A different TYPE of copyright issue: Fonts

[BobbyBrandt]

I had a recent e-mail exchange with a company questioning the licensing for a font used on the cover of one of my books on Amazon (I created the cover myself using Microsoft Publisher). At first I thought this might be some sort of scam, so I did a little research.

While not an issue for stories posted only on a free site such as Literotica, writers should know that if you plan to sell your stories on sites such as Amazon, D2D, Smashwords, etc. the fonts contained in your work need to be licensed for commercial use. Whether in e-book or printed format, text content or cover, the fonts used are subject to copyright protection in many cases. Even some very common fonts, such as Times New Roman, which pre-dates Microsoft have copyrights that could present licensing requirements for their use in published works for sale.

As long as you're not using a non-business version of a program such a Microsoft Word (Student. Home, Personal, etc.) the license for use of the fonts within that program for publication of works would be covered. I use a Microsoft Professional Suite of products so licensing for the fonts I use are all covered for me. Where online programs such as Google Docs are concerned, you would need to check the licensing details for the fonts you use just to be safe.

 

[MrPixel]

So it's come down to that, huh? I used to be a typographer, but back then there was no doubt that whatever font you used, it was licensed for commercial use. I guess the proliferation of cheap "1001 Fonts!" collections have forced their hands since so many are copies or derivatives of commercial fonts.

It's personally not something I worry about, now being well out of the commercial production biz. I just find it interesting the intensity of the pettiness that seems to be proliferating with IP everywhere.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

So it's come down to that, huh? I used to be a typographer, but back then there was no doubt that whatever font you used, it was licensed for commercial use. I guess the proliferation of cheap "1001 Fonts!" collections have forced their hands since so many are copies or derivatives of commercial fonts.

It's personally not something I worry about, now being well out of the commercial production biz. I just find it interesting the intensity of the pettiness that seems to be proliferating with IP everywhere.

Yeah, no, sorry, but I have to disagree on that. This has nothing to do with "cheap" fonts flooding the market, just to then troll whoever uses it by demanding extra pay for commercial use. If they were just marginally different derivatives of commercial fonts, OP could simply use that commercial font as it comes pre-installed with their readers' devices or their own system. So, obviously, something special was needed. And if you download a font, it will contain a licensing file informing you about how you're allowed to use it, which in itself should be enough to tell you that you can't just use it however you want.

So, it has everything to do with people thinking that self-publishing is easy and uncomplicated, and don't see a need to inform themselves. And I'm sorry if that offends anyone here, but I think this is hilariously hypocritical.

Whenever someone in the forum asks about writing alternative versions of stories they found on here, or writing endings for stories that have been abandoned by the original authors before finishing them, a total shitstorm breaks lose within seconds of the topic being created because everyone here agrees that their intellectual property has to be honored. And then you go and use fonts, that take HUNDREDS of hours to create, without thinking about licensing? NOW you just assume you can use someone else's work for free, and even call them "petty" if they're not cool with it!?

 

[Britva415]

NOW you just assume you can use someone else's work for free, and even call them "petty" if they're not cool with it!?

I'm pretty sure they were talking about deliberate honeypotting. Creating look-alike fonts and publishing them free of cost, as a way of attracting people who don't want to pay for the commercial original font, and then pouncing on users to extort either a license fee or "damages" for the unlicensed commercial use.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I'm pretty sure they were talking about deliberate honeypotting. Creating look-alike fonts and publishing them free of cost, as a way of attracting people who don't want to pay for the commercial original font, and then pouncing on users to extort either a license fee or "damages" for the unlicensed commercial use.

Sorry, but I don't see how that makes any difference. It's not like the "honeypotters" made handshake agreements to then come around and fraudulently demand compensation for the commercial use of their work. Yeah, maybe they're banking on people not reading the licensing agreements, but that doesn't mean that you weren't supposed to read it in the first place.

*ETA*: I can understand it if OP assumed he could just use any font they had on their computer because, if I pay for my OS that comes with a bunch of fonts, I'm inclined to assume that I paid for the use of those fonts. But if I download something from the internet that someone else created, and then just assume that it's fine to use it commercially without ever having paid for it, then it's my stupid tax I have to pay.

 

[MillieDynamite]

We use licensed Adobe-provided fonts.

 

[Britva415]

Sorry, but I don't see how that makes any difference.

Are you saying you don't see it as petty?

Or are you saying you don't see it as a scam?

I don't know whether this is really happening or not, but it's not hard to imagine. People will turn absolutely anything into a scam these days. 99% of the scam in this case is ripping off an original font in the first place. Do you not see that as petty? Or as a scam? That was how I was trying to present the scenario.

