Apple says Web designers can post "any font" for use with Safari.

Si_Daniels's picture

This came up at the Business of Type Event on Friday, and yes Apple font people were given a heads up...

...from the Fonts section of the main Safari page on Apple.com - http://www.apple.com/safari/

One of the biggest concerns around the Web fonts scheme is that Web designers would post commercial fonts through either ignorance or disregard of font licensing rights. Apple were aware of this (both Safari folks and Font folks) so I find it hard to understand why they’re telling web designers that they can post any font to the Web.

This is probably a break-down in communication between marketing folks and the font/browser folks, but the damage has been done – Mac World appears to have parroted the misinformation in their recent Safari review...

http://www.macworld.com/article/132708/2008/03/safari31.html

Hopefully Apple will fix this quickly, and post material that directs web designers to freeware fonts that can be used with the scheme.

Cheers, Si

dezcom's picture

"Could you add “any of your fonts” instead?"

Perhaps "any of your licensed fonts which permits it"

ChrisL

Ch's picture

i'm fairly sure that posting reduced jpegs to a discussion group is protected as fair use, but those days may be numbered. even fair use seems to be in jeopardy. check this out; it sends chills :

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/04/fair-use-three-step-test-and-eu...

i'm not arguing against your livlihood, folks, and anyway that's a different thread.
but as usage restrictions become more draconian and unreasonable it seems more important than ever to set precedents for open sharing where possible.

Uli's picture

Here are two short answers to Mr. Phinney's reply:

1)

Mr. Phinney's statement "most countries recognize digital fonts as software" was a fairy tale and will remain a fairy tale, because Mr. Phinney could not prove that "most countries" recognize fonts as software.

2)

I predicted elsewhere that Mr. Phinney would again quote this old hat, the SSI "preliminary judgement" alias "summary judgement" (in Germany "einstweilige Verfügung").

Everyone knows that "preliminary judgements" are "preliminary" and hence cannot be generalized, because no trial took place. Furthermore, Mr. Phinney did not disclose the most "relevant section", namely this one:

"Based on the foregoing, the court grants Adobe's motion for summary judgment on its claim of copyright infringement of its Utopia software program, denies defendants' cross-motion on the copyright claims, denies Adohe's motion for summary judgment on the patent claims, denies defendants' countermotion on the patent claims and denies Ares' motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint."

This means: Firstly, the preliminary judgment refers to the font Utopia only, to no other fonts sold by Adobe. Secondly, the preliminary judgment denied Adobe's motion. In my document about this preliminary judgement

http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/ssi.pdf

I stated:

"Adobe did not dare to seek a trial due to the fact that Adobe’s motions concerning Slimbach’s patent claims were denied by the district court."

guifa's picture

I do not know an American Copyright Law nor do I know an American Supreme Court decision ruling that fonts are copyrightable.

Nor, apparently, do you know US law. There is no need for there to be a US Supreme Court ruling for something to qualify as legal precedence (as a minor addition/correction to Thomas's statement about the US Supreme Court not needing to rule on something to make it law, well, no court can make anything law in the US, they only interpret extant law). As well, there is no such thing as a "preliminary judgement" in American law, so I'm not sure what you mean by that but based on a quick question to a German friend (note I explicitly don't claim to know the German system and am only speculating), I think you've confused summary judgement with preliminary injunction, which are very different (and this confirmed by the BEOLINGUS dictionary). A summary judgement is only preliminary in that it takes place before the primary case, to rule on whether or not claims are triable, and my guess in German would be "beschleunigtes Urteilsverfahren". Courts can still create precedence in these judgements (in the US), as evidence is presented just as they would be in a normal case.

