Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[R C-R]

25 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Because the license url is present. Wanna read the license? Go to that url.

If I was a Windows user I could do that but as I have said several times now, I cannot find a way to see any of that info on my Mac. 😦

[lacerto]

There are multiple traces to tell whether a specific font is from the cloud (e.g. Adobe Fonts), or from a physical font collection (e.g. FontFolio 11.1), as can be guessed already from the difference in the file size (both fonts contain exactly the same number of glyphs):

...so when someone opens the former (a cloud font copied from the cache) in a font editor, they can see explicit differences already in info fields (like the license URL), not to mention in technical details so that someone knowledgeable enough will certainly be able to detect the source of the font.

But if a regular user is willing to know whether the fonts they got with an Affinity package are legally distributed, here are some clues (the following applies to macOS):

1. The included cloud fonts are hidden (and have dot as the first character in the filename, and typically a numeric filename) and cannot be installed using the Font Book until made non-hidden. Registered fonts (non-cloud based fonts whose license MIGHT allow temporary distribution to technical 3rd parties) are not hidden and have typically an informative filename.
2. If they are installed on the system, it is possible that there is no way to tell the difference using just the Font Book. But as for Adobe fonts, the Unique name shows clearly whether an installed font is from the cloud (live typekit):
    
   EDIT: E.g. the BrixSlab-Bold font included in the OP's package shows this information as do all the other fonts with a numeric filename that were included in the package.
   (NOTE: Activated cloud fonts are not listed in the macOS Font Book, at all. EDIT: ...so in this respect the behavior is similar as on Windows where cloud fonts are not listed in the Fonts section of the Control Panel)

 

[R C-R]

11 hours ago, Lagarto said:

If they are installed on the system, it is possible that there is no way to tell the difference using just the Font Book. But as for Adobe fonts, the Unique name shows clearly whether an installed font is from the cloud (live typekit):

I am not sure what you mean. What specifically shows that the font is from the cloud?

BTW, since I have not used any Adobe products for close to a decade, I do not really know much of anything about "typekit." I suspect I am not the only Affinity user who does not know what that includes.

[Old Bruce]

To add to R C-R's request to Windows and Adobe users I am another Mac user, I have not used any Adobe products in over a decade, I do not know anything about "typekit." I suspect we are not the only Affinity users who do not know what that includes.

[Wosven]

5 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

typekit

It's simply a list of fonts available by an Adobe service. You can decidz to enable it or work without.

If enabled, the free version will alllow you to search in a list of fonts, activate the ones you want, and use them in the current document.

If someone else need to work on the document, he need also to enable the service.

For a subscribtion, more fonts are available.

Those aren't Adobe fonts especially, Adobe have contracts with different foundries, like the one that produced Brix Slab.

I didn't test it, but I think Suitcase provide a similar service (at least you can search for fonts from different foundries, not installed on your computer).

[MikeW]

Adobe Fonts (cloud version), formerly known as Typekit, are subscription-based fonts tied to, only accessed via, one's Adobe application subscription. 

Someone with an active subscription to Adobe applications have a large library of typefaces available to them. They, the typefaces, are not installed by traditional methods. They are available to all applications installed on one's computer while a subscription is active and one is logged in. 

Stopping one's subscription ends one's legal use to any/all typefaces installed during one's subscription. 

They are not to be shared by any means. They are not packaged by any Adobe application on purpose. 

[R C-R]

Thanks for the answers about what Typekit/Adobe Fonts are but I still wonder how APub can tell if a font included in an Affinity package file is one a user has a legal right to use because they are logged into an active subscription for that; or maybe more to the point how a Mac user like me can tell if it is OK to use it, either when editing the current document or by installing it & seeing what Font Book says about it.

Basically, the whole font licensing thing seems to be something that it takes a fair amount of expertise to even begin to understand, something I am not sure is typical for Affinity users.

[MikeW]

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Thanks for the answers about what Typekit/Adobe Fonts are but I still wonder how APub can tell if a font included in an Affinity package file is one a user has a legal right to use because they are logged into an active subscription for that; or maybe more to the point how a Mac user like me can tell if it is OK to use it, either when editing the current document or by installing it & seeing what Font Book says about it.

Basically, the whole font licensing thing seems to be something that it takes a fair amount of expertise to even begin to understand, something I am not sure is typical for Affinity users.

