone is disputing that. But in the same way, the manufacturer of a software product that allows an illegal electronic copy to be made is not liable if a person uses that software to do that.

[MikeW]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If the font file can be exposed in the file system, then it can be copied.

Both InDesign and QuarkXPress will not package Adobe cloud fonts. That is what APub should do as well.

[MikeW]

18 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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.

Not having a current cloud subscription, I too cannot test VD. However, in the past I've never had VD actually include fonts in the packaged ZIP even if they are locally installed fonts no matter the font's permissions.

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

What happens in an Adobe app if a I paste in a copyrighted photograph, the copyright information being in IPTC fields which Adobe can read, and I then export it? Isn't Adobe now aiding and abetting copyright infringement if we use your reasoning?

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.

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

the word 'services' as 'sevices'.

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

[MikeW]

8 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So we are agreed it is the user, not the tool which is responsible.

In the above case, it wasn't the user (as regards the employee) that was sued, it was the corporation that provided the copier that was. 

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

Whatever the reasoning, I think it is important to teach students that apps can be used to do illegal or otherwise prohibited things, & that it is their responsibility to learn enough to avoid doing that.

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.

[MikeW]

Ok. I'm done with this topic. Serif is going to do what Serif is going to do. They are aware of this thread. If Adobe were to sue, Serif would lose or settle.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, MikeW said:

In the above case, it wasn't the user (as regards the employee) that was sued, it was the corporation that provided the copier that was. 

Yes the user and owner of the machine, the corporation. 

[walt.farrell]

  

9 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If I have a copyright that automatically prevents somebody else from having that right. So if somebody takes one of my copyright photos, puts it in Photoshop, exports it again (perhaps stripping out my copyright information), they have now infringed my copyright.

Not necessarily. And that word "perhaps" is important.

If they strip your copyright information, yes, they have probably infringed.

If they do not strip your copyright information, they may or may not have infringed, depending on the licensing agreements they may have with you (or an agent of yours) and how they are using the image.

Pretty much anything that is created today has a copyright, whether one is claimed by the creator or not. But copyrighted items also have (or can have) licenses allowing their use by others under specified conditions. If someone uses your copyrighted image in a way that does not violate your license conditions, they have done nothing wrong.

[Old Bruce]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Ok. I'm done with this topic. Serif is going to do what Serif is going to do. They are aware of this thread. If Adobe were to sue, Serif would lose or settle.

It has been a discussion.

I am still not convinced that Serif/Affinity is breaking or facilitating the breaking of the EULA. Adobe explicitly allows third party applications to use the Cloud fonts. Affinity is allowing users to make Packages, which are backups, containing the Cloud fonts. The EULA allows this backing up of fonts.

Sure some one can then continue on and abuse that backup and start selling or using copies of the fonts but that is possible without using Serif/Affinity software.

[Wosven]

48 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If the font file can be exposed in the file system, then it can be copied.

???

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...

[R C-R]

14 minutes ago, Wosven said:

But in this case, the app do it and people won't know unless they search and display hidden fonts.

The app won't do it unless the user uses the package feature of APub. So if any of your students are using APub & cloud fonts, all you have to do is tell them not to use that feature. That might lead to a deeper discussion of restrictions they might encounter, but I do not think that is a bad thing.

Do you?

[R C-R]

12 minutes ago, Wosven said:

Yes. The same way as when in a store, items are displayed in front of me, and I can steal them.

Yes, but if you do steal them, it is you that is commuting the illegal act. You can't blame the store for making it possible for you to do that.

[Wosven]

13 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I am still not convinced that Serif/Affinity is breaking or facilitating the breaking of the EULA. Adobe explicitly allows third party applications to use the Cloud fonts. Affinity is allowing users to make Packages, which are backups, containing the Cloud fonts. The EULA allows this backing up of fonts.

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.

[R C-R]

25 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Ok. I'm done with this topic. Serif is going to do what Serif is going to do. They are aware of this thread. If Adobe were to sue, Serif would lose or settle.

Since AFAIK, none of us are layers or experts on international law, I think there is no way to know if Adobe would ever decide to sue Serif about this or what the result would be if they did.

If fact, for all we know Serif ran this feature by Adobe before they added it to APub, or what they might have said about it.

[Wosven]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The app won't do it unless the user uses the package feature of APub. So if any of your students are using APub & cloud fonts, all you have to do is tell them not to use that feature. That might lead to a deeper discussion of restrictions they might encounter, but I do not think that is a bad thing.

Do you?

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.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, Wosven said:

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.

I do understand that.

 

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

It's simple: if you open a package that need those fonts, you need an account and to activate them. Third party apps aren't allowed to copy them, since doing so go against the EULA they accepted.

My reading of the EULA, which I found by going to Adobe's website, doesn't say that third party applications are not allow to copy them. 

Obviously if we have no Cloud subscription then it doesn't matter what applications we have, we cannot use the fonts, we can only look at them.

[Old Bruce]

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If fact, for all we know Serif ran this feature by Adobe before they added it to APub, or what they might have said about it.

Aww... you're wrecking a great convoluted, never ending, most likely pointless discussion. Next thing to happen is someone will say it is dinner time and they have to go.

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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 told me is that it is your opinion that Affinity needs to work differently. I don't agree that it must because I believe it is up to the user to learn to use this app responsibly, just as it is with any other app.

We are not going to agree on this, so I think it is time to move on.

[Wosven]

28 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Yes, but if you do steal them, it is you that is commuting the illegal act. You can't blame the store for making it possible for you to do that.

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.

 

17 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

My reading of the EULA, which I found by going to Adobe's website, doesn't say that third party applications are not allow to copy them. 

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.

[Wosven]

14 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

doesn't say that third party applications are not allow to copy them. 

Copying is copying, I don't thing the code language used or the app count, only the action.

[Wosven]

33 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

41 minutes ago, Wosven said:

You're completely messing things here.

No, it is you who is missing the point. If I have a copyright that automatically prevents somebody else from having that right. So if somebody takes one of my copyright photos, puts it in Photoshop, exports it again (perhaps stripping out my copyright information), they have now infringed my copyright.

41 minutes ago, Wosven said:

When you buy an image

What happens if somebody has not bought my image? Why are apps allowed to export my photos, with my copyright information stripped out?

Isn't this what this thread is about - the supposed bad behaviour of Affinity apps for accessing and doing things with fonts which is supposedly not allowed? Whether that is a problem or not is hardly the main issue, if you are ignoring the generalised problem of copying files at all.

This is different since the act of copying the picture is a conscious action. For example, if the picture was on a web site, you need to right-click or to save it, or it'll only appear in the browser's cache, not be directly available.

When you're packaging for archiving or sending a document for a coworker, you need to archive part of the fonts you're allowed to copy. For now, the apps can't permit to choose only those ones. It need to be improved.

 

"Why are apps allowed to export my photos, with my copyright information stripped out?"

There's differents problems here. I think I encountered protected photos you couldn't modify, but I don't have any clue how it was done. (Since usually I simply want to add the copyright infos in the necessary field to be automatically read in ID... I simply do it manually in ID and do the next task).

Some CMS will automatically strip images of metadata... for protection, deleting the personal data. But it's particulary annoying since it's also stripping copyrights infos.

There's certainly improvement to do to protect images' copyrights, but also to allow people in the DTP or web industry to do their work on those images if needed.