SSI would want the court to rule that copyrightable did not extend to the font software thus avoiding the entire court case. The court stated that they are protectable, and thus Adobe can continue in their case against SSI, which would then involve proving that SSI did indeed violate the copyright. If SSI had succeeded, there would have been no need for Adobe to attempt to show how their software was copied, because the court would have ruled that it wasn't copyrightable. This is the point of a summary judgement in US law. Regarding the copyrightability and generalization of the ruling:

"The parties do not dispute that defendant King had access to plaintiffs programs.5 Thus, the primary issue in this case is whether the material at issue is protectable expression under the Copyright Act"

"Thus, defendants contend that the numerical reference points that define an outline of a glyph are unprotectable as a matter of law."

"Accordingly, the court finds that the Adobe font software programs are protectable original works of authorship."

This is indeed a ruling that can be generalized. Otherwise the court would have stated "Accordingly, the court finds that Utopia is a protectable original work of authorship." But it didn't, leaving the judgement open for reference in other cases.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

AGL's picture

Thanks ChrisL: “any of your licensed fonts which permits it” will do just great!

SuperUltraFabulous's picture

Uli is right about the images. We take images from other websites all the time. Do I profit from it? No. But it is analogous to using fonts without proper licensing.

Mikey :-)

Uli's picture

guifa:

A summary judgement is only preliminary in that it takes place before the primary case, to rule on whether or not claims are triable, and my guess in German would be “beschleunigtes Urteilsverfahren”.

Such terminological discussions do not make much sense, because English is not my mother tongue and German is not your mother tongue. The term “beschleunigtes Urteilsverfahren” is a criminal proceeding in Germany, and the term "preliminary judgement" is used by me and others as another expression or as a synonym for "summary judgement" in the USA.

Instead of terminological discussions, you should look at the reality which will open your eyes so that you will recognize that the SSI "summary judgement" does not prove that the Adobe fonts are copyrightable in the USA or elsewhere.

For instance, Paul King has been selling the SSI fonts alias Adobe fonts many years after the lawsuit. And these SSI fonts alias Adobe fonts are even today still downloadable from numerous websites. (Miss Tiffany does not like links to such sites, so that you will have to browse for these sites for yourself.)

All this would not have been accepted by Adobe, if the Adobe fonts alias SSI fonts were copyrightable.

What is more, Adobe's entire Font Folio collection (the unmodified fonts, not the SSI clones) is downloadable for free from numerous websites. This would not be accepted by Adobe, if the Adobe Font Folio fonts were copyrightable in the USA or elsewhere.

And as regards font CDs, Adobe's entire Font Folio collection can be bought for a few cents as commercial ripoff CDs. I documented this at my website

http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/index.html#OSTEUROPA

All this would not be accepted by Adobe, if the Adobe Font Folio fonts were copyrightable in the USA or elsewhere. The SSI "summary judgement" alias "preliminary judgement" is entirely useless and proves nothing.

John Hudson's picture

Uli: This means: Firstly, the preliminary judgment refers to the font Utopia only, to no other fonts sold by Adobe. Secondly, the preliminary judgment denied Adobe’s motion.

Utopia was used as a test case in the Adobe vs. SSi lawsuit, and was accepted and understood as such by both parties. Of course Judge Whyte's acceptance of Adobe's motion for a summary judgement on the copyright of the Adobe font applies to the other fonts in the case: it was acceptance of the copyrightability of fonts (at which point SSi quickly agreed to settle out of court: they understood that the judgement applied to all the fonts, not just Utopia, even if you dont').

What Judge Whyte denied was the motion for a summary judgement on the specific patents claimed by Adobe. So he accepted the motion regarding the general issue of font copyright, which he judged in favour of, but he denied the motion regarding the patents. Note that this does not mean that he denied the patents, but that he denied to motion to make a summary judgement on them: the patent issue would have to be decided in court. The copyright issue could be decided by summary judgement, since the US Copyright Office had already established in principle that fonts could be copyrighted as computer programs. What the judgement needed to establish was whether the fonts, and particularly the outlines, met the requisite legal criteria of creativity to be protectable by copyright. And Judge Whyte decided that yes, they did, and that summary judgement is now legal precedence. I don't know what the role of precedence is in German law, but in in US law, derived from English common law, is is extremely important.

