Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Clear as mud, isn't it?

It is so muddled that I doubt Serif can do anything other than mark any font as "Restricted" if there is even the slightest hint that there might be restrictions placed on its use.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

But that same ability makes it possible to share these package files with other users, which from what @MikeWwrote seems to be a violation of the licensing terms.

Sharing a Package with other users/people could result in a violation of the ELUA for some used fonts. That is why there is a warning when making a package from a document that has restricted fonts.

[Wosven]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I am sorry but I do not see what this has to do with what I proposed about either avoiding the use of restricted fonts in coursework or teaching students about those restrictions if you do want students to be able to use those items for coursework.

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.

[MikeW]

Just now, R C-R said:

It is so muddled that I doubt Serif can do anything other than mark any font as "Restricted" if there is even the slightest hint that there might be restrictions placed on its use.

No, that's not the only thing that they could do. The could simply not include them in a package in the first place if they are cloud fonts.

The MS Store font used above is a separate issue. It shouldn't have been marked as restricted in the first place. 

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

That's simple: the problem come from the way Affinity apps handle fonts they shouldn't copy.

Are you saying Affinity is the only app that makes it possible to copy a restricted font? I think it has been well established in this long discussion that is not true.

[LondonSquirrel]

5 minutes ago, Wosven said:

And needing to teach them that the apps will do illegal stuff

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?

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, MikeW said:

No, that's not the only thing that they could do. The could simply not include them in a package in the first place if they are cloud fonts.

So if I have this right, then you could not use the package feature to make your own private archives that included any cloud fonts. I thought you said that was the main reason for creating package files to begin with.

This topic just seems to get more confusing the longer it becomes. 😦

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Isn't Adobe now aiding and abetting copyright infringement if we use your reasoning?

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.

[Old Bruce]

7 minutes ago, Wosven said:

 Especially since the problem doesn't come from the cloud service, but from Affinity apps!

The problem? Serif is staying within the law, yet there may be a way for some one to use the result of a feature to break the EULA.

8 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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?

The applications don't do illegal stuff. They are making a permitted archive or 'backup'. The illegal stuff can be done by people using the applications. 

Doing special actions to stay legal. Just make sure that the people working on the project are all using the same fonts, which are legally obtained.

And yes. A teacher must teach about how it is wrong for someone to steal the work of others. You need to tell your students about copyright law so their work won't get ripped off by someone. Teach them that their work is worth compensation. And all people are deserving of the same consideration.

[MikeW]

13 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So if I have this right, then you could not use the package feature to make your own private archives that included any cloud fonts. I thought you said that was the main reason for creating package files to begin with.

This topic just seems to get more confusing the longer it becomes. 😦

Adobe cloud fonts should not be packaged as it violates the license to copy or move those fonts. Other cloud font vendors have/can have different license terms. As this thread and the original thread began with Adobe cloud fonts, that is what I can say.

Packaging is valuable for archival purposes and possible alterations of the application file as it uses the exact same font at the time of packaging. Font metrics can/do change when a font is updated and a new font version can cause type to reflow differently. However, Adobe cloud fonts cannot, should not ever be packaged as per their licensing.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

The applications don't do illegal stuff. They are making a permitted archive or 'backup'.

But it isn't really that simple, is it? Apparently, making archives or backups may or may not be permitted, depending on the type(s) of licenses for the various types of content the user has obtained to use those items.

[MikeW]

9 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

The problem? Serif is staying within the law, yet there may be a way for some one to use the result of a feature to break the EULA. ...

The point of this thread is Serif is not staying within the law. By Serif even making a copy of the cloud font, they are in violation of the Adobe cloud font license. I would argue even giving the user a choice to make a package using (at least) Adobe cloud fonts makes Serif complicit.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

However, Adobe cloud fonts cannot, should not ever be packaged as per their licensing.

OK, but what about other fonts that might be marked as "Restricted" like the Monotype ones from the Microsoft Store you mentioned earlier?

[MikeW]

Just now, R C-R said:

OK, but what about other fonts that might be marked as "Restricted" like the Monotype ones from the Microsoft Store you mentioned earlier?

That referenced MS Store font should not have been indicated as Restricted.

The point of that post was merely to point out the problem of Serif's programming of the package function based upon how/where that font is stored. I.e., Serif doesn't seem to make a distinction based solely upon the fsType bit value.

