Difference between desktop, web, and app licenses
Three licenses—different logic, not different file formats
Most articles explain the difference through format: OTF/TTF for desktop, WOFF/WOFF2 for web, a separate file for embedding in an application. This is technically correct but does not answer the main question—why one cannot take one file and use it everywhere. The issue lies in the calculation method and the object of licensing: desktop is sold based on the number of program installations, web based on traffic volume, and app based on a specific app title.
| License | What it covers | How the cost is calculated | Typical mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desktop | Installing the font on a PC for layout, printing, and creating static images | Number of computers/users | Using the same file on a website or in an application |
| Web | Displaying text via @font-face on a website | Page views per month (not unique visitors) | Underestimating actual traffic when purchasing |
| App | Embedding the font in a mobile or desktop application | One app title, often from ≈$250 | One payment for several brand applications |
Web license is counted not by people, but by page views: if one visitor refreshed the page ten times, that is ten page views. The standard entry threshold is around 10 000 page views per month for $50–150 per year, and exceeding the limit formally requires additional purchase, even if the site visually has not changed.
Desktop license for the logo: works not as most people think
A direct answer to a frequent question: no, desktop licenses are usually insufficient if the logo later appears in social networks, on the website, and in the application. The license itself covers the creation of the image on a computer — that is, the process of drawing the logo in a graphics program. But further use of this logo as an element of brand style, in a brand book, in brand typography — this is already a separate question of rights, for which font owners often sell a Logo License. The price depends on the number of logos, but it is purchased once and covers unrestricted public use of the finished image across channels.
This is a key distinction that is usually overlooked: distribution of the font as a file and distribution of a finished image with the font — are different legal stories. A PNG or JPG with text typed in the font under a desktop license is normally fine to publish on the internet without requiring a separate web license, because you are distributing the image, not the font file itself. The problem begins where the font is embedded directly on a website or in an application — via @font-face or system text rendering tools.
Why converting OTF to WOFF2 doesn't help
Technically converting TTF to WOFF2 is a matter of five minutes in any converter. Legally, this solves nothing: the license governs the right to use, not the file format. A desktop license almost always explicitly forbids embedding the font on web pages, regardless of what container it is in. Converting the file does not create new rights — it simply masks the violation until the first check.
This is exactly what happened in the case of NBCUniversal and Oxygen Media: the company purchased a desktop license for the Chalet font, but it was actually embedded on NBC websites. The result was a legal dispute that clearly demonstrates: 'bought for a computer, used on the web' is not a gray area, but a direct violation of the license terms, even if there was no intent.
Who purchases the license — the studio or the client
Formally, anyone can buy a license, but it must be registered to the party that actually uses the font in the final product — that is, to the client company, not to the design studio that creates the layout. A designer working on their own desktop with a personal license does not automatically transfer these rights to the client: licenses are usually not assignable to third parties without the direct permission of the copyright holder.
The mistake of 'the studio bought a license for itself, but the brand has been using the font for years' is almost always revealed painfully. In 2024 there was a telling case: the client sued the design studio for the cost of the license and damages for the fact that the studio provided the client with layouts and logos with the font without having the right to distribute it. The conclusion is simple — a contract with a contractor must clearly state who purchases the license and to which party it is registered, even before starting work on the brand.
Channels often forgotten: video, banners, email, SaaS
This is where money and time are most often lost, because intuition suggests: 'if there is desktop and web, the rest will somehow fit in.' In practice, each of these channels has its own logic:
- Video — rendering text with a font in a video clip usually requires a separate license for video production, in addition to the desktop license, especially if the clip is distributed commercially.
- HTML5-banners — are essentially the same web license, but calculated based on ad impressions rather than page views of the website, so a standard web license may not cover the banner network.
- Email newsletters — if the text in the email is rasterized into an image, the logic of the image applies, not the font; if live text with a web font is used, a web license for the domain from which the newsletter is sent is required.
- SaaS platforms — in this case, an App or Server license is usually required, because the font is rendered dynamically for multiple users of the product, not statically on a single website.
App license — the most underestimated risk: the entry price of $250 per app title looks modest, but a detected violation can lead to the app's removal from the App Store, not just a fine. For a brand with multiple products, this means that each app must be licensed separately, even if the font is the same.
How to avoid redesigning layouts: a bulk license instead of three separate ones
The classic scheme of 'desktop + web + application' is convenient for font suppliers, but inconvenient for brands that grow and change channels faster than they renew licenses. Therefore, Paratype, TypeType, Type.Today and Tomorrow are increasingly offering a bulk licensing model: one payment covers all file formats and types of use, and the cost scales according to actual volume — traffic, number of applications, team size.
