Lately the debate over fonts on the web has flared up again, and I find myself reading the same arguments over and over again. In particular, a lot of people seem convinced that widespread font embedding on the web would kill font foundries instantly. As a child of the internets, I respectfully disagree.
Think about it: we find ourselves in a world where, somehow, web designers are still making a living. They produce a product which consists entirely of unencrypted HTML, CSS and images, made available via a simple HTTP request. Ripping and hotlinking of design is frowned upon, and mostly limited to amateur users who use free services like Blogger and MySpace. Plus, we all know that often pirates are the kind of people who would not pay if the ripped material was not available for free, so there is very little actual revenue being lost here.
In fact, if we look at the actual professionals, we find that generally they treat each other's work with the utmost respect, and actively inform their colleagues of blatant abuse and stealing. We have a perfect example of a thriving industry which revolves around free distribution of copyrighted-but-DRM-free assets and which polices itself.
We're not that far from having something similar for fonts. Part of the problem is that the foundries are trying to protect their fonts by bringing out the lawyers. But so far, they've only managed to inconvenience and annoy their legitimate customers, for example with embedding restrictions on PDFs for screen vs print.
This typical industry thinking leads to the idea of font foundries selling font licenses for specific web sites. When you go and buy a font, you would enter a domain name and get a specially encoded font file back, which only works when used on that domain.
Unfortunately, while nice in theory, this idea clashes with how web development is done in practice. In my daily work, I serve my web pages from at least 3 different machines (local, staging, live). The work in progress is viewed by developers, testers and clients alike, and accessed from a whole zoo of different domain names. It would be impractical and prohibitively expensive to get licenses for all these domain names. In fact, I don't even really need a license for most of them, as they are for development use only.
Given these practical obstacles, it is a given that many designers and developers will learn how to remove domain restrictions from fonts they have bought, simply because it is more convenient. If such license violations become part of the normal workflow, do you think people will still be inclined to respect font licensing? We know they already don't.
So what if we turn it on its head and work from an open, participatory model? If I buy a font for web use and put it on my public website, it is actually in my own interests to protect that file:
- I don't want to give away something that I paid good money for.
- I don't want people leeching off my bandwidth.
- I don't want to be sued for distributing copyrighted material.
If I had the option to buy a font for web use and set domain-usage restrictions on that file myself, using open and free tools, I would totally do so. It would protect me from all of the above. This would be as simple as adding a chunk of data to the existing font file, and would not involve actually encrypting anything. This voluntary 'DRM' could of course be easily reversed by someone else, as the protection only works when code obeys it. However it would be a conscious line that people need to cross, and it would be this action that would violate the font's license, and be frowned upon by professionals.
This leads to the follow up question: with DRM being applied by their customers, how could font foundries determine whether a particular usage of their font is legal? Simple. With every purchase, they could embed a digital signature in the font file which described what was bought, when and by who. This would be purely metadata, not DRM, and doesn't even have to contain any personal information; it could be as simple as an internal account number or a transaction ID.
Such signatures would leave the door open for foundries to identify and fight abuse. By spidering the public web for CSS files with @font-face definitions, they could easily detect if a single license is being copied across many different sites. If there is suspected abuse, a font file can be traced back to the original customer, who can confirm or deny being responsible for the site in question. If someone were to strip the digital signature from a font, the foundry can easily detect this by comparing the font data. In all cases, the person at fault is the person who uses the material without being licensed to do so.
You might dismiss this as an engineer's solution, and that it's not fair to put the burden of policing on the font foundries, but is this really such a problem? In return for having to watch their web licenses, they get the benefit of finally being able to market and sell fonts to web designers. This is already the business model that designers and photographers use online.
Remember: while pirates don't get you any money, they don't directly lose you any either. It doesn't matter if a certain business decision increases the number of pirates, if it also increases the number of legitimate customers at the same time. Your income still goes up.
