Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, Wosven said:

This is different since the act of copying the picture is a conscious action.

So is creating an APub package file, using a web browser to post copyrighted images after stripping out the copyright info using one of the many apps that enable that, clicking an "Agree" button without actually reading or knowing what is in the ToU or EULA, & a bunch of other things, including but certainly not limited to working on files created by others or even choosing which apps to use for your work.

[Wosven]

9 hours ago, Hens said:

That's what's being said al along:the tool isn't the key subject it's the user who does the action,so don't do the action if it doesn't do what you want or does do what you don't want.

But as we say all along: the apps do the copy without us knowing (unless we read this forum and those threads), and, if aware, without the possibility to choose the fonts we want to copy when we need this feature for archiving.

 

And if you read the EULA of a Windows development tool like Visual Studio:

 

Quote

3.d. Polices. Lors de l’exécution du logiciel, vous pouvez en utiliser les polices pour afficher et imprimer du contenu. Vous êtes autorisé (i) à incorporer des polices au contenu uniquement conformément aux restrictions d’incorporation des polices et (ii) à les télécharger temporairement vers une imprimante ou un autre dispositif de sortie en vue d’imprimer le contenu.

[DeepL translation, since it's difficult to get another language:]

3.d. Fonts. When running the Software, you may use fonts in the Software to display and print content. You may (i) embed fonts in Content only in accordance with the font embedding restrictions and (ii) temporarily download fonts to a printer or other output device for the purpose of printing Content. [/DeepL]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems even in the development process, you need to respect the EULA of the fonts.

And:

Quote

7. CHAMP D’APPLICATION DE LA LICENCE. Le logiciel n’est pas vendu, mais concédé sous licence. Les présents termes du contrat de licence vous confèrent certains droits d’utilisation du logiciel. Microsoft se réserve tous les autres droits. Sauf si la réglementation applicable vous confère d’autres droits, nonobstant la présente limitation, vous n’êtes autorisé à utiliser le logiciel que conformément aux termes du présent contrat de licence. À cette fin, vous devez vous conformer aux restrictions techniques contenues dans le logiciel, qui limitent vos droits dֹ’utilisation du logiciel. En outre, vous ne pouvez pas :

...

• utiliser le logiciel d’une manière contraire à la législation ;

[DeepL:]

7. SCOPE OF THE LICENCE. The software is not sold, but licensed. These license terms grant you certain rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law grants you other rights, notwithstanding this limitation, you may use the Software only in accordance with the terms of this License Agreement. To this end, you must comply with the technical restrictions contained in the Software, which limit your rights to use the Software. In addition, you may not :

• ...
•     use the software in a manner contrary to the law ;

[/DeepL]

We can supose that any development tool used to create the apps have similar EULA, asking to respect fonts and other previously agreed upon EULA. In the test stage of the apps, they shouldn't have permit to copy the Cloud fonts, and by extend, shouldn't permit to do it on other computers.

[Ron P.]

13 hours ago, Wosven said:

The number of time the file was copied has nothing to do in this.

That may or may not be true. It depends on the license. You can license your copyrighted work in numerous ways, and with whatever restrictions you choose. One such restriction that is common when licensing for commercial purposes, is the file can not be copied and/or distributed to yet other people. For example you purchase a license to use the item, photo or writings, so you can make posters and flyers, and you will profit by doing so. The copyright holder may, and probably will, allow that to happen for a specified time period, and those are the only things that the item can be used for. So if you then produce copies of the file given to you by license, and distribute them in any other way, to anyone that is not specified in the license agreement, you're violating the terms of the license, and can be held liable.