It's easy--Serif should not package fonts from:

Adobe\CoreSync\plugins\livetype\r

or

Adobe\CoreSync\plugins\livetype\.r

locations. That satisfies not packaging Adobe's cloud fonts. Other cloud font distributors likely have similar installation locations and all it would take is not packaging fonts from wherever those locations are. Serif can figure it out by simply contacting those other cloud font vendors or by not packaging fonts from the user account locations.

Packaging such fonts violates the user's licensing, even when done by the user and only used later by that user. But, sharing such packages with others is extremely violating such agreements.

[MikeW]

To follow up. If my fonts were part of a cloud distribution and I found out that Serif was packaging them, I would have already issued had a cease and desist order conveyed to Serif. Violation of that cease and desist order can have a heavy financial penalty.

[R C-R]

Please explain this to me if you can:

From what I can tell about the Brix Slab bold font in the ExampleDocument package, APub allows that font to be temporarily installed for use only in that specific document. Does that use violate the licensing agreement, or is it a violation only if the user installs it so it can be used in other documents? 

If only the latter, is Serif legally responsible for that or just the user who does that?

[MikeW]

15 minutes ago, R C-R said:

...From what I can tell about the Brix Slab bold font in the ExampleDocument package, APub allows that font to be temporarily installed for use only in that specific document. Does that use violate the licensing agreement, or is it a violation only if the user installs it so it can be used in other documents? ...

The mere packaging violates most/all licensing agreements that a user agrees to when subscribing. Therefore, any use of the packaged fonts violates those terms. By anyone, even the original user.

As for who is legally responsible? Both, but mainly Serif as they are doing the packaging.

I think (hope) that this is my last post on this subject. I feel I'm becoming as stubborn as an ass about this. It's Serif's problem.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

The mere packaging violates most/all licensing agreements that a user agrees to when subscribing.

Is it most or all? I have to ask because as I have said I have zero experience with these fonts.

EDIT: if it is still not clear I am asking because as I mentioned earlier, I could use the Brix font in a new text block in the document and edit text already in it using that font. So I really want to know if I have done anything illegal by doing that.

[kenmcd]

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

or maybe more to the point how a Mac user like me can tell if it is OK to use it, either when editing the current document or by installing it & seeing what Font Book says about it.

Basically, the whole font licensing thing seems to be something that it takes a fair amount of expertise to even begin to understand, something I am not sure is typical for Affinity users.

It is ridiculous that the operating system font managers do not provide this information.
But you are not alone in this on the Mac.
Just this week a Windows user posted a similar request in the Microsoft Topography repo.

The image I posted above with the all the Brix Slab Bold info is from FontCreator (Windows only).
Any font editor is going to have a way to set the embedding and the license info (and view it).
FontLab (includes Mac version) also has the same, but the FontCreator dialog is easier for anyone to understand.
FontForge (free open source, and has Mac version) has the same settings, but the user interface is just painful.
The Glyphs App Mini font editor for Mac should have the same settings.

The best solution is to get a font manager which provides the info more easily.
The two I use the most on Windows, MainType and FontExpert, both have an Embedding column in the tabular font listing view - so it is really easy to see.
And both have font info panels which show the embedding info and the licensing info.
One of the font managers for the Mac should have the same info.
Mac font managers are $10-$20 from what I have seen.
Please check them out and let us know back here which ones have this info.

There is one one online tool I know of which does show this info - for one font at a time.
OpenType.js Font Inspector - https://opentype.js.org/font-inspector.html
But it is sort of font-developer-geeky in that it just shows the contents of various tables.
Licensing info is in the: Naming table (name)
Embedding info is in the: OS/2 and Windows Metrics table (OS/2)
The Embedding setting is: fsType
That setting will just be a number.
The meaning of those numbers is here:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/os2#fstype

Best thing to do to avoid the issue is not buy or use fonts with stupid licenses.
And not subscribe to cloud fonts services with stupid licenses.
Stupid licenses = those which do not allow users to do normal things like send a package.

In the real world I am sure when there is a last minute snag on a huge printing project which has some stupid fonts in it, of course they shut the whole thing down, and send the multiple GBs of files back to get the typos fixed. Right.

It is nice to know that based on the info above at least FontSpring is honest and has a dose of reality in the licensing (about how people actually work).

 

[MikeW]

57 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Is it most or all? I have to ask because as I have said I have zero experience with these fonts. ...

I have not read every license agreement for every cloud font vendor. How else could I have written my statement? Rhetorical question. Needs no follow up question. 

However, in this thread, the package of which provided by the original thread's OP, they are from Adobe's cloud fonts. That's enough information for Serif to take action. Or not as they see fit.

