So which of these two things that you've said are correct, because
they seem completely incompatible to me:
On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
If I create a screenshot of a browser page on my
computer displaying
wikipedia, there is *one* copyright involved: *mine*.
On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
And as an end-user, you can do with any of those
things anything you
want to, as long as you don't try to distribute them, make money off
them, or explicitly claim them as your own.
If there's only one copyright in a screenshot, as you assert, then how
do all of those restrictions come into play? Or are you saying that
whoever created the software/etc only has copyright until I take a
picture of their work?
If I draw a picture of something, and you come along and take a
photograph of it, then by your reasoning you would own the copyright
in it. What happened to my copyright? Did it magically disappear when
you took the picture?
In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture, and your
photograph is a derivative work, which in the absence of a licence for
you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.
It's widely accepted that screenshots of software/etc is exactly the
same as this. If A owns the copyright in software/etc, and B takes a
picture of it, then in the absence of a licence permitting B to use
the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
a picture of.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com