[Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Mark Clements (HappyDog)
This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation
to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.

What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki?  Are we able to
distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)?
Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly
others.

Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under one
license and some under another?  E.g. if the screenshot includes the MW logo
or certain interface text does it affect how it can be licensed?  What about
the different skins?

It would be good to have this question answered officially, once and for
all.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)




_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Hi,

I didn't receive any replies to this question (below).  Is there perhaps a
better place to ask it?

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


"Mark Clements" wrote:

> This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation
> to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.
>
> What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki?  Are we able to
> distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)?
> Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly
> others.
>
> Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under
> one license and some under another?  E.g. if the screenshot includes
> the MW logo or certain interface text does it affect how it can be
> licensed?  What about the different skins?
>
> It would be good to have this question answered officially, once and for
> all.
>
> - Mark Clements (HappyDog)






_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Firstly, TINLA, and brace yourself.

On 1/18/07, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation
> to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.
>
> What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki?  Are we able to
> distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)?
> Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly
> others.

The simple answer is that MediaWiki is GPL, so screenshots of a plain
old MediaWiki install, with no other things in it, are GPL.

> Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under one
> license and some under another?  E.g. if the screenshot includes the MW logo
> or certain interface text does it affect how it can be licensed?  What about
> the different skins?

When you start mixing stuff you complicate things. If I were to take a
screenshot of a page on Wikipedia, for example, the text of the page
would be GFDL (unless there are some quotes or something in the text,
which would be fair use), the MediaWiki elements would be GPL, the
browser window could be anything (if you're in Firefox, for example,
then the picture of the browser interface is under the Mozilla Public
Licence). The skins that come with MediaWiki are GPL just like the
rest of MediaWiki.

So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best
you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content
in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.
You could also create a screenshot with the MediaWiki interface and
some other free content in it (like Wikipedia content) and the result
would be that there would be different licences for different parts of
the picture.

The last point is the logos. The Wikipedia logo, among others, is not
under a free licence so you really can't show that in a screenshot if
you want the image to be freely licenced. The MediaWiki logo, IIRC,
still has a fairly iffy copyright status, noone seems to know whether
it is PD or GPL. But that may have been resolved since the last time I
read about it.

Lastly, here's a few examples:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Accueil-Safari-Alibaba.png
French WP in Safari. The Safari elements are LGPL, MediaWiki elements
are GPL and the WP content is GFDL.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aide_FR_Metadata_image.png
Only shows MediaWiki elements, entirely GPL (the metadata shown is
probably not eligible for copyright).

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:03:55PM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:

> When you start mixing stuff you complicate things. If I were to take a
> screenshot of a page on Wikipedia, for example, the text of the page
> would be GFDL (unless there are some quotes or something in the text,
> which would be fair use), the MediaWiki elements would be GPL, the
> browser window could be anything (if you're in Firefox, for example,
> then the picture of the browser interface is under the Mozilla Public
> Licence). The skins that come with MediaWiki are GPL just like the
> rest of MediaWiki.
>
> So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best
> you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content
> in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.

Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.

(Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)

If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.

The situation is pretty much identical to my *taking a photograph* of
the screen displaying said browser.

If I want to use that image for *commercial advertising*, there msy be
some issues with respect to model releases for pictures of identifiable
people, or trademarks (though this is even less clear), but -- and
particularly if the destination of the image is pedagogy -- underlying
copyrights don't, that I am able to determine, have anything whatsoever
to do with it.  Trademark law doesn't say you can't reproduce the
trademark, it says you can't make money off it, or confuse other people
about who it refers to.

I'm sufficiently confident of this that I'd say "don't worry about it"
in a public place, unless I'm contradicted by an attorney whose
practice is in copyright law.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:29:04PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> > So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best
> > you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content
> > in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.
>
> Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
>
> (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
>
> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.

And, to be clear about the point at hand: I the creator of that image
can then license it's copyright under anything I feel like.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Simetrical
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
>
> (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
>
> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
>
> The situation is pretty much identical to my *taking a photograph* of
> the screen displaying said browser.

