Who Owns The Type?

Rules for ownership of digital fonts complex, sometimes confusing, still being diced out by parties

The 2001 edition of Webster’s New Dictionary of The English Language defines the word “font” thus:

But then, it also defines font as “a receptacle for baptismal or holy water”. Some people say font, others say typeface. But whether you know what the tag on the top of the miniscule g is called (it’s an ear), the difference between Palatino Linotype and Book Antiqua (the former is the original, the latter is the Economy Pack) or where exactly the word Linotype came from (I’ll mention this in a future writing), the subject of font licensing can be just as confusing, but is nonetheless essential to digital designers–or, indeed, anyone who conciously uses type to create documents.

Though it goes without saying, it must be said and remembered: in design, fonts are crucial–not only in the case of news and book design (were fonts are obviously essential) even to illustration (where fonts may form the basis of a drawing). The question of ownership of digital fonts, be they TrueType, OpenType, or PostScript, as are many issues of rights to digital resources, might sometimes be not clear at all to the layman.

The Fine Print

Above all, digital fonts are software, which the user (you, the designer, the person who uses Word, or whomever) doesn’t truly own, in the sense of owning a house, a car, or a computer. Instead, much as the modern understanding of software ownership, all that can be said for certain is that a font user only owns the right to use the font files–they do not own the actual files themselves. The Linotype Library licensing agreement seems to be fairly representative of the font licensing agreements used these days (and is viewable on the web at http://www.linotype....icenseagreement.html.)
It lays the basics out for you in Article 1, section 1.2, thus:

This is actually simple and fairly straightforward. Your facility has rights to the font for up to five computers in your organziation. But notice the use fo the words use and store. These are important words to be aware of. The user doesn’t own the fonts any more than an online gamer owns the code in thier favorite game. However, the licensee can use the fonts as they will provided they stay in the terms of the agreement.

There can arise specific situations in an organization where the font may have to be installed on, say, more than five computers. Companies such as Linotype make such allowances, which they call license extentions. Usually there is an extra charge for these.

Another thing that concerns designers and font users are font sharing. This is expressly disallowed by most licensing agreements that are in force today. Fonts cost money, and sometimes lots of it. Whilst the purchase of a single face can need not be an intimidating cost (usually around $20), purchasing entire font families can run into the hundreds of dollars (the recently announced Gill Sans Pro from Monotype Imaging runs $42 for a single face but $690 for the entire range).

As they say, $42 here and $42 there, and pretty soon you’re running into real money.

It’s Good To Share–With Conditions Of Course

Therefore, it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to understand that sharing fonts is absolutely out–except, of course, under certain conditions. QuarkXPress and InDesign have reminder boxes in the packaging/collecting for output function to make sure the user doesn’t forget. The agreements try to provide for these.

The most common situation that a designer or layout artist will face is, naturally, sending files to service bureaux. Some licenses require that the bureau have copies of the font installed rather than allowing you to send the fonts along. A technical obstacle that can sometimes come up is, even though the service bureau may have an identically named font it may have come from a different foundry than the designer’s supplier. If such conditions pertain, it’s important that the designer communicate with the bureau to assure compliance on license and font issues.

But, as far as sending out files, many foundries’ agreements seem to echo Linotype’s, as thier agreement’s section 1.4 defines:

meaning, essentially, you can send your files out to the service bureau with the fonts provided, but really only for the purpose of outputting the document. This seems reasonable, as the bureau will be outputting your file, and shouldn’t be editing it. In the cases where it has to edit, then it needs to own the license too; else the files will be returned to the designer for changes.

The agreement goes as far as to provide for font embedding within documents–one can do so only as long as the font cannot be extracted and used.

Licensing is like an onion–it’s got layers

Even with the degree with which font licensing goes, some issues cast shadows. David Turner, in this posting at the Free Software Foundation’s blog site, explores embedding a little deeper. He says:

So the concept of a deriviative work noses its way in here. As can be seen by now, the question of using fonts in a digital envrionment gets complicated pretty quickly.

Know the Code

At this point, about the only solution available to the desinger is to be as well informed as possible. When purchasing fonts from digital typefounders, get a copy of the foundry’s licensing agreement and read it. Address questions to the foundries; most have contact people who deal with this, and presumably the larger ones have attorneys or legal personnel devoted to such subjects.

Aside from this, all type users ought to be aware of the font files they use-where they get them, who crafted them, what company they come from. By doing so, they provide themselves with a solid legal and ethical footing for using the work of others.