Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:15:02PM -0500, Simetrical
wrote:
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.
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.
IANAL either, but I think this is blatantly wrong. Photography and
screenshoting are both forms of copying, and all copying (partial or
total) are covered under copyright law. If the photo includes little
previously copyrighted material, it is probably fair use. A screenshot
of Wikipedia, however, includes an entire page of copyrighted material,
so it is not likely fair use.
Think about it. By your logic, I could copy a whole book by taking
pictures page by page.
Matthew Flaschen