What is the difference between typeface derivative works and a &quot;document created using the font&quot;
<p>I like the Humor Sans font and have been using it to create infographics. These are png/jpg files and do not contain information about the font typeface, nor do they contain any of the source code of the font ttf files.</p>
<p>The font/ttf files are licensed under <a href="http://antiyawn.com/uploads/Humor-SansOFL-1.0.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this license</a>, which states;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[This license] allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and
redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The
fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded,
redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that any reserved
names are not used by derivative works. <strong>The fonts and derivatives,
however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The
requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to
any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>My understanding of what constitutes <em>derivative works</em> comes from <a href="https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this online document</a>, which states that;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A derivative work is based on a work that has already been copyrighted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My initial assumption based on this was that producing an image file that is generated using the font <strong>is</strong> a form of <em>derivative works</em>. However, this assumption has led me to some confusion, as I am now reading the two bold sentences as contradictory:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other
type of license</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This seems to tell me that my image has to be licensed under the same license.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply
to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My lay understanding here is that an image file is almost certainly a <em>document created using the font</em>. So this seems to suggest I am exempt from any licensing requirements.</p>
<p>So which is it?</p>
<p>I live in Australia, but my content will be published from a webserver in the United States.</p>

<p>A document, or an image of a document, created using a font would not be considered to be a derivative work of that font. If it were, our system of licensing fonts would need to be significantly different.</p>
<p>In any case the part of the license which reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[This license] allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. It specifically permits such <strong>use</strong> of the fonts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By &quot;derivatives&quot; the license seems to mean modified versions of the fonts, which it permits the licensee to create and use subject to certain restrictions. This seems to be confirmed by the license text which says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The plain meaning of this is that derivatives of the fonts are used to create documents, not that they are documents themselves, and that in any case &quot;any document created using the fonts&quot; is not subject to the license restriction.</p>

copyright open-source-software