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