Your later argument that infringing fonts are still available through various sources is not evidence that fonts are copyrightable. Unlike trademarks, which one is obliged to defend or lose, one is under no obligation to defend one's copyright, and the copyright is retained regardless of whether the holder actively prosecutes infringement. I happen to know something of the material cost in time and energy that the SSi lawsuit put on Adobe's type group, that it delayed the development of new products and tied up key people for more than a year. Frankly, I'm not surprised that Adobe are not launching lawsuits at every infringement of their copyright. Like reasonable people, they pick their fights.

...and the term “preliminary judgement” is used by me and others as another expression or as a synonym for “summary judgement” in the USA.

It is not a synonym. There is nothing 'preliminary' about a summary judgement, any more than there is about a summary execution.

jdaggett's picture

vanblokland:

I think your comments are spot on. I was playing with this feature yesterday and was able to crash Safari, using a font described here. Precisely the problem you described and a relatively trivial example (i.e. overflowing the argument stack). On the Mac, Webkit is passing the downloaded font data off to the ATS system service which does the rasterization:

http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/browser/trunk/WebCore/platform/gr...

So bugs in ATS can be exploited using Safari. It's quite possible that this code could be tightened up and made more secure but I think some thought needs to be put in to making sure it gets there and not just assuming that it is secure. With Firefox, we have the same concern, relying on underlying platform API's needs to be done carefully.

Keep in mind that I think the same thing is probably possible with downloaded PDF files containing embedded fonts. Using Freetype or another rasterizer is possible but definitely not an easy task, especially when you want the code to be efficient.

John Hudson:

One thing I've never quite understood is to what exactly the Adobe vs. SSi case really applies to. The hints? The outlines themselves? Without hints is a font really a "program"?!?

Put another way, if someone takes a TrueType font and copies the outlines to make a SVG font (no hints) are they in copyright violation? Would the same user be in violation if they used the outline within a vector graphic of some sort and distributed that (i.e. something that still contains the outline)?

I don't think these are just theoretical issues but real issues that web designers need to be able to understand. "No embedding" flags, originally intended for use with Word documents, don't really explain much in this context.

SuperUltraFabulous's picture

Question: Do fonts embedded in PDFs use a system renderer?... like ATS?

aszszelp's picture

In my opinion, outlines alone could not be regarded as computer programs. But my opinion does not count. If I remember correctly from having read earlier, either by (imho false) court judging or by copyright office regulation, font files per se (so even without hints) are considered font "sofware".

Actually, Uli is wrong in a lot of respects (because even if we disapprove of certain laws, they are laws), and while I disapprove of fonts being protected as "software", I do think they need to be protected in some way (as "work of art" e.g.).
His argument in one of his writings is telling however: If you draw an outline and save the font, the stipulated "software code" is generated automatically. Your work was not authoring software code, but of designing (as an artist) outlines.

Uli's picture

aszszelp:

His argument in one of his writings is telling however: If you draw an outline and save the font, the stipulated “software code” is generated automatically.

I avoid the word "software" as a legal term, because it does not occur in German copyright law. Even the US copyright law does not use the word "software" (but the word "software" occurs in the American "software rental amendment act").

Could you please specify where I used the legal term "software"?

aszszelp's picture

LOL!
Uli, is your essence of existence to argue?
You are questioning someone (who is – partially and with truly strong limitations – backing you) in the point that supports your case?
That's hilarious!
:D

dberlow's picture

" We take images from other websites all the time. Do I profit from it? No. But it is analogous to using fonts without proper licensing."

It is? It is not universally the case that it is unlawful to use images, and a whole body of law concerning 'fair use' tells that tale. Fonts, unless one is using the software in some journalistic pursuit of typographic commentary, have no fair use outside of license. SSI, was a troll under the bridge between proprietary and common font formats. They have no more foot stomping or hand biting to offer the world.

"Could you please specify where I used the legal term “software”?"

