Nice Web Type

Hey, the site looks broken

If you’re reading this, it means Nice Web Type’s CSS (the visual instructions that make this outline look like a website) is not being applied. This can happen for several reasons. If you’re using Internet Explorer 6 or earlier, or some other old browser like AOL, CSS is off by default. If you’re using a modern browser and you’re still seeing this, please email Tim.

Notes

Can I use this font on my site?

A reader recently asked me (edited):

I was wondering about font licensing and @font-face. Can you use normal fonts for this or is it a copyright issue even if you have purchased them?

It’s a legal issue even if you own the typefaces you want to use.

The reason is that when type is included in websites via the CSS @font-face rule, font files are delivered to visitors’ browsers (just like images on websites have acted for years). A visitor could theoretically view source on a website, or look through his or her own browser cache, and have a free typeface – even if you, the web designer, paid for that typeface.

Type sellers are leery of this. Naturally, they don’t want to have their work stolen. Their reactions have been varied. Purists wish for a “master control” of typeface licenses, so they’ll know who’s using what, where, and whether it’s legal. Realists have begun to strategize about allowing their type to be used online without such bureaucracy, including technologies that obfuscate both the path to a web font file and the file itself.

Ok, so what’s the answer?

All that aside, what you need to know is whether the font you have in your hands can be used on the website you’re making. The answer is: maybe. For each font you’d like to use, check the type seller’s EULA (End User License Agreement) to see if the seller allows embedding on websites.

If you find the prospect of such legal mining daunting and disruptive of your creative flow, you’re not alone. Type sellers are sensitive to this; they’re creative professionals too, and they know the last thing you need is another set of rules. Partnering with web services like Typekit, a type seller can make things dead simple for you and me, but also make sure their life’s work isn’t being abused.

Imagine you, yourself, seeking the EULA go-ahead for a large type family. You would have to check its roman, italic, boldface, small caps, ornaments, etc. – at each weight offered. Otherwise, how could you be sure that a given glyph is gold? (Legal mining? Get it?) If you subscribe to Typekit, or a similar service, you don’t have to do any of this work because you know that every one of your choices is legal.

4 comments

Nicole Dotin 8 Jul 2009
I’d suggest that type buyers always read the license that comes with a font even if it isn’t the most exciting thing in the world. It not only tells a purchaser what they can’t do, but also what they can do and outlines their rights and warranties. These different types of uses are what a person is buying when they license a font – better to be an informed consumer, yes?

Services like Typekit won’t solve the issue of having to read a license – there will still be a license you must agree to and you will want to know what you’re signing up for there, too. Aside from that, I imagine that the license would cover use only on the web which would mean that if you wanted to use the same font for a print campaign, you may have to purchase a separate license. I’m not sure it’s dead simple if you have uses beyond the web.

By the way, a large type family would be covered by a single license, so there wouldn’t be the need to examine numerous licenses per font, just a single license for the entire family and all its small caps, ornaments, etc.
Tim Brown 8 Jul 2009
Thanks for your thoughts, Nicole. I agree, reading licenses is the responsible thing to do.

I’m assuming that users of a service like Typekit will read and understand one-time, blanket terms of use like “for web only” and that such terms would apply to all available fonts in that service. There will always be a place for information about rights and warranties, but it might be made simpler if it were to apply to many typefaces at once.

A single license for large type families would make things much easier. The example I was thinking of when I suggested that faces within a family might have different terms is Jos Buivenga’s Museo Sans – only certain faces are licensed for @font-face embedding.
Nicole Dotin 8 Jul 2009
We will see how future web font services handle licenses. As a user, the idea of a single license for fonts from numerous foundries is appealing. And, with such limited use (and only with limited use) it’s certainly possible. But, it’s still another wait and see!

Ah, I see what you mean with Museo – although I am not familiar with its licensing. This is sort of the trick with the idea of simplicity – it doesn’t facilitate choice very well because it can’t handle options. Most people like both options and simplicity, but they don’t always sit well together.
kignomine 29 Oct 2009
heart attack rehab [url=http://rxdrugs24x7.com/product/effexor.html]Order Effexor[/url] vitamin c juice endpoint [url=http://rxdrugs24x7.com/faq.html]sleeping 9 month old[/url] does crestor lower blood calcium
http://rxdrugs24×7.com/shippingterms.html

Hey, the site looks broken

Notes

Can I use this font on my site?

Ok, so what’s the answer?

4 comments

Add your comment