[Direct answer]The criterion for distinguishing between different types of fonts is not whether the font name includes the word "free", but rather the actual scope of use granted by the license agreement. The same set of font libraries is often distributed simultaneously in personal non-commercial versions, enterprise commercial versions, embedding licenses, and OEM licenses. The price difference stems from the licensing tiers of the user, the medium, and the dissemination method, rather than the font shapes themselves. If a font marked as "free for personal use" is used in product packaging, store signage, paid advertisements, or embedded in apps, even if the file was obtained free of charge, it may still exceed the scope of the license and constitute infringement. However, after obtaining written authorization covering enterprise use, paid fonts can also be used legally. To determine compliance, three materials must be checked: the end-user license agreement, the purchase receipt and authorization certificate, and whether the actual usage scenario falls within the scope of the license list.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

The hidden nature of font infringement lies in the fact that it leaves almost no trace of the downloading process. Designers install a font library on their computers, and then use fonts from this library in all posters, detail pages, packaging, and signage. What they deliver to the company are exported images or PDFs, without the font files themselves being included in the deliverables. As a result, it's difficult for companies to trace back which font was used or where the license came from in the finished products. Risks often arise at several critical points: during brand upgrades, when the entire VI system switches to a new font weight or stroke width but no one reviews the license level of the new font library; during e-commerce promotions, when outsourced teams use fonts from their own computers without ensuring the legality of the materials in the contract; when apps or mini programs package font files into installation packages for embedded use, while the original purchase only included a single-machine typesetting license; and once store signs, display boards, and printed materials are produced in bulk, replacing them later can be extremely costly. Disputes often begin with a copyright protection letter from font manufacturers or agencies, accompanied by a font comparison report and a license quote, demanding additional payment based on the scope of use. At this point, companies often mistakenly believe that since the font library came with the system or was free to use, they can evade responsibility just by using a few characters. However, font libraries are protected as computer software or collections of artistic works. Whether individual characters constitute works, how the entire library is protected, and what rights apply to embedded and outputted fonts all require case-by-case analysis.

II. Key points of contention

One of the disputes is how to define the protected object. The entire computer font library can be protected as computer software, while individual characters in the font library that are original and meet the high standards of fine art works may constitute separate works. However, simple strokes, commonly used typography, and digitized copies of public domain monumental inscriptions have limited originality. The plaintiff must first clarify whether they are claiming copyright for the font software, copyright for individual characters as fine art works, or both with different protected objects, as the comparison methods and compensation bases differ accordingly. The second dispute concerns whether individual characters and the accused's used characters constitute substantial similarity. In practice, this is often determined through character form identity comparisons, comparing stroke start and end points, structural proportions, curve radii, character weight and center of gravity, and verifying whether the defendant has accessed the font library. The defendant may argue that they used public domain fonts, system default fonts, or independently designed fonts. The third dispute concerns licensing scope. End-user license agreements typically differentiate usage rights by user type, usage medium, and usage scale. Exceeding these limits may constitute both contract violation and infringement. Free licenses often restrict commercial or personal learning use only. The fourth dispute concerns the licensing boundaries of open-source and free fonts. Different licenses impose varying requirements for commercial use, derivatives, renaming, redistribution, and copyright notice retention. Using fonts with attribution obligations or naming restrictions in commercial logos may still trigger contract violations.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

