Talk:Typography/legal aspects of making samples

Legal aspects
reposted from Talk:Typography (Call for samples)


 * Hmm... if you make an image with a font you don't own, that makes the image itself a violation of copyright? I don't think that's true... &mdash;Chowbok 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as such :^) If you make a sample with a font you have not purchased and signed an End User License Agreement for, it constitutes a breach of the font's EULA. The EULA violation rests with the person who makes the artwork, not the artwork itself.


 * Intellectual property issues in typography are complex and hairy. For a detailed explanation from font makers themselves enquire at Typophile >>. Arbo 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, i.e., not our problem. We don't tell people with bootlegged copies of Windows not to contribute, or people who took photos with stolen cameras not to upload, so I don't see why we're concerned if people are violating the font's license. We have enough to worry about. &mdash;Chowbok 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, as long as contributors realize that font most makers and vendors might object to samples made by illicit means.
 * "I don't see why we're concerned if people are violating the font's license..." --- you need not neccessarily be concerned. The issue is the concern of the type industry and wiki users who want to contribute type samples.


 * Nuff' said. :-) Arbo 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)



the following text reposted from Talk:Typeface

Type sample guidelines
I believe we need to set some guidelines for the type sample images for each individual face article. What format should we use? It is suggested that by uploading an SVG file, we are uploading copyrighted shapes. The current trend seems to be to include an image of the name of the typeface set in the typeface, then have a second image of the lowercase 'g' and the sentence "The Quick Brown Fox Jumped Over The Lazy Dog." One user has added the lowercase alphabet and a few common punctuation marks as the bottom line of the image (see Helvetica). Should we set an image box size? or some guidelines for pt size for each element?--Andrew c 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where was it suggested that SVGs are copyvios? Sounds fishy to me. For the test sentence, you probably mean "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (jumps, not jumped).—mjb 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 'jumps', not 'jumped' (however, the title caps seems to be intentional). And here is where I got the idea that SVGs of fonts are copyvios.--Andrew c 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, so, is anyone versed enough with copyright policy to determine whether SVG images are bad or not? Here's the argument I made to Andrew c, copied from his talk page:

Technically speaking, I feel it's OK because i'm not literally uploading the font iself. One could argue that they can easily go to, set the sample text as 'abcdefghijklmnopqurstuvwxyz', put it into illustrator, and convert it into outlines as well. But yeah, hm. I'll think about this; thanks for bringing it up. atanamir 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The conditions governing the use of material at adobe.com and every other website with a font test drive facility specifically prohibit use of such bitmaps for anything other than assessing a font for purchase (if you don't like the look of it in test drive you're at liberty to walk away). Uploading and distribution of such bitmaps constitutes a violation of the relevant site's conditions of use.
 * Arbo 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

