Yann Forget wrote:
Those are both perfectly acceptable both from the point of view of
"fair use" in the U.S., and also because they are both within the
very liberal and open-ended permission given by Microsoft for such
things:
http://www.microsoft.com/permission/copyrgt/cop-img.htm#ScreenShot
When you're reading that, remember that companies often give
permission to do things that you can already do anyway, while
purporting to place some restrictions on you.
For example, Microsoft _gives permission_ to use screenshots, but says
that you may not alter them in any way. That only applies within the
context of their permission. But in U.S. law, parody is a very
strongly protected form of expression, and so even though someone who
alters a screenshot to make fun of Microsoft is doing so outside the
scope of the permissions, they are well within the bounds of fair use.
The same would be true for an article about Microsoft which is
"disparaging". Even though Microsoft's liberal permission policy
appears to forbid such use, all that means is that if you disparage
them then you don't have their permission. But you wouldn't normally
need their permission anyway, so long as you're within the realm of
fair use critical commentary.
In our case, of course, we don't disparage anyone, and so we fit well
within their permission policy.
--Jimbo