When handling claims related to fonts, Hengluo Lawyers typically follow a four-step process: defining the subject matter, verifying the agreement, comparing font shapes, and calculating the scope of use. Each step requires different evidence. In the first step of defining the subject matter, the claimant is required to clarify the basis of their rights: copyright registration for the font library software, development documents and release records for the font, creative sketches and first publication materials for individual font designs, as well as the chain of authorization for rights transfer or litigation representation. If the claimant only provides a comparison screenshot without clarifying the subject matter, this provides a basis for the defendant's counterclaim. In the second step of verifying the agreement, the lawyer reviews the client's retained end-user license agreements, authorization certificates, order invoices, account ownership, authorization periods, and license tiers. Three key points are compared: whether the user is the contracted entity; whether the usage medium includes actual embedding or printed output; and whether the usage scale exceeds the agreed number of stores or installed devices. For updated versions of the agreement, the version in effect at the time of purchase must be verified. In the third step of comparing font shapes, the lawyer cannot simply rely on conclusive reports. They must request comparison samples, a list of sampled characters, comparison methods, and markings of differences. If necessary, they may request expert testimony or independent appraisals. Particular attention is paid to whether the accused font shapes originate from commonly used fonts in the public domain or default system libraries. In the fourth step of calculating the scope of use, the lawyer lists the font's usage across SKUs and materials, the number of stores and print volumes involved, whether the installation package includes font files, and the timeline of online and offline deployments. Backend data and print orders are used to verify actual usage within verifiable ranges. Both parties present their claims: the rights holder submits ownership materials, font comparison reports, and quotes for similar authorizations, demanding compensation for over-licensing use and damages. The defendant typically argues against the validity of the subject matter, differences in font shapes, coverage of authorization scope, legal sources, limited usage scale, or timely cessation and replacement. Courts typically first review the rights basis and ownership chain, then assess the credibility of the comparison conclusions, followed by verifying authorization scope and legal source defenses. Final damages are determined based on authorization market prices, usage duration, and device counts. Unverified print volumes, store numbers, or unrelated fonts are excluded from the calculation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The citation standards must specify the full name and effective date: The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) defines the rights, ownership, and reasonable use boundaries of artworks and computer software, which is the basis for determining whether individual characters and character libraries are protected as a whole; when character libraries are claimed as computer software, they are evaluated separately according to the current effective rules on software protection regarding embedding, redistribution, and reverse engineering; the "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019) intervenes when fonts are used to imitate others' registered trademarks or form source identifiers; the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on April 23, 2019) handles overall visual imitation and unauthorized use of influential decorations; the "Patent Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on October 17, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) only applies to a few cases where fonts are used as design patterns; the procedures are determined by the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024) for jurisdiction, evidence preservation, and expert appraisal, with filing fees accumulated in stages according to the "Method for Payment of Litigation Costs" (implemented on April 1, 2007). For practical implementation, the process can be divided into six steps: 1. Establish a font inventory, recording the name, version, source, license type, and authorization level of each font; 2. Before commercial use, verify whether the end-user license agreement specifies enterprise use, print output, online dissemination, and software embedding. Separate authorizations are required for embedding in apps or OEM distribution; 3. Retain authorization certificates, order invoices, and snapshots of agreements at the time of purchase, ensuring consistency between the account holder and the entity using the fonts; 4. Specify font legality guarantees, source file delivery, and infringement compensation in outsourced design contracts; 5. Upon receiving a protection letter, first preserve the pages in use, material photos, print quantities, and backend data, then evaluate whether to re-authorize, replace, respond, or defend against the claim; 6. Verify the three-year statute of limitations and the other party's ownership chain, and raise defenses such as lack of subjectivity, font differences, or legitimate sources as needed. A detailed system review can be accessed here: [链接]Service Description of This Field.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The most easily overlooked point is that just because a font is installed on a device doesn't mean the company has been authorized to use it. The font licenses purchased by individual designers often only cover the purchaser themselves. When the fonts are provided to the company for use in products and advertisements, the authorization chain is broken from the outset. If an outsourced team uses their own font libraries to produce designs, the risk ultimately falls on the client. When receiving legal notices, it's important not to take either extreme approach: neither should you ignore the complaints and let them escalate to platforms or printing companies, nor should you pay the full amount according to the other party's quote. First, use a font inventory to verify the actual usage scope, print quantity, and media type, then discuss the amount. Before replacing fonts, ensure that the page, materials, and backend data are preserved, and don't delete the only evidence of the scale of use.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does embedding open-source fonts into one's own app fall within the scope of commercial licensing?

It depends on whether the license attached to the font permits embedding the software. This cannot be generalized. Open-source does not mean giving up rights: common open-source font libraries allow commercial use and redistribution, but come with conditions such as retaining copyright notices, prohibiting the use of the font's name, requiring derivative versions to be equally open-source, and prohibiting redistribution under the original name after renaming. Embedding font files into app installation packages constitutes embedded use, which has a wider dissemination range than standalone typesetting output. Some licenses require obtaining separate embedding authorizations or fulfilling specific declaration obligations. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), the entire font library can be protected as computer software, and its copying, distribution, and dissemination on information networks are all exclusive rights. Compliant practices include checking the license text line by line, retaining copyright notices and the full text of the license, confirming whether it can be distributed with the product, and keeping records of the download source and version. When conditions are unclear, it is safer to obtain written confirmation from the rights holder rather than making payments retrospectively based on quotes.