Well, I can say that that's certainly not how Wikipedia interprets
copyright in such works.  Screenshots of copyrighted programs are
generally considered fair use, because the layout/coloring/general
appearance of the browser is deemed creative.  Whether this is the law
I don't know, but certainly a photo of a copyrighted work is
derivative of it (if even that).

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Platonides
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
>
> (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
>
> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.

Then, why does commons interpret it otherwise?


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system
is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Tels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 21:59, Platonides wrote:

> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
> >
> > (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
> >
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> > a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> > none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> > licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
>
> Then, why does commons interpret it otherwise?
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
> Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system
> is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
> http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm

Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What if
I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?

*confused*

best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Tue Jan 23 22:15:03 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Die deutsche Zensoren  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dummköpfe - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -." Heinrich Heine

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRbZ7CncLPEOTuEwVAQLtBgf+I2M1XO+goahtgyH7a8GcmC1C1SXpeL5n
jsU7CS814w4bI7wxs2k/8Dx4wahFQLtLrQjMa08mD8/ho1BGHK1NGGtxTdCtNZb2
5IFE3RsTheUOMNJEDHIUa1prTniFKMYto2YTAFLyKf19/yU4i9AQV/RdRM9GapyG
zP8NGnYgxDspUDglPSmUThBr5sV3bonrzeJrGrH0YDtTlkQ8RaDhO+5C7xGtKONA
ZVKm7yxciu1XU+fiSYz4T1nGDm8L1iyBYvpGxloEfmusjr/Y+KDhdQYpFKgfWB6c
P2tEfvQbuhIuqI7sMnmV86V+8VaJAYMaeAzsM1FhqMeS9lt7JatN+A==
=KK+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Tels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:15, you wrote:

> Moin,
>
> On Tuesday 23 January 2007 21:59, Platonides wrote:
> > Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
> > >
> > > (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
> > >
> > > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is
> > > not a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.
> > > Therefore, none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by
> > > induction, no licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own
> > > its copyright.
> >
> > Then, why does commons interpret it otherwise?
> >
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
> > Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating
> > system is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
> > http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm
>
> Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What
> if I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?

NVM me, I just read the linked article instead of the very short summary you
pasted into the mail :D

best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Tue Jan 23 22:18:34 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/posters
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program
 documentation." -- Frederick Brooks, 'The Mythical Man Month'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRbZ72HcLPEOTuEwVAQL7Igf9EF54Qq+Hk2+8o/MlaIUmm3Y7S2idax43
US3X5c18MUnVB55g9dcFNCvwYHjeh0Grysnb6lfYKY5cxeTgJLGZ5eYuc6J8Z/fO
+iaL/40W9UwJ3t+VipuHRsXet2Q3RUd3FzsaGPf7uQeFrzloQm+kANtepeUsoPEt
He9aQwFlZhqhPalnEwFSm/Jf+f3eAVNjkmOuCRVUYPtmrVH4+ZSbF5X91xfJIYLq
ioyt6LatjzoeY8ewnfY/zNoc5laNlg5VTDGHAxI5afOiXcaBHitWayiNukbV+u85
fVIoPxSAZBGFDhFqJu1YZaiA6DuBS7JbdyaArlfWVDB/HJxPeygGqA==
=3lOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Simetrical
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:15:02PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:

> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
> >
> > (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
> >
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> > a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> > none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> > licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
> >
> > The situation is pretty much identical to my *taking a photograph* of
> > the screen displaying said browser.
>
> Well, I can say that that's certainly not how Wikipedia interprets
> copyright in such works.  Screenshots of copyrighted programs are
> generally considered fair use, because the layout/coloring/general
> appearance of the browser is deemed creative.

Fair use of *what*?

>                                                Whether this is the law
> I don't know, but certainly a photo of a copyrighted work is
> derivative of it (if even that).