There's more benefits. A side effect of this system is that it brings font files more to the front. They're no longer just things to dump into your OS font folder, but files with specific metadata, and with an accessible, free toolset to inspect and manage them, used by the majority of industry professionals. Don't tell me that won't be good for the font business.
All of this can be done without any legislation changes. All that needs to happen is the creation of an open standard for domain-restrictions on OTF/TTF fonts, and for browsers to implement it. Then we can get the lawyers to draft the customer agreements, and we can enjoy the web in all its typographical glory.
Interesting Point
Interesting point, I think that all fonts should have a digital signature when downloaded at least then the creator would receive some recognition!
Impossible
DRM is mad crazy. It doesn't work and it can't work.
Putting effort in to the impossible is wasted effort.
Jesse: not your typical DRM
Perhaps I should've skipped the word 'DRM' altogether: what I'm describing has nothing to with the DRM used by e.g. iTunes or Media Player. I'm literally just talking about adding a machine-readable tag to the font file that says "Only allow using this font on: www.google.com". There is nothing to prevent you from removing that tag, and using the resulting unprotected font anyway. It's just that doing so would be illegal. Just like it is often illegal to rip images off of websites for your own use, even though you can still right-click -> Save as.
The point is that the majority of people would be running browsers that do respect these tags, and hence, the 'DRM' would be very effective at preventing direct unauthorized use of other people's font files.
A copyright violator would have to 1) download a web font 2) strip it of its license 3) use the resulting unlicensed font out in the open. This would still work, but leave tell-tale incriminating evidence that the foundries can identify.
Self-Made
I think the largest reason I don't go around copying other designers' sites and images is that those sites and images were in most cases created by that designer; each designer's site I go to will be full of that designer's handiwork. I think the principle here is that it's easily tied to one single person. I once copied some tabs from a CSS example, but it constantly weighed on my conscience and I eventually created some images of my own.
With fonts... well, I don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt when I search around for a free copy of Westminster, and I can't imagine why I don't have Helvetica. I'll regularly find a great font on someone else's computer, and snap it up.
When a file is generally downloaded and swappable, it starts feeling a lot more public, and it seems strange to pay for them.
I suppose, really, it's about being recognized. If you steal an image, someone might realize that it looks suspiciously like so-and-so's. With fonts, it's kind of expected that everyone will have it, because if someone doesn't have it a document looks odd (including things like Word documents).
Frankly, what I'd like to see is more designers creating their own fonts (or getting them specially made for their site), so that those fonts belong to that site. Then those fonts would feel like that designer's personal property, like their images, and people would feel less-inclined to take them.
On that note: Why do we, as web designers, have to make a new site for each client, while a font-foundry can make a bunch of fonts and sell the whole set for a couple thousand, whenever they please and to whoever they wish? Just what is the payscale difference?
(Also, how much money has Arial and Times New Roman made their creators in the entire time of their existance?)
an important point
Everything that follows is personal opinion, based on my personal experiences.
Font DRM is useless.
I can make do with free fonts. I don't need full Unicode support, full character support, or all the other nicities you get from a 'real' font face. I don't have non-english users. I don't need a crazy font for my body text, just nice things for headers and specials. If it has all the characters I can see on my keyboard, it'll work for my sites.
I honestly think that a majority of web designers will be in the same boat. I'm not even interested in any of the products that Foundries are offering. Any hindrance into the implementation of @font-face is just hurting them, in my eyes.
Also, while I don't necessarily agree with this, I think it's important to remember that under current US copyright law Fonts are not protected. It may be immoral and objectionable to steal/rip/copy a font file, but it's not illegal. Src: http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html.
Without a change in US law, there's nothing for the Foundries to enforce. They can come up with a scheme, implement it, but what are they going to do if someone rips the font and uses it?
Michael Kozakewich: Guilt is relative
I am well aware that designers routinely share fonts without guilt. I think this is mostly an attitude issue, and one that the foundries have cultivated themselves. But it's also something that designers have been able to get away with exactly because they work behind closed doors rather than on the open web. As soon as fonts get placed out in the open, I think people will need to start getting proper licenses for them, or risk litigation.