For a comprehensive brand project — with a logo, website, application and advertising campaigns — a bulk license is usually more cost-effective and safer than purchasing three separate documents 'just in case'. It eliminates the main risk: a situation where a year after a brand's launch, it turns out that the website is running on an illegal font, and redesigning all layouts costs more than the proper license would have cost from the start.
| License | What it covers | How the cost is calculated | Typical mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desktop | Installing the font on a PC for layout, printing, and creating static images | Number of computers/users | Using the same file on a website or in an application |
| Web | Displaying text via @font-face on a website | Page views per month (not unique visitors) | Underestimating actual traffic when purchasing |
| App | Embedding the font in a mobile or desktop application | One app title, often from ≈$250 | One payment for several brand applications |
Web license is counted not by people, but by page views: if one visitor refreshed the page ten times, that is ten page views. The standard entry threshold is around 10 000 page views per month for $50–150 per year, and exceeding the limit formally requires additional purchase, even if the site visually has not changed.
Desktop license for the logo: works not as most people think
A direct answer to a frequent question: no, desktop licenses are usually insufficient if the logo later appears in social networks, on the website, and in the application. The license itself covers the creation of the image on a computer — that is, the process of drawing the logo in a graphics program. But further use of this logo as an element of brand style, in a brand book, in brand typography — this is already a separate question of rights, for which font owners often sell a Logo License. The price depends on the number of logos, but it is purchased once and covers unrestricted public use of the finished image across channels.
This is a key distinction that is usually overlooked: distribution of the font as a file and distribution of a finished image with the font — are different legal stories. A PNG or JPG with text typed in the font under a desktop license is normally fine to publish on the internet without requiring a separate web license, because you are distributing the image, not the font file itself. The problem begins where the font is embedded directly on a website or in an application — via @font-face or system text rendering tools.
Why converting OTF to WOFF2 doesn't help
Technically converting TTF to WOFF2 is a matter of five minutes in any converter. Legally, this solves nothing: the license governs the right to use, not the file format. A desktop license almost always explicitly forbids embedding the font on web pages, regardless of what container it is in. Converting the file does not create new rights — it simply masks the violation until the first check.
This is exactly what happened in the case of NBCUniversal and Oxygen Media: the company purchased a desktop license for the Chalet font, but it was actually embedded on NBC websites. The result was a legal dispute that clearly demonstrates: 'bought for a computer, used on the web' is not a gray area, but a direct violation of the license terms, even if there was no intent.
Who purchases the license — the studio or the client
Formally, anyone can buy a license, but it must be registered to the party that actually uses the font in the final product — that is, to the client company, not to the design studio that creates the layout. A designer working on their own desktop with a personal license does not automatically transfer these rights to the client: licenses are usually not assignable to third parties without the direct permission of the copyright holder.
The mistake of 'the studio bought a license for itself, but the brand has been using the font for years' is almost always revealed painfully. In 2024 there was a telling case: the client sued the design studio for the cost of the license and damages for the fact that the studio provided the client with layouts and logos with the font without having the right to distribute it. The conclusion is simple — a contract with a contractor must clearly state who purchases the license and to which party it is registered, even before starting work on the brand.
Channels often forgotten: video, banners, email, SaaS
This is where money and time are most often lost, because intuition suggests: 'if there is desktop and web, the rest will somehow fit in.' In practice, each of these channels has its own logic:
- Video — rendering text with a font in a video clip usually requires a separate license for video production, in addition to the desktop license, especially if the clip is distributed commercially.
- HTML5-banners — are essentially the same web license, but calculated based on ad impressions rather than page views of the website, so a standard web license may not cover the banner network.
- Email newsletters — if the text in the email is rasterized into an image, the logic of the image applies, not the font; if live text with a web font is used, a web license for the domain from which the newsletter is sent is required.
- SaaS platforms — in this case, an App or Server license is usually required, because the font is rendered dynamically for multiple users of the product, not statically on a single website.
App license — the most underestimated risk: the entry price of $250 per app title looks modest, but a detected violation can lead to the app's removal from the App Store, not just a fine. For a brand with multiple products, this means that each app must be licensed separately, even if the font is the same.
How to avoid redesigning layouts: a bulk license instead of three separate ones
The classic scheme of 'desktop + web + application' is convenient for font suppliers, but inconvenient for brands that grow and change channels faster than they renew licenses. Therefore, Paratype, TypeType, Type.Today and Tomorrow are increasingly offering a bulk licensing model: one payment covers all file formats and types of use, and the cost scales according to actual volume — traffic, number of applications, team size.
For a comprehensive brand project — with a logo, website, application and advertising campaigns — a bulk license is usually more cost-effective and safer than purchasing three separate documents 'just in case'. It eliminates the main risk: a situation where a year after a brand's launch, it turns out that the website is running on an illegal font, and redesigning all layouts costs more than the proper license would have cost from the start.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