Derivative is a word with a fairly specific definition as a term of art
in copyright law.  TTBOMK, only two very narrow categories of
things-you-can-photograph require care on the part of the photographer:
Fine Art, and architectural renderings (ie: fancy buildings :-)

I'm off to read the article someone linked to now.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Platonides
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Platonides wrote:

> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > Someone vastly misunderstands the nature of copyright law, I think.
> >
> > (Though, admittedly, IANAL, either.  I just play on on the net.)
> >
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> > a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> > none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> > licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
>
> Then, why does commons interpret it otherwise?

Because they listened to the lawyers advising the librarians who wrote
that page, in the UK?

And incidentally, that reliance on Bridgman v Corel seems completely
out of whack to me; the case doesn't appear to speak, at all, to the
issue at hand.

> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
> Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system
> is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
> http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm

The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack,
is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.

That's what that UK site tells me.  It wasn't written, so far as I can
see, by an attorney, and it doesn't cite cases.

Clearly, this issue is at the point where the Foundation needs to go
pay an IP attorney for a formal written opinion that he'll back up --
in detail, stating exactly what the copyright in a screenshot created
by J. Random User is, by analogy to any other way that image could be
created.

I'm sure we can find a couple, if we look.

I recommend paying for the opinion, even if someone offers to give it
out pro bono; that's how people pay their mailpractice and E&O
insurance, and one wants to be able to rely on it.

Notwithstanding that, there are several on Ask.Metafilter, as well,
where I'm heading to post a query.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Simetrical
In reply to this post by Tels
On 1/23/07, Tels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What if
> I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?

I'd guess probably not, since it's purely informative and not what
might be called creative expression.  But I don't really know.

On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Fair use of *what*?

Of the software's graphical interface.  Positioning of elements and
choosing exact designs (such as the type of curve, font and color
selection, etc.) can be copyrightable.  Probably the element
positioning alone isn't copyrightable, though . . . Word has a
WordPerfect menu mode and vice versa, for instance, IIRC.

> Derivative is a word with a fairly specific definition as a term of art
> in copyright law.  TTBOMK, only two very narrow categories of
> things-you-can-photograph require care on the part of the photographer:
> Fine Art, and architectural renderings (ie: fancy buildings :-)

There is generally no distinction at all between fine art and any
other creative work in US copyright law.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.

This is great news.  Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com,
take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.

Or perhaps you are just clueless.


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Stan Shebs-2
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
>> Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system
>> is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
>> http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm
>>    
>
> The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack,
> is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.
>  
I'm pretty sure Apple is very proud of its Aqua widgets, and equally
sure they'll be after you with a thousand lawyers if you try to claim
their graphical designs are owned by you because they happen to be
visible in a screenshot you made. If you successfully fend them off, let
me know, I could use a bunch of textures, and clipping them from WoW
screenshots will save me a lot of time, not to mention Blizzard's
artists have better technique than I can muster.

Stan


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:40:16PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Screenshots
> >> Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system
> >> is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see
> >> http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm
> >>    
> >
> > The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack,
> > is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.
> >  
> I'm pretty sure Apple is very proud of its Aqua widgets, and equally
> sure they'll be after you with a thousand lawyers if you try to claim
> their graphical designs are owned by you because they happen to be
> visible in a screenshot you made.

If Apple could find a lawyer who could successfully argue that, because
I was *exhibiting* a screenshot of an application that *happened* to be
running on a desktop managed with their icon set, that I was "trying to
claim their graphical designs are owned by me" -- such exhibition
simply *does* *not* make that claim.

>                                       If you successfully fend them off, let
> me know, I could use a bunch of textures, and clipping them from WoW
> screenshots will save me a lot of time, not to mention Blizzard's
> artists have better technique than I can muster.

And as an end-user, you can do with any of those things anything you
want to, as long as you don't try to distribute them, make money off
them, or explicitly claim them as your own.