Now suppose if you're not allowed by the license to produce flyers or posters, but just digital images for use on your website. You then produce fliers and posters using a printer or print service. Is the owner of the copyright able to sue the printer manufacturer or print service for violating the license granted to the person that purchase it? The printer or print service is fully able to reproduce whatever is put to it. They do not know the item given to them, is being done so in violation of any license agreement. The person wanting the copies is using them in an "illegal" manner. If you agree, the copyright holder can, then you also agree that someone injured in a car crash can sue the car manufacturer since they provided the means for the driver of the car that crashed into them.
Now all that said, here in the US, there's a federal law that says the manufacturers can not be held liable, can not be sued. Without that law,(I don't recall the specific law off the top of my head, but has been in the news due to a certain faction wanting to destroy one of our God given rights), one could.

There's words in the legal world that have a tremendous weight, words like knowingly and willfully, and intent. So what's being discussed here in this thread, Serif's product removing, allowing copyright content to be used in an illegal manner. Serif would have to knowingly, willfully or with intent, wrote their code to do that. While it might be able to, does not mean that is what Serif intended it to do, and they did not know the code would do that. So if people are using their product in a way that does, they are not liable. The counter to that, is if they do know, and fail to correct it, they could be held liable.

[carl123]

Not sure why this thread is so long as I think Serif have gone out of their way to explain that it is your responsibility to adhere to any copyright or licensing issues. The same as if someone sells me a car. It is not their responsibly to ensure I have a license to drive that car, it is mine.

Serif have simply given you a tool to package files. It is your responsibility to ensure you have the right license to package those files and use/distribute them elsewhere. 

 

From Serif:

"Check your compliance with the licensing terms of all fonts and images used in a document before packaging and distributing them."

"For all fonts, regardless of whether they are listed as Restricted, check your licensing terms are compatible with your intentions for the package."

"Restricted—a font is considered restricted if any of the Restricted Licence Embedding, Preview and Print Embedding, or Bitmap Embedding Only attributes are set within it. Distribution of the font may require you to obtain a more permissive licence or the recipient to have their own licence for the font."

"Even if font files are provided in a package, it is your responsibility to investigate and adhere to their licensing terms before installing them on your device."

"With everything collated in a folder, share the package with others using your preferred method, such as cloud storage. Before doing so, review your licensing terms for all items in the package."

"A prominent yellow warning sign is displayed next to any font that is restricted or not included in the package."
 

[walt.farrell]

2 hours ago, carl123 said:

as I think Serif have gone out of their way to explain that it is your responsibility to adhere to any copyright or licensing issues.

Excellent point, Carl, and thanks for that quote. At least part of it is from this Help page; I'm guessing the rest is from the other Package-related Help pages: https://affinity.help/publisher/en-US.lproj/pages/Publishing/creatingPackages.html

There is, though, one aspect of the behavior that has been brought out here that seems like it might be a Publisher bug. It has been stated that none of the Adobe Cloud Fonts are supposed to be embedded as Publisher is doing, whether they have any of the Restricted flags set or not. One of the fonts used (not sure on which page of the forum) was Installable (thus not Restricted) but came from the Cloud Font folder, if I remember correctly. 

[carl123]

13 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

At least part of it is from this Help page; I'm guessing the rest is from the other Package-related Help pages:

Yes, all the quotes were from the help file with a simple search for "Package". In fact, it was hard not to see any warning re fonts when searching for package

18 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

It has been stated that none of the Adobe Cloud Fonts are supposed to be embedded as Publisher is doing

Publisher is not embedding the fonts, the user is.

If a user chooses to use Adobe Cloud Fonts in their document, they should be aware of the restrictions applied to those fonts and the fact that Publisher simply copies all fonts used to the package that is created.

In this case the user has to decide either to change those fonts in their document, not package the document or package the document and then remove those fonts from the package before sending it to someone not authorised to "use" those fonts. 

 

[walt.farrell]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I'm referring in a general way as possible here to somebody doing something with my copyrighted image. It is the fact they are capable of using an app (or an app is capable) to edit my copyrighted image at all. If I have not granted a licence then there is no licence at all, just the copyright. How many people read web site Ts & Cs? 

