On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:38:07PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com 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