On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:15:02PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@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 lawI 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.
Cheers, -- jra