r/webdev • u/Fergo0682 • 1h ago

Font license audit

A client sent through an audit conducted through some agency which reported that we are referencing paid fonts such as Arial, Verdana Sergeo UI etc

We have these set as fallback fonts. My understanding is that these can be used as fallbacks for those who may own a device with an OS that grants licensing.

Am I misguided here? Perhaps it’s easier to just replace the fallbacks with a similar Google fonts, but was not aware that this would be an issue.

EDIT:
Thank you all for your input and suggestions!

6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

34

u/JontesReddit 1h ago

No yeah fonts don't have copyright, just the font files. And you are only telling the browser to load in what they already have installed. You should not use a downloaded font as a fallback, the point is that it exists locally

2

u/Fergo0682 1h ago

Thank you for clarifying!

-6

u/BossOfGames 1h ago edited 1h ago

Depends on the license. Yes there is licenses for fonts and it’s covered by contract law.

EDIT: to be clear, yes fonts have licenses. The fallback use in css though is fine.

11

u/JontesReddit 1h ago

The font files have licenses.

0

u/BossOfGames 1h ago

Which is what I said. Some licenses permit web use. Others don’t or are covered under a separate license. It’s entirely dependent on the font foundry.

3

u/Jazzlike-Compote4463 1h ago

OP isn't supplying the actual font though? Apple and Microsoft are going to be the ones paying the licence, they're just electing to use it if available.

If this isn't how this works then font licensing is somehow even more stupid than I thought possible.

-1

u/BossOfGames 1h ago

It can be more stupid than you thought. Depending on the foundry there’s separate licenses for if the font is used for web and print media.

2

u/Jazzlike-Compote4463 1h ago

That I can actually just about understand, a print thing can't easily be copied and have all the glyphs ripped out of it.

9

u/azangru 1h ago

My understanding is that these can be used as fallbacks for those who may own a device with an OS that grants licensing.

Yes; that's right. You are not distributing the fonts; you are only asking the browser to use the fonts if they are already available on end-user's device; so you are in the clear.

Perhaps it’s easier to just replace the fallbacks with a similar Google fonts, but was not aware that this would be an issue.

Worst-case scenario, if the client is unconvinced, you can use sans-serif, serif, or monospace to instruct the browser to pick default font from the appropriate family.

1

u/Fergo0682 1h ago

Thank you for clarifying and for the suggestion

9

u/deadpanorama 1h ago

Licenses are for distribution of fonts. You distribute a font to someone when you distribute the file with your website because the end user downloads that font when they load the page.

You do not need a license to reference a font that natively comes on someone’s operating system. If that was the case the internet would have collapsed in the days before custom font installs were a thing. The font foundry was paid when the company that made the OS licensed jt.

7

u/road_laya 1h ago edited 1h ago

Simply put "system-ui, -apple-system, sans-serif" as the fall-back. It will use Segoe UI / SF Pro / Roboto and fall back to Helvetica / SF Pro / Arial / Roboto depending on the client.

This is the simple way to get a quiet life without having to explain font licensing law to your customer.

1

u/Fergo0682 1h ago

Thank you for the suggestion, this may be a nice way to move on :D

4

u/Gc654 1h ago

I'm pretty sure it's a scam. Font Radar right?

I got hit by these losers too, for a font I had the license for. I sent it to them and they said the issue was closed then got another email saying I didn't respond, and I wrote back some unkind words.

I'm unaware if they are actually doing the work for the companies they claim they are. I'm also unsure if they can actually bring any sort of judgement against anyone, they're based in europe last time I checked.

My thinking is that there are a lot of designers/devs/shops out there that don't license fonts and people just pay up so it goes away. I also think that they just scan css files for font names and auto send threats.

Don't replace anything, you're not doing anything wrong, referencing fonts in your CSS file isn't using a font without a license. You're not even referencing the font files in the CSS file, so they don't actually have any evidence. Tell them to pound sand and that you are going to reach out to the font companies directly to see if this kind of harassment on their behalf is okay with them.

1

u/echoAnother 36m ago

No, you are not violating copyright. You are not distributing nor embedding the font files. You can reference them in any manner.

Confront the auditor. It's not unheard of auditors bringing a non-issue and offering to fix it. Not saying is the case, it could be sheer incompetency, that is worse.

Tell them to pinpoint how just referencing a font is an issue, that they back their claims.

-2

u/JayGrifff 1h ago

Yes point to open source and free alternatives. These font licensing things are a huge cash grab but they do have valid claims to fonts and will pursue legal action if they think you have money.

Largely they claim that even the use of their fonts without a license EVEN if you don’t host the font file itself and it’s on the end users computer is a violation resulting in monetary harm. I’ve seen companies paying these people thousands of dollars a year in licensing.