A Rant About Font Embedding
Font embedding is a bit of a controversy right now in the web development community. The technology is there, but there are legal issues holding it back.
First, let me just say this: typography is important. Even if you don’t realize it, good typography is 90% of what makes a document (in print or on the web) look professional. For example, the ability to use Mrs Eaves instead of Times New Roman – even though most people can’t consciously tell the difference – has a strong effect on the overall impact of a document.
Second, let me say this: open source fonts are not worth using, for the most part. Typefaces must not only show creativity and architectural know-how in their letterforms, but must also be painstakingly kerned and hinted, and contain thoughtful extras like ligatures in order to make a document look good.
The problem we face is that a lot of work goes into creating a good typeface, and the people who do that work are worried about font embedding. They’re worried because they deserve to be paid for their work, and if fonts are just lying around on the web in order to be embedded into a web document, what’s to stop everyone from rampantly downloading any font that strikes their fancy while they’re browsing the web? After all, Joe Sixpack isn’t going to pay 40 to 80 bucks a weight for a font that he saw on his favorite website.
Type designers, therein lies your problem. Your first problem is one of pricing. A lot of work goes into writing, recording, and mixing a song — but you can buy a song for a dollar nowadays, even without any DRM. Somewhere along the line, you got the idea that only designers need fonts, and all designers are wealthy and can pay exorbitant amounts for everything they use – from computers (*cough* Apple) to software (*ahem* Adobe) to fonts. Maybe if you re-thought your pricing model, there would be more interest in paying you for your work. After all, if Joe Sixpack cares enough about your font to pirate it, he probably cares enough about it to pay you a couple bucks for it – as long as it’s convenient for him to do so. This is what the music industry has slowly been realizing — and it’s working out particularly well for them.
Your second problem is one of overestimating the technical know-how of the public at large. You are so worried about rampant piracy because of font embedding – but 99.9% of the population doesn’t consciously give a crap about your font, and of those that do, not many of them will have the slightest idea how to rip it from a document in which it’s embedded – even if it’s technically quite simple to do so.
Your third problem is the failure to understand a simple reality: if someone wants your font and doesn’t want to pay for it, and has the technical know-how to rip it from a document, they also probably know that it’s already supremely easy to pirate your font. Seriously. Your font is already on the internets, being downloaded by people who want it but have no intention of paying you, and there is no way you can ever conceivably change this unless you never publish your font to begin with. So loosen your grip a little, would ya?
Next, I want to address DRM with respect to embedded fonts. Web developers have, time and again, said this (in so many words) to the type design industry: come up with a standardized DRM scheme for fonts, and we will embrace it. We don’t care how stupendously difficult it is for us to use, as long as it is completely supported and transparent to our users. This didn’t happen. Microsoft created their standard (which barely qualifies as protection) and the rest of the browsers just use plain old font files without any encryption or protection at all.
And I’m going to start taking advantage of that. I want to embed fonts. Good fonts. Your fonts. If you want to sue me over it, then you, sir, are a dick. Feel free to come up with your DRM solution at any time – but be aware that it will present no particular barrier to piracy of your font. So it goes with any digital product – if you build it, they will pirate it. We deal with it in my industry, too — accept it, as I’ve learned to.
bunch:
One hopes that Typekit (http://blog.typekit.com/) arriving around the same time as adoption of FF3.5 and @font-face might help to steer the whole thing in a positive, font designers getting compensated fairly direction.
July 23, 2009, 11:19 amJeremy:
I’ve been following TypeKit, and it looks like it will be an solution. My only concerns are that I must either use their jQuery-based API (I won’t comment on jQuery here, but suffice it to say I don’t consider this a solution) or I must allow them to host the CSS for my fonts. That is all well and good — as long as I remain happy with the level of service they provide. They also seem to be keen on sticking vast amounts of data encoded into data: scheme URIs, directly into the CSS code. I’m not sure whether I like that or not. I’m leaning towards not. (here is an example of a data: URI. Imagine if instead of a 165 byte PNG image, it were a 200KB font file.)
Also, what’s the cost? Will it be a monthly fee? Will I have to re-purchase fonts I already own through TypeKit? Will it be both? It remains to be seen whether TypeKit will be a cost-effective solution — I doubt embedded fonts are considered important enough by most people to justify any significant expenditure, and they might have trouble finding a price point that supports them.
July 23, 2009, 12:04 pm