On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:38:07PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)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
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274