No. The continued circular opinions/arguments represent you as a waste of time with a mouth, but little or no ear function. When one does not understand the law even if one reads it, one does not understand typography even when one sees it, and ones grasp of type technology is second only to many billions of others, I think it is fair to say one should sit down, silence themselves and listen. Perhaps that applies to you.

Cheers!

joeclark's picture

I know Uli was being rhetorical, but he seems to have a typically incomplete knowledge of copyright law. He needs to look up concepts like fair use (U.S.) and fair dealing (Canada, U.K., some other countries). In short, you can post screenshots with attribution in many contexts without infringement. The same goes for photographs and other copyrighted works.

I don’t see how fair use or fair dealing would cover embedding fonts in Web pages even if they were copyrightable (or even considering that font files actually are copyrightable). Hence, Uli’s point is rather off topic. But the objection “The Web is all about replication of copyrighted works, so why should fonts be any different?” is one that merits discussion.


Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/

Si_Daniels's picture

I think (c) is off-topic as is the security issue (although I can't understand how Apple would not have fixed an exploit that Adobe patched 5 years ago). I'd suggest a separate thread, but haven't we been around that bush many times in the past.

The reason I started the thread was that I found Apple's positioning of the technology problematic and somewhat misleading, especially given the sensitivity and controversy swirling around the subject.

Anyway James Arboghast sent me the following notes off-list (too busy to contribute himself) suggested I post them here...

> CSS font embedding is mainly a distribution issue and a commercial
> rights issue. Here's why:
>
> * In principle, copyright is concerned with both intellectual property
> rights (art and design) and distribution rights (commercial vending).
> In practice, when copyright "law" and litigation are applied to
> unauthorized distribution of fonts, the principal of law is applied, not the letter.
>
> * Irrespective of state-defined copyright legislation in a given
> country, and whether or not digital type outlines and fonts are
> "copyrightable", font makers and vendors are automatically granted
> commercial rights---specifically the right to profit from their
> invention, design, and sale of their commercial font product(s)---like
> all other producers of artwork, design or software products.
>
> * The commercial rights of font makers, including the right to profit
> from their invention, design and sale of retail font products, are
> upheld on a case-by-case basis, usually in the "court of professional opinion".
>
> * Unauthorized distribution of commercial font products is typically
> prohibited by individual font product EULAs, which are "legally binding"
> contracts between the font maker or vendor/distributor, and all users.
> EULA contracts are enforcable by private litigation, independently of
> state-defined copyright legislation. EULA and commercial rights of
> font makers are enforcable, and have been enforced,
> by private litigation.
>
> * Retail OpenType fonts are commercial software by definition, as they
> contain OpenType feature programs. They are also commercial products,
> irrespective of whether or not they are software programs or
> "copyrightable". All commercial products are protected from
> unauthorized distribution by commercial law in the U.S. and Germany,
> Australia, Great Britain, France, Poland, New Zealand, Japan, Norway,
> most western countries.
>
> * Retail TrueType and Type1 fonts, whether they are definable as
> "software"/"programs" and "copyrightable" or not, are nonetheless
> commercial products issued with EULAs and protected from unauthorized
> distribution by commercial law in the U.S. and Germany, Australia,
> Great Britain, France, Poland, New Zealand, most western countries.
>
> * Copyright legislation in individual countries has nothing to do with
> the price of fish in China Also try: "the funny fish forging industry"
> ;-)
>
> * CSS font embedding is mainly a distribution issue affecting the
> commercial rights of font makers and vendors/distributors.

John Hudson's picture

jdaggett: One thing I’ve never quite understood is to what exactly the Adobe vs. SSi case really applies to. The hints? The outlines themselves? Without hints is a font really a “program”?!?

Read the text of Judge Whyte's summary judgement on the copyright question, which Thomas posted above. It is very clear. It is important to bear in mind that what US copyright law considers a computer program and what it considers a sufficient degree of creativity to qualify for copyright protection are not what you or I might consider them. The USCO defines a computer program as 'a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result'. That is a very generous definition, especially if one pays attention to the allowance for both direct and indirect use. I don't doubt that some people might want to argue with that definition, or propose alternative definitions, but for the sake of US copyright law that is the definition that counts.

