Few digital works are made by their author alone. They use code libraries written by others, a typeface that was bought or downloaded, images from a stock library, public data. Each of those layers has its own licence, and licences do not always get along with one another. A single licence can condition the distribution or exploitation of a significant part, although its effect does not automatically extend to every independent layer.
Two possible conflicts
The first concerns typography. A desktop licence permits design and printing, but not necessarily the use of the font on a website, embedding it in an application, or delivering the file to another party. An interactive work displaying text on screen may be using a typeface for a purpose not permitted by its licence.
The second concerns code. If software covered by the GPL is transmitted, the licence imposes obligations regarding the corresponding code and the recipient's rights. Whether those obligations extend to one's own code or the entire work depends on whether a combined program or a mere aggregation exists; it is not enough for two elements to be delivered together. The MIT licence permits use, modification and distribution, including commercial use, but requires the retention of the copyright notice and the licence text in copies or substantial portions of the software.
The lack of a specific public ruling on an artwork does not allow us to conclude that no disputes exist. Obligations arise from licences and contracts, and may be addressed through private claims, content takedowns, or settlements with no published ruling.
More layers than code and typography
A minimum audit must also include images, audio, video, data, AI models, plugins, templates and services. For each layer, one must record the holder, provenance, licence, version, attribution, territorial scope, duration and restrictions. Advertising rules, privacy, image rights, trademarks and data protection may add limitations that a copyright licence does not resolve.
The precedent: separating content from software
Creative Commons resolved part of the problem by separating two worlds. Its licences are suitable for images, texts and sounds, and the organisation itself recommends against using them for software or hardware, advising instead the use of a standard free software licence. With this distinction, the creator of a work knows at least which type of licence to apply to each layer.
But the precedent is a recommendation, not a rule, and it does not resolve the compatibility between all licences, nor the trademark, privacy or image rights that may affect the materials.
Compatibility does not mean uniformity
It is not necessary to impose a single licence on everything. There may be one licence for the code, another for images and sound, and contractual conditions for the work or its edition. What matters is that they can coexist and that the recipient understands which rights are obtained for each element.
Before publishing or selling, it is advisable to answer: is the software being distributed or only run? Is the typography embedded? Can the data be redistributed? Does the attribution fit within the interface? Can the purchaser receive the dependencies? What happens if a licence or a service disappears?
The work as a sum of layers
In my view, the problem of licences is a particular case of an idea I have been defending in this notebook: a digital work is inseparable from the infrastructures that compose it, and each has its owner. Knowing the licence of each layer is not bureaucracy: it is knowing who the work depends on.
The practical remedy is to create, before selling or publishing, an inventory of layers with the licence for each. I explain this in the guides on code licences and typographic licences.
About the open conversation
This text separates the data from my interpretation and does not constitute legal advice. If you work with code, typography or data in your project and wish to clarify a point or discuss this reading, this notebook remains open: write to me.
The author's relationship with the cases
There is no economic, professional, or collection-based relationship with the individuals, companies, and institutions cited.