[LondonSquirrel]

6 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The point of this thread is Serif is not staying within the law. By Serif even making a copy of the cloud font, they are in violation of the Adobe cloud font license. I would argue even giving the user a choice to make a package using (at least) Adobe cloud fonts makes Serif complicit.

So what about any photo editing app which opens a copyrighted photo? If the copyright information is embedded in the photo, why am I allowed to open it at all?

[Old Bruce]

6 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The point of this thread is Serif is not staying within the law. By Serif even making a copy of the cloud font, they are in violation of the Adobe cloud font license. I would argue even giving the user a choice to make a package using (at least) Adobe cloud fonts makes Serif complicit.

Once again as I do not have a Cloud subscription I have to rely on the Adobe website for the EULA.

An then there is the point further on about service bureaus and printers needing to have a license.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The point of this thread is Serif is not staying within the law. By Serif even making a copy of the cloud font, they are in violation of the Adobe cloud font license. I would argue even giving the user a choice to make a package using (at least) Adobe cloud fonts makes Serif complicit.

How exactly is Serif breaking the law if the package feature isn't used? The app does not force anyone to use it; that choice is strictly up to the user. If that user uses Adobe Cloud fonts, isn't it reasonable to assume they know they should not include them in packages/archives, whether by using the package feature in APub or by any other means?

[MikeW]

Just now, LondonSquirrel said:

So what about any photo editing app which opens a copyrighted photo? If the copyright information is embedded in the photo, why am I allowed to open it at all?

Separate topic...but whether I have the right to actually use that copyrighted photo depends upon the license I have. While the font world suffers financially from abuse of fonts, the history of lawsuits over image infringment is strongly in favor of the creator.

[MikeW]

1 minute ago, Old Bruce said:

Once again as I do not have a Cloud subscription I have to rely on the Adobe website for the EULA.

An then there is the point further on about service bureaus and printers needing to have a license.

Geez, this is all wearing me out.

The above pertains to desktop licensed fonts. Not the creative cloud fonts.

[MikeW]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

How exactly is Serif breaking the law if the package feature isn't used? The app does not force anyone to use it; that choice is strictly up to the user. If that user uses Adobe Cloud fonts, isn't it reasonable to assume they know they should not include them in packages/archives, whether by using the package feature in APub or by any other means?

While the user is offered a yes/no choice, they aren't the ones who are actually copying the Adobe cloud font files if yes is chosen. Serif is.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

That referenced MS Store font should not have been indicated as Restricted.

Why not? Isn't its use restricted only to those who have obtained it through the Microsoft Store? If not, does that mean I could use it if you included it in an APub package & gave that to me?

[LondonSquirrel]

1 minute ago, MikeW said:

Separate topic

It's not. It's another spin on exactly the same topic - apps doing things with copyrighted materials. In the case of copyright, the protection is even stronger than EULA. Because copyright doesn't have to be governed by EULAs but has protection through laws specifically. 

I say that all Adobe apps which allow anyone else to open one of my copyrighted photos and export it are, in your words, not staying within the law.

[Old Bruce]

Just now, MikeW said:

While the user is offered a yes/no choice, they aren't the ones who are actually copying the Adobe cloud font files if yes is chosen. Serif is.

The user has used the cloud fonts and chosen to make a Package. Adobe has chosen to allow third party software like Affinity publisher to access and use the Cloud Fonts. I doubt some one is going to get tossed in prison for using Affinity Publisher to make a Package which contains fonts that Adobe has explicitly allowed Affinity Publisher to use.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, MikeW said:

While the user is offered a yes/no choice, they aren't the ones who are actually copying the Adobe cloud font files if yes is chosen. Serif is.

??? Clearly, the app gives the user the choice to make the copy or not. Serif is not making that choice for them, any more than it would be if a user used their or any other app to distribute pirated content.

You can't hold Serif accountable for the actions of its users, any more than you can for the users of any other app made by any other company.

[MikeW]

17 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

The user has used the cloud fonts and chosen to make a Package. Adobe has chosen to allow third party software like Affinity publisher to access and use the Cloud Fonts. I doubt some one is going to get tossed in prison for using Affinity Publisher to make a Package which contains fonts that Adobe has explicitly allowed Affinity Publisher to use.

For a font to be used by an application, any application, doesn't mean that it is not still governed by the license. 

The license forbids copying an Adobe cloud font. It's a joint responsibility for the user and the application to honor that license.

Adobe cloud fonts are in a certain location. Serif knows that location. Serif should not give its users the choice to package them. It's that simple.