W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Downloadable fonts and image replacement

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:55:39 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200604252055.k3PKtdG01433@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> With regard to DRM, I think that is really a pointless discussion. If=20
> the browser can decode the fonts to display them, and you intend for=20
> this to be an open standard, so can a decryption tool. Also, as you want=20

The advantage of DRM is that it imposes a sufficient obstacle that
offenders cannot claim ignorance; they have to deliberately set out
to breach the copyright.  In the USA, the DMCA also makes subverting
technical measures a criminal offence (I think there is similar 
legislation in the UK, but it is less infamous).

> Besides, I think having people use font files instead will actually=20
> *aid* font file producers. Spidering pages for unlicensed copies of your=20
> font files is much much easier than developing an OCR=20
> detection-algorithm and scanning all images on the internet.

The print images of fonts are exempt from copyright in the UK, and, I
think, in the USA.  That has generally been interpreted as meaning that
bitmap fonts are exempt.  Therefore, finding text as bitmap images is
at best circumstancial evidence of a violation.  One of the advantage
of text images is that the designer only needs to have a licence for
local use of the font, not for embedding or other distribution.  (Note,
if you look at commercial vector font license, you will often find that
you can't even send the document to a professional printer unless they
have the fonts in their own right.)

(For those not familiar with EOT, the basic protection is that EOT fonts
list the web site whose pages can use them.)
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 20:55:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:44 GMT