The other thing that is important to bear in mind is that, as Judge Whyte noted in his judgement, citing precedence, 'the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice'. That is to say, it is not necessary for a work to exhibit a huge amount of creativity -- what I'm tempted to call a 'romantic amount', since many popular notions of creativity are strongly influenced by romanticism --; the mere presence of creativity, in even a slight amount, is deemed worthy of protection.

Bearing those two things in mind, this is the key passage of Judge Whyte's judgement (by emphasis:

'The evidence presented shows that there is some creativity in designing the font software programs. While the glyph dictates to a certain extent what points the editor must choose, it does not dictate every point that must be chosen. Adobe has shown that font editors make creative choices as to what points to select based on the image in front of them on the computer screen. The code is determined directly from the selection of the points. Thus, any copying of the points is copying of literal expression, that is, in essence, copying of the computer code itself.'

dezcom's picture

"The code is determined directly from the selection of the points. Thus, any copying of the points is copying of literal expression, that is, in essence, copying of the computer code itself.’"

As the saying goes, A hah! Now I understand what they meant. Granted, I think this vastly understates what is involved, both technically and creatively, in designing a typeface but I at least see what lawyers have hung their hats on as a point of legality--or the basis for their litmus test. Whatever we typography lovers and type designers really think or express as what is involved--or what could be stolen is most likely too complicated to prove or disprove and would involve varied opinions of type geeks instead of absolute sightings by judges and lawyers.

ChrisL

Uli's picture

Is Chief Justice John G. Roberts a computer programmer?

Let's assume, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,

shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts

is sitting in front of his computer, and after starting Coreldraw, as a first step, he draws with his mouse two egg-like concentrical circles as an "O" letter, such as shown here:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf, page 3
(screen shot of step 1)

Then, as a second step, John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, saves this "O" letter as a CDR Coreldraw file, such as shown here:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf, page 4
(screen shot of step 2, top)

Question 1: Is John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, a "computer programmer", who has just written a CDR "computer programme" called "O"-letter?

Your answer to question 1: Yes or No and Why?

Then, as a third step, John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, saves this "O" letter as a TTF TrueType file, such as shown here:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf, page 4
(screen shot of step 3, bottom)

Question 2: Is John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, a "computer programmer", who has just written a TTF "computer programme" called "O"-letter?

Your answer to question 2: Yes or No and Why?

blank's picture

Is Chief Justice John G. Roberts a computer programmer?

I apologize, but I think it needs to be said…

aluminum's picture

"Is John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, a “computer programmer”"

What does being a programmer have to do with anything?

I thought we're talking about the definition of software.

If you're asking is "did John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, by saving that file, create a unique piece of computer code (ie, software) that describes a particular visual design that he created" then the answer is "yes".

But, again, IANAL and all that really matters is what the lawyers and judges think in a particular case. ;o)

BlueStreak's picture

I'm going to point out that Apple says you CAN use any font, not that you MAY use any font. It's trivial semantics, but potentially essential to any legal argument.

jdaggett's picture

John Hudson: The code is determined directly from the selection of the points. Thus, any copying of the points is copying of literal expression, that is, in essence, copying of the computer code itself.

So from this description that would imply that someone who uses a glyph outline in a vector drawing program and distributes that outline contained within a vector file format like SVG is actually violating the copyright of the font in the U.S, since that file contains a copy of the protected outline.

And why wouldn't the same apply to the copy of FB Moderno contained in Headline.swf used to display the content title on this page, a font I have not licensed?

Uli's picture

aluminum:

What does being a programmer have to do with anything?
I thought we’re talking about the definition of software.

That's a good joke.

What you call "software" is called "computer programme" in copyright laws.

