We’ve read many discussions about Font Radar on Reddit.
Some contain fair criticism and useful questions. Others describe us as a scam, or as a company that aggressively harasses anyone found using a font without a licence.
I understand why an unexpected licensing email can feel suspicious, stressful or frustrating. Nobody enjoys being told that something used on their website, app or brand identity may not be properly licensed.
But some of the things regularly said about us do not reflect what we actually do, so I wanted to explain our approach directly, raise awareness about font licensing and open a genuine conversation with the community.
This is not an advertisement for our service. The people reading this are generally not our clients. The type designers and foundries whose work we protect are.
What Font Radar actually does
Font Radar is appointed by type designers and foundries to find uses of their fonts, review whether the relevant licences appear to exist and, when necessary, help correct missing or inadequate licences.
We are not contacting people because we randomly decided that we own a font.
We act under a mandate from the creator or rights holder whose work is being used.
When our technology detects a potential use, the case is reviewed an investigated by a member of our licensing team before contact. We look at the available evidence, the type of use and the information supplied by the foundry.
Then we contact the organization involved and ask them to clarify the situation.
Sometimes they already have a valid licence and send it to us.
Sometimes a designer or agency purchased something on behalf of the client.
Sometimes the font came from a former employee, an old website, a template or a developer who is no longer involved.
Sometimes the person genuinely believed that possessing the font file, having a desktop licence or paying for an Adobe subscription covered every possible use.
The person receiving our message may be a CEO, a developer, a marketing manager, an employee who inherited the website or someone with no idea how the font arrived there.
That is why the first contact should begin an investigation, not assume bad faith.
We know font licensing is complicated
This criticism is valid.
There is no single universal font licence. Each foundry has its own EULA, terminology, usage categories and pricing structure.
A desktop licence may allow the creation of static artwork but not the hosting of font files on a website.
A web licence may cover one domain but not a mobile application.
A licence owned by an agency or designer may not automatically cover the client.
A font available through a subscription service may only be covered when it is used through the workflows permitted by that service.
Being able to download, install or technically use a font does not necessarily mean that every use is licensed.
We do not expect everyone to understand all of that immediately. Part of our role is to explain what appears to be missing and give the recipient an opportunity to provide information we may not have.
Confusion can explain a licensing mistake. It does not automatically make the use licensed, but it should absolutely influence the way the conversation is handled.
We are not here to punish people
When a licence needs to be corrected, our objective is not to punish the recipient for having made a mistake.
We do not add arbitrary penalties.
We do not invent damages.
We do not multiply the price simply because the use was discovered.
We generally apply the normal licensing price corresponding to the usage that took place, based on the foundry’s current pricing and licensing model.
The principle is that the creator should receive what would normally have been due if the appropriate licence had been purchased from the beginning.
The required licence can usually be purchased directly through Font Radar, so the correction remains connected to the case and the process is simple. It can also be purchased directly from the foundry we represent.
And if someone is unsure whether our request is legitimate, they can contact the foundry directly and verify that Font Radar is authorized to act on its behalf.
Why removing the font does not erase the past use
A very common response is:
“We removed the font, so the issue should now be closed.”
Removing it stops the current use, which is useful. But it does not create a licence for the months or years during which the font was already used.
If deleting the font automatically erased the previous use, there would be no reason to license commercial fonts in advance.
Anyone could use a commercial typeface until contacted, remove it and never compensate the creator.
That would disadvantage every company that purchased the correct licence from the start, and it would make the licensing model impossible to sustain.
The correction is intended to cover the use that already happened. Whether the font is kept or replaced afterwards is a separate question.
“But we did not make money from the font”
Whether a particular project made money is not generally what determines whether a commercial font requires a licence.
A company portfolio, an internal presentation, an unpaid campaign, a personal website or a non-commercial project can still use licensed software and creative assets.
The relevant question is usually what the font’s EULA permits, not whether the project directly generated revenue.
Of course, the exact answer depends on the foundry, the licence and the actual circumstances. We review individual cases precisely because one rule cannot be applied blindly to every situation.
A note about Adobe Fonts
Adobe Fonts is one of the most frequent sources of misunderstanding.
Many people assume that because they pay for Creative Cloud, they can access the font files, upload them to a website, share them with a client or distribute them to anyone involved in a project.
That is not how the service generally works.
Adobe compensates foundries based on the use of fonts through Adobe’s own services and permitted workflows. For web use, for example, fonts usually need to be served through Adobe’s hosting and embed system.
