Type has a vocabulary older than film and a licensing regime newer than streaming. These are the words that matter for both, and each links to where we cover it.
The structural vocabulary, which is what a type direction is actually written in.
The small finishing stroke at the end of a letter stem, and by extension the class of typefaces carrying them. On screen the choice is less about tradition than about size and motion: fine serifs are the first thing to disappear at small sizes and under compression.
Where we cover itThe design itself, as distinct from any file that implements it. A typeface is a set of shapes; a font is one packaged instance of it. The distinction is what licensing is written against, so it stops being pedantic the moment money is involved.
Where we cover itA companion design with its own drawn letterforms, not the upright design slanted. Software will slant anything on request, and the result is a different and worse thing than a true italic, most visibly in the lowercase.
Where we cover itThe upright, regular weight of a typeface: the default against which italic and the other weights are defined. In a specification it means normal rather than any historical style.
Where we cover itA monospaced design in which every character occupies the same advance width. It reads as technical and is unusually stable in motion, since nothing reflows as characters change, which is why timecodes and data overlays use it.
Where we cover itA name attached to two nearly opposite traditions: blackletter in European usage, and plain sans-serif in American type naming. A brief asking for gothic is ambiguous until someone says which, and the two could not look less alike.
Where we cover itWhat changes when type moves, compresses and has to be read once.
Typography built for a specific sequence rather than for a system. It is read once, at a size and duration the designer controls, which permits choices that would fail in any interface.
Where we cover itText carrying dialogue or description, held to legibility and accessibility requirements rather than to art direction. It is the one place on screen where typographic expression is genuinely subordinate.
Where we cover itThe licensing vocabulary, which is where most of the real risk in this field lives.
A large font marketplace reselling many foundries under their own terms. Buying through a marketplace does not standardise the licence: what you may do with the file is still set by the originating foundry, and it differs sharply between them.
Where we cover itA mid-century Swiss sans-serif and the most-cited typeface in the industry, which makes it a useful licensing example: several distinct products carry closely related names and are separate licences rather than versions of one thing.
Where we cover itA typeface derived from Roman inscriptional capitals, and for two decades the default for film titling. It is worth knowing precisely because its ubiquity has become a signal of its own, which is a typographic argument rather than a licensing one.
Where we cover itPairs used interchangeably in briefs and specs. Each one changes what you get or what you are allowed to do with it.
A typeface is the DESIGN, a font is one packaged implementation of it. Everyday speech merges them and licensing does not: you licence files, with terms attached to installs, uses and sometimes to how many people can see the output. The distinction stops being pedantic the moment an invoice appears.
Where this bitesRoman is the upright design; italic is a companion design with its own drawn letterforms, not the roman slanted. Software will slant anything on request and the result is measurably worse, most obviously in the lowercase, which is why a family without a true italic is a real limitation.
Where this bitesThey answer different questions. Serif describes whether letters carry finishing strokes; mono describes whether every character has the same width. A face can be both, and on screen the mono property matters more for motion, since nothing reflows as the characters change.
Where this bitesBoth put type on screen and they are governed by opposite constraints. Title design is read once at a size and duration you control, so expression is the point. Captions must meet legibility and accessibility requirements, so expression is subordinate, and treating one like the other fails in both directions.
Where this bitesOne is a marketplace, the other a typeface, and the pairing is where people get caught: buying a familiar name through a familiar storefront does not tell you which product you bought or on what terms. Closely related names are frequently separate licences rather than versions of one thing.
Where this bitesFont licensing terms vary enormously between foundries and change without notice. These describe how the terms are generally used and are not legal advice. The specific licence attached to a specific font always governs.