"Computer programmes" (in your non-copyright-law parlance "software") are "literary works" written by authors. There are copyright laws which explicitely define that "computer programmes" are "literary works", e.g. the United Kingdom Copyright Act:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/UK-Copyright-Act.jpg

The author of the "literary work" of a "computer programme" is called the "computer programmer".

Copyright protection only subsists in original works of authorship, e.g. in "computer programmes" as "literary works", written by "authors", e.g. here the "computer programmers".

For definition of "authorship" etc. see e.g. the American Copyright Law:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/USA-Copyright-LAW.jpg

I hope this answers your question:

What does being a programmer have to do with anything?

And I hope that you now understand that "talking about the definition of software" means "talking about the definition of computer programme"

Mr. Hudson stated above in this thread:

The USCO defines a computer program as ’a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result’.

This is not only the definition used by the USCO (US Copyright Office), but much more important, it is the definition in the US Copyright Law itself:

see http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/USA-Definition.jpg

If you’re asking is “did John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, by saving that file, create a unique piece of computer code (ie, software) that describes a particular visual design that he created” then the answer is “yes”.

The answer is "no":

Firstly, a person who is not a computer programmer and who has not learnt computer programming languages and who is therefore not able to write computer programmes cannot be the writer of a computer programme.

Secondly, a person who draws circles with the mouse in a vector drawing programme (e.g. Coreldraw) makes circle drawings, but he does not write computer programmes.

jdaggett's picture

Not to pick on FB Moderno too much but it looks like the Single User License Agreement of the Font Bureau disallows embedding altogether:

4. EMBEDDING RESTRICTED
(a) Except as may be specifically permitted herein, all embedding and transmission of the Font Software is prohibited.

(c) Licensee is not permitted to distribute documents using or containing embedded copies of the Font Software on the Internet or for other forms of distribution or downloading to unauthorized users.

So unless a user gets a special license from the Font Bureau, use of FB Moderno in webpage titles like the one at the top of this page is not allowed.

Oisín's picture

«Firstly, a person who is not a computer programmer and who has not learnt computer programming languages and who is therefore not able to write computer programmes cannot be the writer of a computer programme.»

That completely contradicts what you yourself said earlier in the same post.

If I use a WYSIWYG programming tool to create a simple program [please note that there is no such thing as a “computer programme”], then I am the creator of that program, despite the fact that I don’t know C++ or any other programming language well enough to actually write the code itself. If I create an entire font in FontLab and save it as a TrueType Font, then that is considered software and I am considered its creator, despite the fact that I did not actually code the file myself.

Computer programmer is (at least here) a protected title that requires at least a bachelor’s degree in computer programming, so obviously, the answer to your question is neither yes nor no, but rather, “Yes, if he has a degree in computer programming as well as being a judge”, which is of course completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Uli's picture

Oisín:

> there is no such thing as a “computer programme”

If you don't accept the reality

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/UK-Copyright-Act.jpg

then this is not my problem.

As regards the copyrightability of computer programmes which are not written by computer programmers, but which are generated automatically by computers themselves, see here

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0024.html

acnapyx's picture

Generally said, this discussion got way too out of merit; Apple are just trying to market their cr*ppy (no offense, I am a Windows user, and under Win Safari simply sucks!) browser, boasting about its features. Possibly they should have used 'you ARE ABLE' in the place of 'you CAN', but the sense is not that different. There are no technical limitiations on such embedding in their implementation of the current CSS standard for web-fonts embedding, you have to admit it. Only the legal ones.

And, honestly, most laymen do not care about EULAs and never read it. The corporations do, though :)

poms's picture

@acnapyx
What do you mean with Safari (Win) sucks? I've recently downloaded Vers. 3.1 and it seems to work properly (loading times, css-rendering compared to firefox) under Win XP Prof. Is there a security problem? Okay, i don't like the blurish macintosh type rendering, i prefer cleartype.

Oisín's picture

«if you don’t accept the reality

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/UK-Copyright-Act.jpg

then this is not my problem.»