 

[MillieDynamite]

This is from downloaded fonts that provide thousands of knock-offs or lookalikes, with small differences that make them unique from the original. They have free versions that can be used for personal use only. But to use them commercially, in a book, on a cover, or in a distributed video, you have to pay them, or yes, they come after you if they find them. Scammers will come after you on fonts, but so will the owners. When downloading a free font, be sure and read the fine print. Why? Because they are out to get you if they can.

 

[Britva415]

it's my stupid tax I have to pay.

What scam wouldn't be described this same way?

What scammers are not "petty" for baiting the unwary?

It's not like the "honeypotters" made handshake agreements to then come around and fraudulently demand compensation for the commercial use of their work.

I don't know what you mean by "handshake agreements" or why it's relevant. We're both talking about a scenario where there are license terms, and a user breached them - knowingly or otherwise. I wouldn't describe that as any handshake agreement, so, I don't know what kind of scenario you're imagining, what the point or the power of that strawman is.

You then go on to concede that the users were supposed to read the license terms, and are stupid if they wind up on the hook for compensation or damages if they breach the terms, so, I'm not sure what the "fraudulent" part is - other than what I already wrote above, which is that the "artist" probably ripped off someone else's IP in the first place in order to create their gratis-but-not-libre (cost-free but encumbered) version of the font.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know if it's really happening anyway (other than the ripping-off original fonts part). If it is, to me it's a scam and the scammers are petty.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

What scam wouldn't be described this same way?

What scammers are not "petty" for baiting the unwary?

I don't know what you mean by "handshake agreements" or why it's relevant. We're both talking about a scenario where there are license terms, and a user breached them - knowingly or otherwise. I wouldn't describe that as any handshake agreement, so, I don't know what kind of scenario you're imagining, what the point or the power of that strawman is.

You then go on to concede that the users were supposed to read the license terms, and are stupid if they wind up on the hook for compensation or damages if they breach the terms, so, I'm not sure what the "fraudulent" part is - other than what I already wrote above, which is that the "artist" probably ripped off someone else's IP in the first place in order to create their gratis-but-not-libre (cost-free but encumbered) version of the font.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know if it's really happening anyway (other than the ripping-off original fonts part). If it is, to me it's a scam and the scammers are petty.

Okay, let me try explaining it this way.

You post stories for free on a site where everyone can download them. You also don't have any kind of licensing agreement in your bio or attached to any of your stories.

So, if I take one of your stories that, by all intends and purposes, appears to be free, record a TtS app reading it, place some AI-generated images in the background, and upload the whole thing to YouTube... is it petty of you to complain about me making money off your work without your permission? Or did you bait me into doing it by posting it for free on the web?

The answer to both is "No". You can't use someone else's work for your own gain while assuming that it'll be fine.

 

[Britva415]

did you bait me into doing it by posting it for free on the web?

What if I did?

I thought we were talking about whether it was petty or a scam to do so (with a font).

I didn't realize you were talking about something completely different. I'm still not sure I know what you're talking about - just that it's not remotely the same scenario I was talking about. But to compare apples and apples - what if I did have the intention of baiting you into doing it? And then I came after you for damages or license fees?

 

[MillieDynamite]

Actually, we have copyrights to our work, and some of us have registered copyrights. So, you are not accurate at all.

Okay, let me try explaining it this way.

You post stories for free on a site where everyone can download them. You also don't have any kind of licensing agreement in your bio or attached to any of your stories.

So, if I take one of your stories that, by all intends and purposes, appears to be free, record a TtS app reading it, place some AI-generated images in the background, and upload the whole thing to YouTube... is it petty of you to complain about me making money off your work without your permission? Or did you bait me into doing it by posting it for free on the web?

The answer to both is "No". You can't use someone else's work for your own gain while assuming that it'll be fine.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

NOW you just assume you can use someone else's work for free, and even call them "petty" if they're not cool with it!?

The font in question is "Freestyle Script" which is standard in the Microsoft font library. The copyright is held by Esselte Corporation but I have a license to use it commercially by virtue of my "business" product license through Microsoft. If I had used another application that didn't transfer the license to me then I would be in violation of the copyright held by Esselte Corporation.

From the Microsoft FAQs on font licensing:

"Can I sell things I print from Windows or make using these printouts, say a book, logo, advertisement, report, t-shirt, or crafts that use fonts that come with Windows?

"Unless you are using an application that is specifically licensed for home, student, or non-commercial use, we do not restrict you from selling the things you print and make using the Windows-supplied fonts."

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Actually, we have copyrights to our work, and some of us have registered copyrights. So, you are not accurate at all.

Yes. That was exactly my point.

You made it, so you have the copyright. Even if you don't register it, it's yours. Just because I can download it without having to pay anything doesn't mean that I can then use it however I want. But, somehow, for some reason, here we are, calling it "petty" when someone complains about their copyright not being honored.