[lacerto]

20 hours ago, R C-R said:

I am not sure what you mean. What specifically shows that the font is from the cloud?

It is the part after the font name starting with <TkD...> ---I do not know what TkD means but I assume that "Tk" refers to typekit. Anyway, Adobe cloud fonts have this code appended in the name of the font, which Font Book shows. I do not think that Windows shows this information in context of listing fonts and/or allowing their installation. That's why it is clearly a responsibility of software companies that apps they create do not advocate in any way illegal distribution of fonts.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, LibreTraining said:

It is ridiculous that the operating system font managers do not provide this information.

Agreed, but as for who is legally responsible for including restricted ones in .afpackage files, from the Creating Packages help topic, I see that when creating them, users can choose to exclude all fonts from the package, & twice in the topic it says to check the licensing terms before including them; & also that it may be possible to purchase a more permissive license for that; & even that the recipient of the package may have their own license for that font.

So to begin with, Serif has no way of knowing who the package will be distributed to, so it may or may not violate any licensing terms to include them. The same may also be true for the user who distributes the package, & possibly even for some recipients who do not have access to that info because the OS font manager does not provide it.

But more to the point of Serif's legal liability here, since it is up to the user packaging the file to include the fonts or not, then how can Serif be held liable just for making it possible? That is like saying because it is possible for me to post copyrighted material to the web that the app maker who makes that possible is liable if I do that. That makes no more sense than saying that because it is possible for someone to commit vehicular manslaughter the vehicle maker did anything illegal simply because they made the vehicle.

58 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

It is the part after the font name starting with <TkD...> ---I do not know what TkD means but I assume that "Tk" refers to toolkit. 

Anyway, Adobe cloud fonts have this code appended in the name of the font, which Font Book shows. 

So if I understand this correctly & all I have to check this with is Font Book, I have to install the font to see this? That's crazy!

[MikeW]

R C-R, 

If I handed you a Ford master key and told you several times that you may only use it on your own vehicle, but you used it on someone else's vehicle, am I, at least in part, legally responsible?

[kenmcd]

44 minutes ago, MikeW said:

If I handed you a Ford master key and told you several times that you may only use it on your own vehicle, but you used it on someone else's vehicle, am I, at least in part, legally responsible?

Keys don't steal stuff, people steal stuff.

 

[lacerto]

12 hours ago, R C-R said:

So to begin with, Serif has no way of knowing who the package will be distributed to

The key question is: why are cloud fonts distributed in the first place? Using (even temporarily installing) them is clearly a violation of the license so whenever the receiving party has a legal license (in case of Adobe Fonts, an active CC subscription), they do not need physical fonts.

In the traditional context delivering purchased physical fonts for technical production-related reasons, e.g. for the purpose of printing a job that (for whatever reason), needs to be delivered open (instead  of using a print PDF with embedded fonts), is a more understandable act also when the receiving party does not have a license -- a requirement that a printer, too, should purchase e.g. a license to fonts costing about EUR 1,000 just to be able to print the job, is not realistic, and as mentioned, these kinds of "license checks" are typically never done. In practise this often HAS been a realistic situation, though [all involved parties having a license of their own], e.g. when using fonts from Adobe FontFolio, so inclusion of exactly the versions of fonts that have been used in the job just guarantees expected results.

But the point is: the designer has purchased the license specifically for the used fonts, and the receiving party, even when not holding a license, is assumed to install the fonts only temporarily for pure production purposes, and then remove the fonts. Whether this really happens, is up to professional ethics, but I think that this has been the general practise. A license that permits this explicitly (like ones sold by Fontspring mentioned by Adobe above) is not common, but reflects well what happens in real life.

On the other hand, in design context it is not uncommon that e.g. an illustrator hired for a project gets a license of their own for the physical fonts that are needed in the job and charges (at least partially) for the extra expense, or when having permanent use, makes an investment just adding the price to their other business costs. 

For small jobs (e.g. posters) which need to be delivered open it is customary to convert fonts to outlines or rasterize them to avoid licensing and version issues, and this can be done (either at export time or more destructively as per object) also in Affinity apps.

If this is compared to a situation where cloud fonts are used in the job, and to a rare need in modern production to distribute an open job with text as text (rather than as outlines or rasterized), it is not unreasonable to assume that a professional printer has an active subscription to e,g, Adobe Fonts (a cost of EUR 10 for a month). This is not a problem in design context, either, so temporarily activating a CC license to have access to fonts used by a design team consisting of several independent artits is a same kind of "problem" as a need to purchase some paper and ink when needed.