You misunderstand. There is no such thing as a computer programme. When referring to computer programs, the word ‘program’ never has an -me at the end.

aszszelp's picture

I also d/l-ed Safari for Win but dumped it very soon.

acnapyx's picture

> what do you mean with Safari (Win) sucks?

Well, here are my impressions, even if this is slightly offtopic here:
- loading times (browser): ages.
- loading times (pages):
without flash - slower than IE6, IE7 and Firefox.
with flash - faster than Firefox and IE7, but slower than IE6.
- options and settings: too limited for my liking.
- CSS rendering: well, almost perfect, I admit it.
- type rendering: blurry (on CRT I do not use any smoothing, if possible).
- cache: IE, Firefox and Opera allow browsing the cache. Why Safari should not?
- plugins (Firefox-style)? Bwahahahaha.
and many, many more.

Regarding the support of web-fonts, right now there are no alternative browsers to compare with, so... still waiting for next version of Opera, which supposedly will support it.

Would I use Safari for everyday browsing? God, no! Would I remove/replace my default browser for Safari? At least, not now. I'm keeping it only for web design compatibility checks.

Maybe under Mac the things are different, but I seriously doubt it. This is a design issue, not a platform one. Apple simply do not provide enough advanced options for customizing the browser design/behaviour. Remember the discussion if there is an option to disable the web-fonts? Of course, Apple are new on this market, but Safari on my WinXP desktop still looks like an oversized iPhone :D

Uli's picture

Oisín:

> You misunderstand. There is no such thing as a computer programme. When referring to computer programs, the word ‘program’ never has an -me at the end.

Google has 13,000 hits for websites in Great Britain, where this spelling still occurs:

http://www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/programme.jpg

dezcom's picture

I think this thread has struck the Law of Diminishing Returns and has been sent off on the path to entropy.

ChrisL

aluminum's picture

"Secondly, a person who draws circles with the mouse in a vector drawing programme (e.g. Coreldraw) makes circle drawings, but he does not write computer programmes."

That's like saying a painter doesn't make paintings...his paintbrush does.

"http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0024.html"

That read seems specific to Fractals. A minute subsection of the complete works of computer programs. It's also an opinion piece that simply described the various potential approaches.

But the argument seems to be 'does the creator of the work own the copyright, or does the creator of the software that the creator of the work used to create their own software own the copyright?'

To go back to the painter, that wouldn't that be like arguing: does the artist owns the copyright to the painting or does the manufacturer of the paintbrush and paints own the copyright?

"Apple simply do not provide enough advanced options for customizing the browser design/behaviour. "

Nope. Apple doesn't emphasize user customization in most of their UI design philosophies. Subjectively, of course, that makes it a bad design for folks that prefer that.

Honestly, I've found nearly all browser suck in Windows. Safari is OK. Firefox is OK, but has constant memory leaks and weird behavior. IE7 has an incredibly obtuse UI but doesn't suck nearly as much as IE6. I actually rediscovered Opera as of late and kind of like that.

aszszelp's picture

I like FF exactly because of its customizability. However its memory leakage is such a PITA. Hope v3 will be better in that respect.

Si_Daniels's picture

>I think this thread has struck the Law of Diminishing Returns and has been sent off on the path to entropy.

True, and Apple's Safari page remains unchanged. Not heard from many type designers, so maybe this positioning isn't considered a big deal? However, if foundries do feel the text is misleading and want to be put in contact with the right people at Apple then please feel free to contact me off-list and I'll put you in touch so you can let them know your feelings on both the positioning and the technology itself.

dezcom's picture

"...I’ll put you in touch so you can let them know your feelings on both the positioning and the technology itself."

Thanks, Si. Consider me among the group.

ChrisL

acnapyx's picture

My last word on this (well, in fact a quote from the very good feature about the value of typefaces):

A free society is dependent on voluntary compliance with the law. If we ever get to the point that we must rely on enforcement for compliance, the game is lost.

dezcom's picture

"A free society is dependent on voluntary compliance with the law."

