Contact Us


Initiative B@bel

WSI Guidelines


















Type Design


Design Tools



Font Downloads










Font FAQ



Computers & Writing Systems


You are here: General > Initiative B@bel
Short URL: https://scripts.sil.org/UNESCO_Font_Lic

Font Licensing and Protection Details

Victor Gaultney, 2003-10-31


The goal of this document is to give general information on font licensing and protection. The complete document is available on this page, but can also be downloaded in both Word and PDF formats:

Font Licensing and Protection Details - Word
Victor Gaultney, 2003-10-31
Download "UNESCO_Font_Lic_Word.zip", ZIP archive, 11KB [4921 downloads]
Font Licensing and Protection Details - PDF
Victor Gaultney, 2003-10-31
Download "UNESCO_Font_Lic_PDF.pdf", Acrobat PDF document, 91KB [13045 downloads]

Basic font use licensing

The simplest standard of legal font use is that no one is allowed to use a font on their computer unless they specifically have a license for that font. When a font is 'purchased' the user never really owns the font-they typically receive a license to use that font on only one computer. These End User License Agreements (EULAs) differ between companies but generally state quite clearly that the fonts may only be used on machines for which there is a valid license. These licenses can be 'purchased' in a variety of ways: directly from the font vendor (Adobe, Bitstream), as part of a larger software package (such as Microsoft Office), or just by downloading the font from a web site (as with most freeware fonts including many SIL fonts).



Trademarks, design patents and copyrights





Fonts are software

Within the last few years, the situation has changed dramatically. Two specific legal cases have shown that fonts are protected from unauthorized duplication because they are computer software. Note carefully that this applies only to the font software itself (the PostScript or TrueType file), not the actual artistic design.

From 1993 to 1995, Bitstream and four other type companies successfully sued SWFTE for copyright infringement. SWFTE had used computer programs to take other typefounders' fonts, convert them to their own format and give them new names. The case centered around the fact that SWFTE had used Bitstream's software (the digital fonts themselves) to create the new fonts. This was, however, a singular case and was somewhat controversial, so it did not conclusively settle the font copyright issue.

Three years later an even stronger legal precedent was set in the case of Adobe vs. Southern Software Inc. (SSI). It seems that SSI had used FontMonger to copy and rename fonts from Adobe and others. They thought they were safe from prosecution because, though they had directly copied the points that define the shapes from Adobe's fonts, they had moved all the points just slightly so they were not technically identical. Nevertheless, in his 1998 judgment, the judge determined that the computer code had been copied:


As a result of this judgment, companies must be much more diligent about the font design process. If they develop a font that is very similar to an existing font they must be quite careful that all the design work is original: that every glyph is redrawn and that other software information (such as width metrics) is not based upon the original software 'code' of the font.

Unlike before 1998, it can now be argued that opening up a commercial font in a font design program (such as FontLab), copying the outline to the template or mask layer and redrawing the letter to match the shape of the original is a breach of copyright law. This is true even if every point is new, because the original software code was viewed in FontLab and used as a template for the new work. This is clearly a very strong, new interpretation of the copyright law.

If a type designer wants to 'copy' a font in a manner legal in the USA, he would now be required to print out every glyph at large size on a printer, then scan the image and import it into the font design program. He could then manually or automatically trace the image. This seems to be perfectly legal under current understandings of US copyright law, but may not be morally acceptable.

References and useful links

Note the dates on some of the following documents. Pre-1998 ones may not reflect current legal practice or interpretation.

For more information on the  free software,  open source licensing and  copyleft strategies, consult the larger document on Intellectual Property Concerns in the Development of Complex Script and Language Resources.

Adobe's anti-piracy font info: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/fonts.html

Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (U.S. Copyright Office Summary): http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

Microsoft's font distribution and license info:

TypeRight.org: http://www.typeright.org/

The TypeRight Guide to Ethical Typeface Design: http://www.typeright.org/getd_print.html

TypeRight legal summary (1997): http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html

Comp.fonts FAQ (1996): http://www.nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/index.html

Copyright and Digital Typography (Paul Schaffner, 1995): http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/essay2.html

Extensive set of links regarding font copyright issues: http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/legal.html

Sample font EULAs

Adobe: http://www.eyewire.com/about/usage/licensing/adobetype-eula.html

Berthold: http://www.bertholdtypes.com/info/agreement.html

Linotype: http://www.fontexplorer.com/isroot/FontStore/content/00_home/content/license.html

Microsoft (for their Web fonts): http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/eula.htm

Copyright notice

(c) Copyright 2003 UNESCO (with assignment to SIL International of
rights to use, distribute and create derivative works)