What's interesting about your examples of "no guilt when copying fonts" is that all of the fonts you mention are in fact pretty old and the copyright is owned by giant corporations. They are classic designs which, at least according to the idea of copyright law, should already be in the public domain by now.
Truth is, I also feel very little remorse when copying one of these classic fonts. But for me, the situation is very different if we're talking about a fresh, new design created by a small time font designer, who is just trying to make a living.
The more I think about piracy, the more I see it as the Information Society's response to blatant milking of intellectual property. Once a design becomes widespread enough, it is transformed from art into a ubiquitous idea. At a certain point, society's interests do overshadow the designer's.
But this is a distinction that we need to be aware of and which we need to apply with conscience and honesty.
amishforkfight: Copyright of fonts
I am aware that font designs are not protected under US copyright law, but as far as I know, it is perfectly possible to copyright font files. Given the notion of derived works, it would seem to me that the only way you could legally copy a digital font without paying for it, is if you were to manually redraw all the outlines from scratch. This is exactly what a lot of big foundries have done to classic designs, but it is a very time consuming process.
I can totally understand that you don't need the high-falutin' precision typography that professional foundries provide, but there are plenty of us who do appreciate this sort of quality. And while you may not care about the quality of typography on your site, your readers might.
Dave Shea's recent demonstration of Cufón, while controversial, definitely looks eye catching. Imagine if everyone started doing this: your Arial or Verdana body copy might look as outdated in 10 years as unstyled-blue-hyperlinked-Times-New-Roman-HTML3 does today.
It's fair
The future of digital products probably lies in offering one free product with the option of a for-pay upgrade. In the software realm, it means building support into the business plan. In the music realm, it entails guaranteeing the quality of the downloaded file (as opposed to getting a copy of a copy of a copy). In publishing and typography, some sort of DRM will probably be necessary.
Love your site, by the way. The theme and design are amazing.
this whole article is absurd
what you are advocating is to alter the laws of this country to "protect" a very small, very minor cottage industry, and create legalistic fictional boundaries to protect that small industry.
While I am sure there are a couple of examples where a "font artist" or font foundry is making a nice income from "selling" their fonts, the reality is that 99.9% of the population could care less.
They would not, do not, and never will pay for a font.
It is NOT that important to the end-user, in most cases, that a font be one thing or another, as long as it is visually readable, and generally not ugly the end-user does not care. I can promise you that next to no one out there is bemoaning the fate of their website traffic because they can't afford to license Garramond Bold Italic. If they are, they are delusional about the viability of their site, product or skills.
I only ran across your page while looking for some information about CSS, and this was linked to one of those pages. While I am sure you are talented in what you do, this advocacy to create a protected profit scheme around this tiny issue is not only laughable, but if implemented would end up costing the taxpayer money to prosecute those dastardly font fiends who "stole" your work.
This country has much more pressing issues than this silly idea.
Anonymous: missed the point?
To the anonymous commenter above: I'm sorry but I get the impression you read something different than what I wrote. I never said laws would need to be changed to protect a 'cottage industry'. I never said fonts would suddenly be sold to the general population. I expect that the masses will treat typography like they always do: as subconscious, but omnipresent, style and fashion.
This whole affair is targeted at three kinds of people: font makers, graphical designers, and browser implementers. The population at large need not be involved in any way.
In fact, my entire proposal is meant to avoid what you are cursing me for. Currently, font foundries want both legislation changes and extreme technical restrictions, namely to require every font to be signed, and for operating systems to refuse any unsigned font. My proposal recognizes the absurdity in this plan, and instead proposes a simpler honor-based system, just like we've maintained with physical distribution (books, CDs, etc.). Lawyers would need to rewrite the conditions on which fonts are sold, not change entire countries' legislations.