Thanks, but even that may not be an issue. I can still do anything I want with your copyrighted image as long as I don't publish it. And even if I publish it, Copyright allows for "fair use" and other exceptions that will allow some actions without your approval or license.

[v_kyr]

Quote

About packaging

Packaging is an easy way to ensure that when you share a document with a collaborator or printing service, they have all the items needed to edit and print it.

The Save as Package command outputs a copy of your document and any fonts and linked images used by it into a folder. Your chosen folder must be empty beforehand.

 

A package's contents

When packaging is complete, the destination folder will contain:

• Your Affinity Publisher document, with the file extension .afpackage.
• A folder named Fonts containing available fonts used by your document.
• A folder named Images containing available images linked from your document.

The items in the package are copies. The files used to create the package remain in their original locations and are unaltered by the packaging process.

With everything collated in a folder, share the package with others using your preferred method, such as cloud storage. Before doing so, review your licensing terms for all items in the package.

 

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, Ron P. said:

That may or may not be true. It depends on the license. You can license your copyrighted work in numerous ways, and with whatever restrictions you choose. One such restriction that is common when licensing for commercial purposes, is the file can not be copied and/or distributed to yet other people. For example you purchase a license to use the item, photo or writings, so you can make posters and flyers, and you will profit by doing so. The copyright holder may, and probably will, allow that to happen for a specified time period, and those are the only things that the item can be used for. So if you then produce copies of the file given to you by license, and distribute them in any other way, to anyone that is not specified in the license agreement, you're violating the terms of the license, and can be held liable.

About images, I already answered about usual copyrights, and they usually permit a buyer to provide the file to the studio/agency that'll do the DTP or web site, etc. depending of the final use. Some contracts will allow the agency to be proxy to buy them and include the price in the invoices, some clients will use their own account to buy them. In all case, you can usually get low resolution and  watermarked files to present a selection to choose from.

But this doesn't apply to fonts. If you can see fewwords in a font before buying it, you won't be allowed to du a full documents simply to test how it looks like, unless you use a cloud fonts service.

1 hour ago, Ron P. said:

Now suppose if you're not allowed by the license to produce flyers or posters, but just digital images for use on your website. You then produce fliers and posters using a printer or print service. Is the owner of the copyright able to sue the printer manufacturer or print service for violating the license granted to the person that purchase it?

 

The problem is different, since usually development tools EULA ask to stay in Compliance to the law and with third party softwares.

Example for Microsoft and Visual Studio:

For Apple Xcode:

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf

and https://developer.apple.com/programs/information/Apple_Developer_Program_Information_8_12_15.pdf

It seems — I'm not a specialist at reading legal jargon — you can't use the API if they infrige any intellectual property rights.

There's other interesting paragraphs, in those documents.

 

Here an interesting answer about fonts license:

"the license rights are specified in the agreement that is signed when a font is acquired, and its conditions are binding."

That's why, from the start of the previous discussion leading to this thread, we're asking for a different way to handle the packaging of the fonts, and be allowed to disabled the cloud fonts, or any fonts we don't want to be packaged, for various reasons, since the way it's done today, prevent us to abid by the EULA we agreed on (or, in a corporate envirronment, the possible agrement you had to sign when delivered the computer you will use for working).

 

  

3 hours ago, Ron P. said:

There's words in the legal world that have a tremendous weight, words like knowingly and willfully, and intent. So what's being discussed here in this thread, Serif's product removing, allowing copyright content to be used in an illegal manner. Serif would have to knowingly, willfully or with intent, wrote their code to do that. While it might be able to, does not mean that is what Serif intended it to do, and they did not know the code would do that. So if people are using their product in a way that does, they are not liable. The counter to that, is if they do know, and fail to correct it, they could be held liable.

If they didn't know, and didn't checked the feature with such service activated, now they can't deny it's against the EULA users agreed using cloud fonts, or the EULA they agreed for using developement tools (if they are the same). And they need to modify the apps, since it's always better to help users, even those using cloud fonts, than keeping features that add problems.