atanamir 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try extracting type outlines from a locked PDF&mdash;extremely difficult to pull off, and even if you manage to you would only posess the glyph outlines but no metrics information, spacing and other meta data essential to a complete font. Making font samples from discrete glyph outlines is a hit and miss affair, more like creating an illustration and not even involving the keyboard or actual typing.
 * Arbo 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a few more posts around town and see if we can't get more interest.--Andrew c 14:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I got another reply that seems to suggest SVG is probably not the best format. Read more here: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights.--Andrew c 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. So the general consensus seems to be to rasterise them?   there's all the font samples so far.. what size should we rasterise them to? atanamir 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should set a fixed width or height, and let the other dimension vary depending of the face. Maybe 100px high for the title, and 200px for the sample? As for a standard format, I like what you have done and see no need to really change it. Could you share your technique so others (namely myself) can copy it and contribute to this project in a standardized manner?--Andrew c 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I used adobe illustrator; would you like me to post the AI files somewhere? atanamir 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That could work. Or I could just recreate one of your existing files and then use that as a future template. I could also help rasterize some of the existing files as well.--Andrew c 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By professional typography standards 100px by 200px is a small sample. I recommend at least 300px by 600px to make glyph details visible.
 * Arbo 12:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing to bear in mind is that using a copyrighted font in Wikipedia is fair-use (because it's a copyrighted work, of which a mere rendering is just a derivative work). So the wikipedia fair use policy applies, and the fair use guidelines give a pretty good idea of how such font samples should be handled. A key guideline is "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible" (from WP:FAIR). I'd say, for font samples, this means:
 * SVG clearly has a lot more info in it than a bitmapped render, and a bitmapped render is good enough for the purposes of the font articles - so we have to use a bitmap render (as y'all have already decided)
 * we clearly can't reproduce all, or even a significant proportion, of the glyphs (so the quick-brown-fox... is too much). Personally I'd say we should put in the name of the font and leave it at that. In cases where there's some special characteristic of the font (such as an unusual Q, a special style of ligature, or something emblematic about a serif) then I'd say that the article should have a second (or more) small image, which just contains that special feature, as described in the article.
 * there is some latitude in the interpretation of "low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution", but we still need to be careful. Personally I think 300x900 is much too large.  I'd recommend having the image at the scale we'll finally use it in the article - if we had a bigger image (which we downscale for the article) we can't say we're using the least amount of fair use content (yes, someone could argue that a printed Wikipedia will require higher resolution images, and for free images it's certainly better to upload as big as possible - but there is no printed Wikipedia right now, and we can't make fair-use claims for hypothetical future projects).

Additionally, as the images are fair-use, additional care (and work, frankly) has to be taken when placing them into articles:
 * they need a fair-use rationale, specific to the article in question
 * a fair-use sample of font X can (largely) only be used in the article about font X - not about a more general class of fonts of which X is a member (so it's fine to use Trebuchet MS in the Trebuchet MS article, but (mostly) not in the sans serif article.  The best reason for that is that there exist uncopyrighted (or GFDL compatible) sans-serif fonts that the sans serif article could use, and so using Trebuchet in the sans serif article breaks the "No free equivalent is available" guideline.  That said, if the sans-serif article was explicitly comparing the characteristics of Trebuchet with other sans-serif fonts (that is, Trebuchet was directly the subject of the discourse, and not just a passing example) then it would be fair use to use a (small) sample of Trebuchet there.

I notice, incidentally, that folks seem to be putting copyright messages (claiming copyright themselves) and equally putting licences like GFDL on the samples (Image:Serif and sans-serif 01.png is one such example). Unless the contributor owns the copyright of the font, that's a bogus practice. Merely typing a few characters into GIMP and saving the result isn't a creative, copyrightable work - so the contributor in that case can't claim copyright and (as they're not the copyright owner) can't pick the licence of the work. The copyright of the font applies to the sample (and if the font is uncopyrighted, so is the sample).

Sorry if this whole thing seems like a rant - by and large it looks like the font articles are making fairly responsible use of fair-use font imagery. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify:


 * The main copyvio issue regarding font samples centers on whether the user making and uploading the sample is licensed (by the font's End User License Agreement) to use the font at all. A person not in posession of a license to use a font distributed with an EULA is not authorized to use it in any way. Full stop. Fair use, sample size, etc &mdash; none of that applies unless the user is authorized by EULA to use the font.


 * End User License Agreement for a font and authorization to use it are obtained legitimately by 1) Purchasing the font retail; 2) Purchasing other software which comes with bundled font(s); 3) Fonts gifted to one user by another, provided the first user acquired the font legitimately as per (1) or (2), passes on the EULA and all other materials that came with the font, and destroys the font file(s) and EULA before gifting the font(s) to the second user.