That assumes the society both knows the law and has not been confused by posted statements from what they perceive to be reliable sources.

ChrisL

Miss Tiffany's picture

@jdaggett: FB Moderne used in this way here on Typophile is being used with permission from Font Bureau. No license broken if permission is given.

jdaggett's picture

@Miss Tiffany: Good. But I'm guessing that a lot of web designers don't realize that the use here is a special exception and not generally allowed. In general, it seems like fonts embedded in Flash files have the same problems as downloadable fonts in Safari, namely that the actual details of the EULA effectively disallows their use in this way without special permission.

A more subtle point is that it seems like the FB Moderne EULA also effectively disallows the use of glyph outlines contained in a vector formatted image that is publically available, since "font software" seems to cover the set of points that determine glyph outlines.

Si_Daniels's picture

There's a broader problem in that font makers have historically turned a blind eye to possible EULA infractions with respect to Flash and other similar technologies because they don't understand them, or feel they are innocuous (don't think they result in much extraction and unlicensed reuse) or don’t want bad PR amongst key customers, etc., etc., Now that there’s a far more serious threat looming they can’t afford to turn a blind eye and simply hope that their loose fonts don’t end up in the wrong hands. I don't see a double standard here - pick your battles, as they say.

Miss Tiffany's picture

You are correct that most foundries' EULAs do not allow embedding on the web in any form. Font Bureau's EULA, specifically, does not allow embedding of any kind without an extended license.

In this instance I would hope most people would understand that Font Bureau is featured in this way because they have chosen to be.

Thomas Phinney's picture

I think font vendors' EULAs should be absolutely explicit about what they allow in terms of Flash SWF embedding, raw fonts on Web servers, EOT usage, etc.

Cheers,

T

Nick Shinn's picture

Not heard from many type designers

Probably because most of us realize that what we have to say won't make a blind bit of difference.

I think font vendors’ EULAs should be absolutely explicit about what they allow in terms of Flash SWF embedding, raw fonts on Web servers, EOT usage, etc.

I would like to do that, but have a hard time figuring out what's in my best interests. Generally, I wait to see what organizations with the resources to address such issues comes up with, and take my lead from them.

Si_Daniels's picture

>I would like to do that, but have a hard time figuring out what’s in my best interests.

This was the focus of my talk at the Business of Type event - a framework for how type designers can learn about these different technologies, and make informed decisions around how they license their IP for use with them.

Nick Shinn's picture

A good initiative Si, but the event was too far away for me to attend.

jdaggett's picture

I think font vendors’ EULAs should be absolutely explicit about what they allow in terms of Flash SWF embedding, raw fonts on Web servers, EOT usage, etc.

Frankly, some of the contents of font EULA agreements seem byzantine beyond belief.

As an experiment, I poked around in Font Book and picked "Century Schoolbook". Not a normal Mac OS X system font, probably installed with MS Office. The font information shows Monotype as the foundry along with a license URL. Hmmm, page not found, okay, dig through the Monotype fonts.com site to find their single-user EULA agreement, which I'm assuming is what applies to me. Section 12 basically disallows use of a font in anything other than a non-editable static graphic and only for "personal or internal business use" and not "commercial" use. Definitions for these terms are given but it's not quite clear where "for use in a website graphic" falls. It also appears to disallow anyone from sending anything containing a glyph outline, such as a path within an Illustrator file or a vector graphic formatted image like SVG, to a user without a license.

But wait, dumping out the OS/2 table for the font shows that fsType embedding bits are set to "editable embedding", so maybe it really is okay to use in a website graphic? And maybe this could be used with Safari as long as the font is not cached?

Seems like font users who in good faith try to determine "can I use this font for this purpose?" need something that's a little simpler and more straightforward.

aluminum's picture

Fonts should come in two forms:

* lead = no embedding electronically
* electronic = embed as you see fit/need.

;o)

Syndicate content Syndicate content