Font license audit

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

The font files have licenses.

That's not how it works and those companies are dumb for paying. The users hold the licenses, they are seeing and displaying the font. The only time you need a license is if you are distributing the font specifically for use in the web site, like in a web format, or using the font in an image, like a logo. Specifying a font in a CSS file means nothing if the user doesn't have the font.

👍

If it's just "probably" then you can still lose money defending it in court if a big enough asshole decides to sue.

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.

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.

system-ui !

No yeah fonts don't have copyright, just the font files. Actually even the files probably aren’t copyrightable, as a general rule. This idea comes from a single case with some very specific facts that don’t apply to most situations. Article from a copy­right liti­gator and a type designer: https://matthewbutterick.com/chron/the-copyrightability-of-fonts-revisited.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are not misguided at all your understanding of how browser font stacks work is on point. Literally almost the entire web include somewhere in their fallback chains because that’s how standard web typography has worked for decades. You aren't giving away intellectual property the visitor's own operating system handles the rendering locally using the license tied to their device. The best way to handle this with the client is to politely explain that referencing a font name in CSS is no more a copyright violation than writing the word microsoft in a blog post. Unless you're actually hosting the physical font files yourselves, there is zero legal liability here and you shouldn't let an uncalibrated third party audit force unnecessary code changes.

Unless you're bundling and redistributing the font files themselves, all good. Do as much research as you want on your own if you want, and when you're sure - it's worth mentioning to the client whoever is doing this "audit" is malicious or doesn't know what they're doing. Good starting point is https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/fonts/font-faq

The audit is bullshit, absolute misunderstanding of the issue. Someone adding pointless rows just to justify their own existence.

Referencing a system font in your CSS isn't the same as embedding or distributing the file. Where it gets a little fuzzy is that the license covering that specific font varies by who actually owns it. Most EULAs spell out use versus embedding versus redistribution pretty explicitly. I'd check whether your build ever ships an @font-face src pointing at the font file itself, or if it's only named in the fallback stack. Fallback-only is the stronger position, but I'd also just ask the audit firm which specific license and clause they're citing.

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.