What Serif does here is IMO unethical and unprofessional. The fact that a dishonest user can serialize cloud fonts easily by other means (programmatically -- without Serif's assistance -- easily even large collections of cloud fonts) is another thing, and here it largely applies that what counts is how these fonts are subsequently used. When physical fonts acquired this way leave the user's computer (even when embedded after having been illegally installed), they make an intentional illegal distribution (and would typically get easily caught). Affinity users are largely amateurs and semi-professional users who might do illegal distribution inadvertently.

UPDATE: After all, fair competition is possible, as well:

[Wosven]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

So to begin with, Serif has no way of knowing who the package will be distributed to, so it may or may not violate any licensing terms to include them.

Again, please read this FAQ where most usual questions (and yours) are answered:

https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/font-licensing.html

 

And as said about ethical way of working: we'll always paid a special attention to copyrights and/or licences for fonts and images. (we can looks like killjoy doing this on this forum, but it's an important part of the job.)

When working on occasional small projects like flyers, we'll ask the client for his fonts if needed (he should at least have the licences) or also buy them for further andbigger collaboration, or simply buy the choosen fonts for a project for him and us (if it's in the deal, if we create new designs).

Another example: you can have a clusters of people working on more important projects, needing particular fonts, and you'll buy fonts licences only for their computers, while the other will use more generic fonts, etc.

 

When working, you're supposed to know the laws (at least the ones for your activity). That's why you'll pay attention to images' copyrights, fonts' licences, ownership of a design you need to reuse, etc. We're not "victims", but must be aware of what we are doing. We usually trust our clients, and don't ask to "see" the licences or the invoices, but in doubt, we usually tend to replace fonts and images by other ones that won't cause trouble.

Especially for small works, when "small clients" doublty bought the elements they provide (Oh Google image! I spend a lot of time checking copyrights or asking for the use of visuals, or asking clients to buy the visuals they want to use... Once they understand you'll double-check such things, they tend to behave and stop googling images or looting web site for images to put in their documents).

[R C-R]

13 hours ago, MikeW said:

R C-R, 

If I handed you a Ford master key and told you several times that you may only use it on your own vehicle, but you used it on someone else's vehicle, am I, at least in part, legally responsible?

What is the relevance of this? In this scenario you would be like an APub user who includes fonts in a package file. Serif would be like the maker of the key. So while you might very well be held legally accountable for your actions, Serif, like the key maker, would not be.

8 hours ago, Lagarto said:

The key question is: why are cloud fonts distributed in the first place?

No, the key question is who is legally responsible for making sure the licensing terms are not violated by distributing fonts that are in any way restricted. Serif is not responsible for that simply because they provide a way to include restricted fonts in an .afpackage file.

[Wosven]

@R C-R

Again, we already gave the answers, and you just need to read:

pecially:

Quote

Are the fonts compatible with the InDesign or Illustrator packaging workflow that I use to send documents out for printing?

No. The Terms of Use do not permit the fonts to be transferred to another user or computer, so they cannot be packaged with the file. The printer needs to have their own license for the fonts, either through a Creative Cloud subscription or as a perpetual desktop license purchase.

There is more information in the Packaging font files help page.

Expand  

And in the terms of use:

Quote

1.1 “Account” means the account (including any Adobe ID and user profile) you create when you first register with the
Service, including any unique keys or identifiers we provide to you or otherwise use to associate you with your account.

1.3 “Computer” means a virtual or physical device for storing or processing data, such as servers, desktop computers, laptops,
mobile devices, Internet-connected devices, and hardware products. Where a device contains more than one virtual
environment (including virtual machines and virtual processors), each virtual environment will be counted as a separate
Computer.

1.9 “Licensed Fonts” means (A) the fonts or font families that we license to you through the Service for your use pursuant to
these Additional Terms; and (B) the Marketplace Fonts.