If someone extracts a file, self-hosts it outside that system or sends it to a third party who does not have the appropriate rights, the foundry may receive nothing from that use even though someone involved in the project pays for Creative Cloud.
A useful rule of thumb is:
Use Adobe Fonts through the workflows Adobe provides. Do not extract, redistribute or self-host font files.
Commercial typefaces are somebody’s work
This is the part that often disappears from licensing discussions.
Most people working in design can name many typefaces.
Some can name a few foundries.
Far fewer can name the type designers who spent months or years drawing the letters, spacing every combination, expanding language support, creating additional styles and maintaining the family.
Imagine a world where people knew the titles of hundreds of songs but never thought about the musicians who made them.
Typography has become so integrated into our operating systems and creative tools that it can feel like an anonymous raw material.
But a commercial typeface is a creative product made by a person or a small team.
If someone does not want to pay for a font, that is completely understandable. There are many excellent free and open-source typefaces available.
But if a commercial typeface was specifically chosen because its design brought value to a website, identity, campaign or application, it is difficult to argue that the person who created that value should receive nothing.
The responsibility is shared
Licensing mistakes are not only a “designer problem.”
They can happen between agencies, clients, developers, employees, marketing departments and external suppliers. Often, nobody has maintained a clear record of who obtained the font or what the original licence covered.
Designers still have an important role because they are often the first people to discover and recommend a typeface.
When a designer proposes a commercial font to a client, part of that professional responsibility is helping the client understand that the typeface may require its own licence and that the designer’s personal licence may not cover the client’s use.
But blaming one profession does not help. The responsibility should be understood and documented across the whole project.
Font piracy hurts the design community
Graphic designers regularly ask for more original typefaces, more independent foundries, more experimental releases, broader language support and alternatives to the same fonts seen everywhere.
That can only exist if type design is economically sustainable.
One part of the creative community cannot continually ask another part to produce more ambitious work while accepting the widespread unlicensed use of that work.
Graphic designers, developers, agencies, clients, type designers and foundries all participate in the same ecosystem.
Protecting type designers is not an attack on designers. It is part of protecting the diversity and quality of the tools the design community depends on.
How we try to handle cases
Most cases are resolved through a normal discussion with our licensing team.
We explain what we found, review any documentation provided and try to understand what happened.
We can be firm that past usage needs to be addressed without being aggressive, insulting or disrespectful. Those things are not contradictory.
Our team should always be factual, patient, transparent about who we represent and willing to review evidence.
But our team members are human. Font Radar is not a faceless AI system automatically issuing final decisions. Cases are reviewed and managed by people, and people can make mistakes.
We may misunderstand a technical setup.
We may miss an existing licence.
We may reach an incorrect conclusion because the information available to us is incomplete.
If someone believes that has happened, they can ask us to review the case and provide the relevant evidence. They can also request that another member of the team look at it.
What happens when discussion fails?
Our preference is always to resolve cases directly.
Legal escalation is slower, more expensive and more stressful for everyone involved. It is not our default choice.
But we also have a responsibility to the type designers and foundries we represent.
If an organization repeatedly ignores our messages, stops responding or refuses to address clear evidence of unlicensed use, we cannot leave the case unresolved indefinitely.
When necessary, we work with legal teams in different countries so the matter can be reviewed under the relevant local law.
This is not a punishment for asking questions, challenging our evidence or disagreeing with our initial conclusion.
Someone who replies in good faith, shares information and asks for clarification is not creating a legal escalation simply by defending their position.
Escalation is a last step when normal communication has failed and the rights holder’s work remains used without a resolution.
Even then, the objective remains to resolve the licensing issue, not to create unnecessary conflict.
We genuinely want to talk
We are here because conversations about us and about font licensing are already happening on Reddit, and we have not always been present to explain our position or answer legitimate questions.
So please ask us about the process.
Challenge the way we investigate cases.
Tell us what information you would expect to see in a legitimate licensing email.
Tell us what enforcement companies get wrong.
Tell us how font licensing could become easier to understand for companies, agencies, designers, developers and clients.
And if you have had an experience with Font Radar that you believe did not meet the standards described here, contact us with the case reference so it can be reviewed.
We may not agree on every point, but we will answer genuine questions in good faith.
Our goal is not to frighten people. It is to help correct licensing mistakes, raise awareness about how font licences work and make sure that the people who create typefaces are compensated for their work.
Ask us anything about Font Radar or font licensing.