Copyright and trademark law is what it *is*, not what inside counsel of
largr corporations *tell* you it is.  They aren't *your* lawyer, you
shouldn't rely on them.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Simetrical
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:

> On 1/23/07, Tels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What if
> > I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?
>
> I'd guess probably not, since it's purely informative and not what
> might be called creative expression.  But I don't really know.
>
> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Fair use of *what*?
>
> Of the software's graphical interface.  Positioning of elements and
> choosing exact designs (such as the type of curve, font and color
> selection, etc.) can be copyrightable.  Probably the element
> positioning alone isn't copyrightable, though . . . Word has a
> WordPerfect menu mode and vice versa, for instance, IIRC.

But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
*it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.

But not a picture, fercrissakes.

> > Derivative is a word with a fairly specific definition as a term of art
> > in copyright law.  TTBOMK, only two very narrow categories of
> > things-you-can-photograph require care on the part of the photographer:
> > Fine Art, and architectural renderings (ie: fancy buildings :-)
>
> There is generally no distinction at all between fine art and any
> other creative work in US copyright law.

Is there a postcard photographer in the house!?!  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:51:53PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:

> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> > wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.  The image is not
> > a derivative work of the browser, the OS, or the website.  Therefore,
> > none of those people's copyrights apply, and therefore by induction, no
> > licenses are necessary.  I created an image, and I own its copyright.
>
> This is great news.  Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com,
> take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.
>
> Or perhaps you are just clueless.

Or perhaps you, and the people who wrote the policy are.

Are *you* an attorney specializing in intellectual property practice,
Lars?

If not, I'd recommend you pedal it back to "I believe you're incorrect",
instead of being attacking and insulting.

I saw no evidence that *any* such attorneys had been consulted in the
creation of the relevant paragraphs on Commons:Licensing.  

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Simetrical
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
> illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
> *it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.
>
> But not a picture, fercrissakes.

Oh, surely it would be fair use in almost any circumstance.  It's
still copyrighted, technically.  The same is true for, e.g., photos
that incidentally contain copyrighted corporate logos in the
background, although there Commons/Wikipedia is willing to consider it
free.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Jay Ashworth-2
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:38:07PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:

> On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > But a photograph/screenshot does not *use* those things.  It
> > illustrates them.  *A software library*, like QT, could *use* them, and
> > *it* would be subject to action if it ripped off Aqua, commercially.
> >
> > But not a picture, fercrissakes.
>
> Oh, surely it would be fair use in almost any circumstance.  It's
> still copyrighted, technically.  The same is true for, e.g., photos
> that incidentally contain copyrighted corporate logos in the
> background, although there Commons/Wikipedia is willing to consider it
> free.

Certainly I agree it's copyrighted.  My assertion is that the copyright
vests in *me*, and that any infringement is via derivation.  I've just
posted the question on AskMe; it's the sort of thing they like to chew
on.  And I know there are some lawyers in the crowd.  Let's see what we
get.

And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo.  You trademark them.
And the rules for infringement on trademarks are much clearer than
copyright; they're pretty much bright-line.  Passing off, reverse
passing off, confusion, or denigration by association (as opposed to
editorial).

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [hidden email]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots.

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Jay Ashworth-2
So which of these two things that you've said are correct, because
they seem completely incompatible to me:

On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my computer displaying
> wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.

On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And as an end-user, you can do with any of those things anything you
> want to, as long as you don't try to distribute them, make money off
> them, or explicitly claim them as your own.

If there's only one copyright in a screenshot, as you assert, then how
do all of those restrictions come into play? Or are you saying that
whoever created the software/etc only has copyright until I take a
picture of their work?

If I draw a picture of something, and you come along and take a
photograph of it, then by your reasoning you would own the copyright
in it. What happened to my copyright? Did it magically disappear when
you took the picture?

In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture, and your
photograph is a derivative work, which in the absence of a licence for
you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.

It's widely accepted that screenshots of software/etc is exactly the
same as this. If A owns the copyright in software/etc, and B takes a
picture of it, then in the absence of a licence permitting B to use
the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
a picture of.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
123