Web Embedding Allowed

[Joe Pemberton]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Help create the list of pioneering foundries who are not afraid of the digital future. (Did that sound like an agenda? Oops.)

Shout out the type foundries that allow web and other digital embedding (@font-face, sIFR, Cufon, Flash, etc.

_ It's time to put an end to the ugliness of the web.
_ Time to change the licensing model: sell fonts to designers and web hosts and not to every single reader/device owner.
_ Time to let the desktop publishing mindset die like rubylith and the linotype.

Note: Tiffany started a list here, but it quickly became a discussion. (A discussion worth reading, but it wasn't a list.)

I'll start the list:

Type Together: http://www.type-together.com/

[Miss Tiffany]

Jos Buivenga allows for @font-face embedding with the free weights of his fonts. (And others as listed above by Joe.)

Exljbris Fonts: http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/

[Ralf H.]

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/66316-forwarding

What's with Type Together? I don't see support for something like @fontface/sIFR/cufon in their EULA
http://www.type-together.com/resources/eula/TT-EULA.pdf
Only "secure" subset embedding for non-commercial use.

[Miss Tiffany]

I think the comments on Twitter might have been a misunderstanding. I've asked them to come and comment.

[Jeremy Dooley]

insigne allows web and .pdf embedding.

www.insignedesign.com

[Zara Evens]

Thanks for starting this thread Joe. I only hope that it doesn't turn into a battle of opinions, but rather a genuine resource for a very simple question: Who allows what and where can I buy it?

[Miss Tiffany]

I think the different web embedding needs to be outlined. There are foundries that allow sIFR with their basic license. There are also foundries that allow sIFR but only with extended licensing. There are very few foundries who allow @font-face and/or the use of Cufón.

[Miss Tiffany]

I agree with you Zara. I just think when people foundry-x allows for web embedding that is too vague an answer. They need to state in which forms it is allowed.

[Mike Jarboe]

The future is now!

[aaronbell]

http://www.fonts.info and http://www.theleagueofmoveabletype.com/ appear to allow @font-face embedding.

http://www.cape-arcona.com appears to allow "secure" web embedding, but likely does not support @font-face.

[J.Montalbano]

We have always allowed PDF embedding for workflow and internal uses. Our new website will launch in a few weeks with a new EULA which will allow sIFR and Flash embedding as part of the basic license. My web guys are working on some new things that may allow us to go further than that.

[Joe Pemberton]

Terminal Design http://www.terminaldesign.com

[bvfonts]

For my commercial fonts I allow PDF embedding for workflow and internal uses also and secure web embedding, unless it's used for customization tools (online graphics editor for instance), in that case a special license is needed.

My freeware has been updated to allow "editing of the document". I will allow all web embedding for the freeware. Should I go further with "installable mode"? Would that be necessary?

-Jess
bvfonts.com
http://twitter.com/bvfonts

[Miss Tiffany]

We need to create another chart. Or at least a wiki entry for Cufón, @Font-face and sIFR.

[Stephen Coles]

Not sure how helpful this list will be as most foundries allow PDF embedding. Need to be more specific about technologies to make the list more useful.

[Zara Evens]

Yes, Tif - I agree. The specifics should be outlined.

[aaronbell]

Well, as Tiffany says, if we are looking specifically at foundries that allow web embedding rather than just considering PDF embedding, it should still be useful. Especially at the differentiation between sIFR, Cufón and @font-face given the differentiation in technologies between them. We may also want to add fLIR (or facelift) to the list as well to cover the full range of different embedding methods that exist at the moment.

[viko]

Looks like we need to update our EULA :)

We have always allowed PDF embedding for workflow and internal uses and do also allow secure web embedding in PDF and flash, which covers sIFR and i think Cufon too.

We do NOT allow font-linking, in sense that the font files reside on a server. If i understand Font-face correctly, then this is not covered.

We're collaborating with a web company on a font-license scheme which will allow fonts to be linked to a website easily and painlessly. It should be launched very soon.

[Si_Daniels]

>secure web embedding

sorry but that's an oxymoron :-(

[Gus Winterbottom]

There's a PDF embedding topic I'd like to see addressed, although there aren't a lot of people in my situation. We submit new business proposals to various government agencies in response to RFPs, BAAs, etc., and the agency always wants a PDF in addition to the hard copies and Word files. The PDF isn't public in the sense that it's included in a product we sell to the general public, or posted on a web site, but it's hard to see it as workflow or internal distribution. What kind of a license do I need? Is the regular license OK, or do I have to buy an embedding license?

[HaleyFiege]

sIRF is a secure font embedding tool. Technically almost all fonts should be allowed to be used with it (I've personally not come across any EULA's that forbid flash embedding).

Font-face and cufon are not 100% secure. I'm interested in a list that allows for these in their EULA's because cufon is like 100000000000x easier to set up than sIRF.

Cufon is not flash, just to clarify.

[Tim Brown]

Cross-posted:
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/67934-forwarding
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/66316-forwarding

Do these threads intend to produce something different than Ralf's wiki page?
http://www.webfonts.info/wiki/index.php?title=Fonts_available_for_%40fon...

... if not, and for the sake of community participation, perhaps that could be used as a starting point for a Typophile wiki page.

If the only difference between the list we're trying to assemble here and the list Ralf has begun is that we're attempting to cross-index licensing nuances with web technologies like sIFR, Cufón, and FLIR, I don't think it's worth the time. @font-face is ready to go. Focus on that list.

[J.Montalbano]

Gus,

We have many clients that are in your situation, and we always consider this use to be within workflow. We do ask that the pdf be password protected against content extraction, if possible, but that is all.

We always encourage our users to ask us when they are unsure of what is an allowed use. We usually are very accommodating.

[Zara Evens]

… if not, and for the sake of community participation, perhaps that could be used as a starting point for a Typophile wiki page.

I think this is exactly what we would like to see happen, that list is exactly the kind of resource I had in mind.

Ralf: Would you have any objections to using your current list as a starting point for a Typophile Wiki page? If so, it would be ideal if you authored it (not to create more work for you) :)

[J.Montalbano]

_ Time to change the licensing model: sell fonts to designers and web hosts and not to every single reader/device owner.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. I think graphic designers and type designers need to become best friends. Together both groups can go much further as allies than as adversaries.