Also, I have to assume that by "this country", you mean the United States. I don't live there, and neither does the majority of the world. But since you brought it up: so far, the United States has the worst digital copyright legislation. It's called the DMCA, and it already allows everything that you decry as being a waste of taxpayer dollars. Where were you in 1998 when they passed this legislation?
I think what you are writing
I think what you are writing here is what's one many webdesigners mind, but you actually put them into (good) words!
Where the burden lays
Steven, the solution you offer is a good one. I hope that the foundries consider it
I'm interested in what would happen if let's say H&FJ discovered that there were 1000 improper copies of Archer being used on the internet after a scan. What recourse could they take? Start filing lawsuits against all the offenders, like the record industry did a couple years ago? Perhaps the reason the foundries haven't taken this solution is because they want to avoid that sort of scenario. Like you said, the burden is laid on the foundries. And it would be difficult to weigh those costs against the new revenue generated from the new business model.
Legal burden vs profit
David DeSandro: I think the problem with the music industry is that their forensic methods were inaccurate, and they blasted out copyright infringement notices indiscriminately. They also did so while offering no serious DRM-free, all-regions alternative for downloading music of their own. It does not inspire customer loyalty.
In the case of unlicensed font use on the web, the evidence would be right there for everyone to see, so the legal cases would be simpler. But to be honest, I simply don't think piracy would be as widespread. As we've already established, the 'unwashed masses' do not really care about professional typography. I doubt they will go out of their way to steal those perfectly kerned weights of Archer to go with their pink Comic Sans body text. Even if they do use an unlicensed font and get caught, they would probably prefer to remove the infringing font, rather than pay for it.
Because of this, it is in the foundries' interests to only sue abuse by people who are likely to become serious customers, i.e. graphic designers and the people who employ them to build professional sites. These are typically very transparent, and it is easy to contact the owners.
I honestly believe that in spite of widespread font piracy, web fonts would be a fair and profitable business.
DMCA --- an answer in part
As a USian, let me assure you, the US government in no way represents the vast majority of US citizens.
Case in point: in October 2008, the US Congress was overwhelmed with petitions from 1,000,000s of US citizens demanding that the Wall Street financial industry not be bailed out at taxpayer expense. This legislation was not only passed, it was passed with even MORE spending than the original bill.
DMCA, sort of thing issue, only on that issue very few people in US had any notion what was at stake.
Again, let me assure, at the moment, US citizens are NOT represented by the US government.
Back on topic: I see no hope for your proposal. Where is CSS3? MathML? SVG? Simply put, people with Big Money don't want these standards, and some of these same people don't want their fonts available on the web.
I see the only way forward is to create fonts from scratch with open licenses. I know how much work it is. It's something I may consider doing myself in 20 years, after I retire.
DRM vs DRM
To the anonymous person above: you're right that it is doubtful that something like this will ever be implemented in all browsers. I merely wanted to take the reasoning to its logical conclusion: namely that any form of 'real' DRM (i.e. using encryption/signatures/etc) is useless against someone with the right tools, and thus will not prevent piracy. This is the truth that 'Big Money', as you put it, still refuses to face.
But are you really saying that CSS3 and SVG have no hope of becoming widespread? Well, Apple seems to disagree, and has already carved out its niche with the iPhone and Safari. As for Microsoft, it took many years, but finally they are embracing web standards in IE. We'll see where it goes.
In the meantime, we're still stuck with shitty typography on the web. And that's something that I want to see changed.
Typekit
Another possible solution is fonts as a service:
http://blog.typekit.com/2009/05/27/introducing-typekit
Will be interesting to see how quickly each of the major font foundries start offering the same service.
Bags Point
the creator would receive some recognition!
Interesting point...
Thumbs up to Typekit
@Robert, thanks for passing on typekit, could be a possible solution and I'm sure the foundries will soon start trying to offer a same service.
Typekit
Typekit is a fantastic idea, the internet world would be a much place with something like that in place. No more worrying or simply using common fonts all the time like arial!
Post new comment