3. Your Rights and Obligations; Limitations and Restrictions on Your Use of the Licensed Content.
3.1 Use of the Licensed Fonts by You. Depending on the Adobe Subscription Plan or Marketplace Fonts you select, the
Licensed Fonts available for your use may vary. Some Service features, functionality or categories of Licensed Fonts described
in these Additional Terms may not be available with a free Adobe Subscription Plan. Upon registration, access, or use of any
portion of the Licensed Fonts, and in accordance with the particular Adobe Subscription Plan you select (and payment of
Adobe Subscription Plan fees, if applicable), we grant to you a nonexclusive, non-assignable, non-transferable, limited right
and license to access and use the Licensed Fonts in and in connection with the design and development of Media according
to the permissions assigned to the Licensed Fonts on the Adobe Fonts website, and only for as long as you maintain an
uninterrupted Adobe Subscription Plan. The license granted in this section 3.1 (Use of the Licensed Fonts by You) is subject to
the following:
(A) Desktop Publishing.
You may use Desktop Fonts to design and develop Documents and you may embed copies of the Desktop Fonts into your
Document for the purpose of printing and viewing the document. The font must be subset to include only the glyphs
necessary for displaying the work, and the Document must obfuscate or protect its embedded font data from deliberate or
inadvertent discovery or misuse. No other embedding rights are implied or permitted under this license.

3.4 Obligations, Limitations, Restrictions, and Prohibited Uses of the Licensed Content.

(E) Prohibited Uses of the Licensed Content.

(7) attempting to copy, move, or remove Licensed Fonts from a Web Project, or from the locations or folders on your
Computer where we have installed such Licensed Fonts, or otherwise attempting to access or use the Licensed Fonts other
than by subscribing directly to the Service using the means we provide for such purposes;
(8) copying or distributing the Licensed Fonts (except as expressly permitted for Licensed Fonts embedded in certain types
of Media according to section 3.1(A) (Desktop Publishing) of these Additional Terms) for use in a service bureau arrangement,
like with a commercial printing service provider;

That's only four pages long, and made easy for us, graphists and artists to read, so you should be able to understand

[walt.farrell]

On 2/28/2022 at 5:53 PM, LibreTraining said:

EDIT: For anyone trying to understand this post/thread... it was split from the thread below. Not sure why as it loses all context split-off like this and makes no sense alone. This post was originally a reply to a question in the other thread.

It was probably split because it was interesting, and deserving of discussion, but off-topic to the UI or functional inconsistencies that I asked about in the original thread as it is more about the legality of font packaging as performed by Publisher.

Thanks for providing the link back to the source topic to help provide the additional context.

[R C-R]

53 minutes ago, Wosven said:

Again, we already gave the answers, and you just need to read:

The answers provided explain why APub users should not to do this but that has nothing to do with whether or not Serif is violating any licensing restrictions or doing anything illegal simply by making it possible to include restricted fonts in .afpackage files.

Again, this is like saying that because I can violate copyright restrictions by posting copyrighted works I do not own to websites that the maker of the software I use to do that is doing anything illegal by making it possible for me to do that.

So the bottom line here is that it is up to APub users to make sure they are not violating any licensing restrictions for anything they include in a file, including fonts with any kind of restrictions that prohibit that, or images or other work that they have no rights to distribute. This is how it has always been, not just for Serif's products but for any product that can be used to do something that violates some entity's rights, be it a company or an individual.

Among other things this means an afpackage file posted to a publicly accessible web site like this one should never include any fonts with any sort of restrictions because there is no way to tell how they might be used by someone who downloads that file. Serif's responsibility here ends at making a good faith effort to let users know they & not Serif are responsible for making sure they are not violating any licensing terms, which I think they have done as well as can be expected.

[lacerto]

4 hours ago, R C-R said:

No, the key question is who is legally responsible for making sure the licensing terms are not violated by distributing fonts that are in any way restricted. Serif is not responsible for that simply because they provide a way to include restricted fonts in an .afpackage file.

As is implied in the extract in Wosven's post, simply just providing a tool that allows copying of and easy access to "cloud fonts" meant to be used only on basis of activation is a violation of the license. Fonts exposed this way cannot have any other than prohibited use. Whether an average Affinity user is knowledgeable enough to tick off all cloud fonts that by default are marked to be included in the package so that it, once delivered, is not an illegal distribution, I very much doubt. Serif's (and obviously your) interpretation is that this can be totally pinned on the user. There is nothing in implementation of this feature that is done in "good faith", not to mention ethically, it is a direct advocation of prohibited use.

[UPDATE: As far as I know, the font API (Windows) itself does not provide a method to return path to an installed font, so just enumerating e.g. all available outline fonts includes both cloud and regular fonts; getting the file paths requires programmatic access to registered fonts in the system registry (where cloud fonts are not listed); accessing custom locations where cloud fonts are installed is a separately and specifically implemented feature in the code, so as mentioned already above, including the cloud fonts cannot be done "accidentally", "unknowingly".]