Q2: To distinguish between the personal version and the commercial version of the word database, which license document should be referred to?

The key factors to consider are the end-user license agreements (EULAs) included with font libraries when they are installed or purchased, as well as the accompanying authorization certificates and purchase orders. The four clauses in the agreement determine the license tier: whether the user is an individual or a company; whether the permitted media include printed output, online distribution, software embedding, and OEM distribution; and whether the usage scale is calculated based on the number of individual devices, store locations, print volumes, or installed devices. Personal free versions typically restrict the user to non-commercial personal use, while placing it in product packaging or store signage for businesses constitutes an over-licensing violation. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), licensed use must be subject to a written contract that clearly specifies the types and scope of rights. Oral commitments or promotional statements on sales pages cannot replace the formal agreement. During verification, it is also necessary to verify the version of the agreement in effect at the time of purchase, ensuring that the authorized certificate's subject name matches the actual font-using company, to avoid the certificate still being valid while its scope has changed.

Q3: When font manufacturers file a claim, do they quote the price based on the number of characters or the authorization tier?

Both may be included in the quote, but the method of calculation varies. The per-character charging model is commonly used when the rights holder claims for each character in the artwork. The amount is calculated by multiplying the number of characters used in the infringing work by the per-character licensing fee. In this case, the focus of the dispute lies on whether certain characters are original and whether the character shapes match. For the per-tier charging model, the enterprise commercial license price of the entire font library is used as a reference. The tier is determined based on the user's type of business, the number of outlets, print volume, or installed volume, and then the duration of use and the subjective state are considered. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), compensation can be determined based on the actual losses of the rights holder, the infringer's profits, the reference royalty, or statutory compensation, rather than simply accepting the quote in its entirety. The case acceptance fee is calculated according to the Litigation Cost Payment Method (implemented on April 1, 2007) based on the amount of the claim. Lawyer's fees are charged on a per-case basis, as a percentage of the claim amount, or according to the time-based agreement, subject to the terms of the contract. After receiving the quote, first verify the actual usage scale using the font list, and then negotiate an amount that is closer to the supported range.

Q4: How is the response deadline specified in the letter regarding the protection of the character database calculated?

The response deadline stated in the letter is a consultation window set by the rights holder themselves, not a legally fixed period. Failure to respond within the deadline does not directly result in a loss of the case, but may prompt the other party to file a complaint or lawsuit. What really needs to be closely monitored are several statutory time periods: - Infringement claims are typically subject to a three-year statute of limitations, calculated from the date the rights holder knows or should have known about the infringement and the obligee's identity, according to the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021). - After entering litigation, according to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and effective January 1, 2024), the court sets the evidentiary period. For ordinary first-instance procedures, it is generally six months; for summary procedures, it is three months; and for second-instance procedures, it is typically three months. Public notice service, jurisdiction objections, and character identity appraisals are not included in the time limit. - Platform complaints have shorter appeal windows. Missing these deadlines may result in the page being removed prematurely. - It is prudent to list the letter's date of issuance, the requested response date, the completion date of internal verification, the platform appeal deadline, and the statute of limitations expiration date in a spreadsheet. During the consultation window, check the font list and preserve evidence.

Q5: Should I check the font EULA before purchasing, or should I first compare the glyphs of the fonts?

During the procurement phase, the end-user license agreement should be checked first. Font comparison is an action taken after disputes arise, and the order cannot be reversed. Before placing an order, read the EULA text and the authorization certificate: verify whether the subject of use covers the enterprise, whether the permitted carriers include printed output, online dissemination, software embedding, and OEM distribution; whether the scale is calculated based on the number of stores or the number of installations; whether renaming and transferring authorizations are prohibited; and the authorization period and renewal conditions. At the same time, retain a snapshot of the agreement at the time of purchase, the order invoice, and the account subject, and record the license type and authorization level in the font list. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), the licensed use should clearly specify the types and scope of rights, and all procurement documents should be complete. Even if a legal protection letter is received later, the defendant can still use the legal source and authorization scope to defend against the claim. Font identity comparison is usually required only after receiving the comparison report, used to verify which characters are indeed similar and whether they come from public domain fonts. For cases where the fonts are used first and then authorized later, first preserve the materials in use and backend data, and then initiate a review of the agreement and an assessment of replacement options.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretation in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.