Legality of using fonts as images

[Oliva]

Hi,
if a font's license does not allow embeddability, is it legal to make an image with it (SVG or bitmap) and insert the image into an e-book? What kind of license would allow this, besides freeware and open source licenses? I have a lot of desktop fonts, some can be used in e-books, others not. I know that each font's usage is governed by its own particular license - with my question I was just looking for general ideas and practices. Thank you.

[Turtle91]

I'm certainly not a licensing expert, but I would think not. You are still using their font for yourself. Unless you get permission - from the license, or specificly written from the author/creator - then you would be setting yourself up for trouble.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Oliva

Hi,
if a font's license does not allow embeddability, is it legal to make an image with it (SVG or bitmap) and insert the image into an e-book? What kind of license would allow this, besides freeware and open source licenses? I have a lot of desktop fonts, some can be used in e-books, others not. I know that each font's usage is governed by its own particular license - with my question I was just looking for general ideas and practices. Thank you.

This is one of the worst things you can do in an eBook. Most of the time, this graphics image of text is not all that readable. If what you are inserting as an image can be done as text, do i that way.

[phillipgessert]

I always thought the reason for restrictions on embedding fonts was due to the relative ease with which an end user could rip it right back out again, making it essentially a redistribution of the font itself. I wouldn't think there'd be any difference licensing-wise between text-in-an-image in an ebook and text-in-an-image online or in print materials.

[najgori]

font companies steal fonts from each other, so i don't think anyone care if you use bitmap or vectors in your book. however embedding is prohibited.


old but relevant link

[Oliva]

Thanks for all your answers. I found out that, sometimes, fonts that prohibit embedding, do allow using the font for cover images which is then covered by the desktop license. It's dangerous to generalize, though.

I know that text as images should be used only as the last resort. I would only do it for aesthetic effect on chapter starting pages (a decorative glyph > SVG), for scene dividers, for the raised cap for the first paragraph in the chapter, or for the words "The end" on the last page.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Oliva

Thanks for all your answers. I found out that, sometimes, fonts that prohibit embedding, do allow using the font for cover images which is then covered by the desktop license. It's dangerous to generalize, though.

I know that text as images should be used only as the last resort. I would only do it for aesthetic effect on chapter starting pages (a decorative glyph > SVG), for scene dividers, for the raised cap for the first paragraph in the chapter, or for the words "The end" on the last page.

The only time you hae to do the ext as a graphic is for Mono that doesn't support embedded fonts. There's no other reason. What you want to do can be done in SVG.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Oliva

Thanks for all your answers. I found out that, sometimes, fonts that prohibit embedding, do allow using the font for cover images which is then covered by the desktop license. It's dangerous to generalize, though.

I know that text as images should be used only as the last resort. I would only do it for aesthetic effect on chapter starting pages (a decorative glyph > SVG), for scene dividers, for the raised cap for the first paragraph in the chapter, or for the words "The end" on the last page.

There isn't any "font embedding' in a cover. That's...apples and oranges. When you make a book cover, of any kind, paperback, eBook, etc., the final product is an image, effectively--whether it's the laminate cover or paperback cover of the cover, or the digital cover. That's NOT what font embedding IS.

Font embedding means putting the ENTIRE font file--every single glyph--into an eBook or other file type, which would enable the recipient of the file, at the other end, to extract that same file and thus possess the font. You could type every single glyph in a font on a book cover and produce it, and it still would not allow the end book buyer to "extract" that font and own it in a usable way. The end user would not be in any different position than he would if he went to myfonts.com and viewed the glyphs list for that font face.

If you want fleurons (scene dividers), those work far better as images, ANYWAY, because there are still myriad devices that won't display embedded fonts.

So now, all we're talking about are the Dropcaps/Raised initials. If you make those images, the user (or you!) will never be able to find the word/phrase in which those are embedded with search, as something like "Snake thought that..." in search, with an imaged cap, would look like "Xnake thought that..."

You can buy something like Mercer Caps, which are indeed pretty foofy, for a boxed initial cap, or you could just make a dropcap with the body font. OR you could embed a font (in the real meaning of the word) and then subset it, but some would say that's skirting the intent of font licensing, if not the law.

And finally, if it wasn't clear from my cover comment, you can use images of fonts from now until hell freezes over and that's not font embedding. It IS, however, a gross injustice to the buyer of your eBooks. Don't use images of fonts for reading text--ever. (Yes, yes, you can use an image of a word in, say, Hebrew, if it's a single instance or something like that, but I mean, don't make your body images of text, period.)

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Font embedding means putting the ENTIRE font file--every single glyph--into an eBook or other file type, which would enable the recipient of the file, at the other end, to extract that same file and thus possess the font. You could type every single glyph in a font on a book cover and produce it, and it still would not allow the end book buyer to "extract" that font and own it in a usable way. The end user would not be in any different position than he would if he went to myfonts.com and viewed the glyphs list for that font face.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, what do you call it if the font used is a subset font?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Just to throw a spanner in the works, what do you call it if the font used is a subset font?

Heart wrenching, perhaps.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Heart wrenching, perhaps.

Only if you wanted to grab the font from the ePub.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Just to throw a spanner in the works, what do you call it if the font used is a subset font?

A subset font. Tricky, I know.

Hitch

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Hitch

A subset font. Tricky, I know.

Hitch

Really?
Take a Hubcap or the whole car. Do the cops care?
But Yer Honor, It was only a "Y and Z"

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by theducks

Really?
Take a Hubcap or the whole car. Do the cops care?
But Yer Honor, It was only a "Y and Z"

I thought he meant what to call it. It's still font embedding. A subset for a novel anyway is like taking all the car except the hub caps and number plates.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by theducks

Really?
Take a Hubcap or the whole car. Do the cops care?
But Yer Honor, It was only a "Y and Z"

It actually does matter, Ducks. In the Adobe Systems v. Southern Software Systems, Inc. case, the court ruled that fonts are software (not creative Intellectual Property, which is why traditional copyright doesn't apply), and that by copying an entire font file--the ENTIRE file--the software was effectively stolen.

Subsetting works around that. I mean...logically, what's the objection to "redistribution" or "embedding"? It's that the end-user, the buyer of the book, could extract the file and then own the font and be able to use it. Nobody cares if you have a Desktop Publishing license and put 300 of 301 characters of a font on a book cover, or in a printed book interior. That's because they can't extract the font from the printed copy or the cover image.

Similarly, if you subset a font, the end-user can extract the file all he wants--but the font isn't usable, because he doesn't get all the characters. Let's say you use a font for drop caps. You use, say, 18 letters, all upper-case. That's a far cry from the entire font file.

So, in every sense, font embedding legally prevents the font from being "redistributed" as a font. The entire "software program" (font) doesn't work, because some of it is missing.

I mean--think of it this way. If you took images of the upper-case letters and slapped them in as drop caps, like boxed letters, would that be embedding? Nope, just as it's not embedding to use the font's picture on a cover or anyplace else.

Font redistribution licensing (the existence thereof) deals with and addresses the possible repercussions of the (entire) font (file) being extracted from the (end) file and being stolen and reused by someone who hasn't licensed it. Font embedding precludes that.

I don't believe--but don't factually know--that there's ever been a legal case about whether or not subsetting meets the intent of the Adobe v. SS case, but I suspect that a foundry would have a very hard time making the case that a subset font was font embedding under the legal definition thereof.

Hitch