 * Claiming fair use of an unlicensed font would be equivalent to supposed fair use of an unlicensed copy of Photoshop to make an original diagram for inclusion in WP. If the user is authorized by EULA and legitimate ownership of the software, s/he can work out the fair use issue to their own satisfaction, within reason, as per the terms & conditions of the font's EULA. If Wikipedians don't accept that advice, don't want to believe it, or simply choose to ignore it, that may cause problems. Commercial font makers and distributors may take issue with samples made with illicit copies of their fonts.


 * "...Unless the contributor owns the copyright of the font..."
 * No user "owns" the copyright to a font, nor do they "own" any copyright(s) to the font unless that person is the licensed vendor, distributor, or the original creator of the font. The user only acquires authorization to use the font with legitimate posession of the font's EULA. The font data itself remains the property of the actual copyright holder&mdash;usually the creator, and in some cases the authorized distributor or vendor.


 * "...The thing to bear in mind is that using a copyrighted font in Wikipedia is fair-use (because it's a copyrighted work, of which a mere rendering is just a derivative work). So the wikipedia fair use policy applies, and the fair use guidelines give a pretty good idea of how such font samples should be handled..."
 * Almost correct, but not quite. There is no need to claim fair use when using a copyrighted font in WP. Provided the user is authorized by EULA to use the font, s/he can use it for anything they like, any number of times, for any purpose (except some type vendors and makers require an extra fee for logos made with their fonts). Artworks created with a copyrighted font, such as font samples for WP, are not deemed "derrivative works" because they are only renderings made with the font, or simply using the font as permitted by the EULA. A derrivative work of a font is defined as another font made from the digital file, instructions and character outlines of an extant copyrighted font.


 * Many of you probably have numerous fonts on your computer that are in fact renamed pirated knockoffs of commercial fonts, and in many instances you will not even know that the font you're using is just that&mdash;pirated material someone decided to change the internal name of and distribute free of charge. Most "free font" archive websites contain between dozens and hundreds of such pirated fonts. Using them to make samples for any purpose, WP included, is a breach of the font's EULA. So please, unless you are absolutely certain of the font you want to use, check it first to make sure it isn't pirated. The quickest way of identifying a font is to ask on the Type ID board at http://www.typophile.com. If you don't want to go there the best places to look are http://www.identifont.com, http://www.myfonts.com, http://www.fontshop.com, http://www.veer.com, http://www.philsfonts.com


 * "...I'd say we should put in the name of the font and leave it at that..."
 * Depending on which letters make up the name of the font, some fonts will be poorly represented by samples using only the name of the font. Ideally come up with a standard string of letters, preferably commonly used words, and use that string for every font sample. That will make the samples informative. Bear in mind that fonts are language tools used mostly to type common words, and for that reason abstract and uncommon strings of letters don't reveal much about how a font performs on a linguistic basis. Lingusitics are inseparable from type design and typography.


 * The formatting I'm using here is for emphasis only. to get the message across, as it seems that message just isn't getting thru, or you're not interested in hearing it. It is not meant as shouting or abuse.


 * Don't take it personally. It's okay to make mistakes&mdash;I'm not lambasting, but complaining about errors of judgement and giving professional advice based on experience. I make fonts and sell them, and use them for a living. What baffles me is how Wikipedians can discuss the copyright issues here at WP without consulting the type industry. That does not make sense. If the copyright owner of a font decided to hassle WP over a font sample made from an illicitly-obtained font, claims of "fair use" would amount to nothing. The worst thing the copyright owner would likely do is send the Wikipedian who made the sample an invoice for the font&mdash;because you're supposed to pay for these things, and the copyright holder is within their rights billing illicit users for the normal retail price for the font in question.


 * The latter is unlikely to occur often because a lot of these type samples will be made from fonts bundled with software, and most type vendors are unable to check whether the user obtained that software legitimately or not.


 * As for the amount I've written on this topic&mdash;relax. It's a complex thorny issue.


 * I wish you all the best. Take care.
 * Best regards, Arbo 18:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've refactored the above post to be less of a dick and more civil. Apologies to anyone I offended.
 * Arbo @