Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

pixelambacht.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#91

Post by roywiggins »

snek wrote: post #18
Gracana wrote: post #5

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

Even better, what if I have it on github because github pages is my site host?

People who write font license agreements are not entirely morons. It's pretty clear what is and isn't allowed! https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#92

Post by roywiggins »

gregmac wrote: post #40

If I use a commercial font as part of my website design, I am in fact publishing that font on my site and anyone can obtain a copy of it -- in fact, they automatically do merely by visiting my site! Does this mean all my visitors are "pirating"? Of course not. Github may make the font more accessible/searchable, but that doesn't change anything about the copyright status of the font. Me publishing something on Github…

Font licenses are pretty clear about what you are and are not allowed to do with the font files you downloaded. For instance, you're not allowed to zip them up and post them on filesharing sites. It does not matter at all whether you include a LICENSE file saying "this is a nonfree font."

The problem is not that you're misrepresenting the font as copyleft when it isn't. The problem is that you simply don't have a license to redistribute the font at will: merely uploading the font to a public GitHub repo violates the license.

You have the right to serve the font from your webserver, and link it into your site via CSS. You absolutely have not been granted the right to redistribute the font in any other manner.

If you post a page on your site with "Like this webfont? Download here!" and link to the same URL that you are using to host the font for display purposes, you'd be violating the license. It's the same exact URL, but you can't post a clickable download link to it. It's not allowed, and if you do, they can at a minimum yank your license to use it at all.

https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Editing to add: trying to solve the problem by adjusting your LICENSE file is roughly equivalent to the "I don't own this!!" disclaimers that people put on YouTube uploads. They get DMCA'd just the same.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#93

Post by filoleg »

favorited wrote: post #48
drngdds wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough fonts. It wouldn't be a great loss for humanity if we didn't get as many new fonts because of decreased profit margins in the font design industry.

There are enough fonts. It wouldn't be a great loss for humanity if you weren't able to use one you didn't pay for.

How do you know if someone using a font in their github repo paid for it or not?

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#94

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #50
roywiggins wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accidentally exposing a folder of copyrighted font files over FTP would probably technically violate the license, even if it was by accident. You're serving the files outside of the licensed use (serving and rendering a webpage). Same as if you accidentally exposed to the internet your home server of legally-created DVD backups. You'd still be violating the license under which you bought the DVDs.

Show me an attorney willing to pursue accidental violators for damages, especially when the asset in question is intended to be publicly served in the course of its use. I would genuinely be interested in case law's stance on this. Also interested in what happens to the value of non-public domain fonts if you require the digital asset to be handled as a secret (and all of the hassle that goes along with that).

[deleted]

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#96

Post by roywiggins »

traderjane wrote: post #69
wnevets wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I believe you may have a license (paid money) to use the font on your site but you may not have a licence redistribute the font. You paid for the right to air the latest UFC fight at your bar but that doesn't grant you the ability to sale DVDs of it. However a user of yours could just download the font from your web server or record the fight on their phone.

If another company performs backup on your data, is that redistribution? A lot of people use Github as backup.

Yes, if it's public-facing. A private backup is probably fine. https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#97

Post by roywiggins »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #81
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either: You can open source the website without the font and say you open sourced your website, or if you consider the font part of your website, it means your website isn't open source... even if you put it on GitHub. Because it's a copyright violation for someone to use that font. Your best bet is to just use open source fonts, of which there are numerous.

I think in the end as to whether or not you can put the font in your website and have it public on github (which is not necessarily the same as not encumbered by licensing issues) will need to be determined by the courts when and if someone wants to test the issue.

What if the license explicitly forbids you putting it on GitHub? https://processtypefoundry.com/help/base/webfont-license-agr...

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#98

Post by adanto6840 »

roywiggins wrote: post #92
gregmac wrote: post #40

If I use a commercial font as part of my website design, I am in fact publishing that font on my site and anyone can obtain a copy of it -- in fact, they automatically do merely by visiting my site! Does this mean all my visitors are "pirating"? Of course not. Github may make the font more accessible/searchable, but that doesn't change anything about the copyright status of the font. Me publishing something on Github…

Font licenses are pretty clear about what you are and are not allowed to do with the font files you downloaded. For instance, you're not allowed to zip them up and post them on filesharing sites. It does not matter at all whether you include a LICENSE file saying "this is a nonfree font." The problem is not that you're misrepresenting the font as copyleft when it isn't. The problem is that you simply don't have a lic…

The intent often matters, but there's clearly a huge difference between your example of a "download here!" link and usage on either a website or within a GH-hosted repo.

When you say 'the right to serve the font from your webserver' -- in this case, 'your webserver' may simply be GitHub's web-server, a service they provide to you as part of your payment to them (either because it's part of the app you host on GH, or as a piece of the website hosted via GH Pages [0])...

Assuming that the font's usage for the repo'd app/site is OK per the license terms, then I'd be surprised if its availability in the repo would solely cause it to fall out of compliance with the license. I suppose that the licensor could, if they chose to do so, specifically include terms to preclude the usage of the font on any sites hosted with "repository or other open file listing indexes", or any other similarly restrictive arbitrary terms.

0 - https://pages.github.com/

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#100

Post by roywiggins »

adanto6840 wrote: post #98
roywiggins wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Font licenses are pretty clear about what you are and are not allowed to do with the font files you downloaded. For instance, you're not allowed to zip them up and post them on filesharing sites. It does not matter at all whether you include a LICENSE file saying "this is a nonfree font." The problem is not that you're misrepresenting the font as copyleft when it isn't. The problem is that you simply don't have a lic…

The intent often matters, but there's clearly a huge difference between your example of a "download here!" link and usage on either a website or within a GH-hosted repo. When you say 'the right to serve the font from your webserver' -- in this case, 'your webserver' may simply be GitHub's web-server, a service they provide to you as part of your payment to them (either because it's part of the app you host on GH, or…

The license I linked expressly forbids "distribution of the fonts through file sharing services and online version control repositories accessible by the public"

It would be the same if you publicly hosted a zip file containing your site's contents, including the fonts. Or offered an open read-only FTP account to your /web/ directory. Or any number of ways to make the font available publicly that isn't via a web browser making a request triggered by a CSS rule.

If it's a private repository, I expect you'd be in the clear, since it's just acting as a very fancy webhost, and you can obviously upload your fonts to your webhost.

Post reply on HN