On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> 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).