-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 21:59, Platonides wrote:
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
Does that mean if I take a screeshot of "gcc -v" it is copyrighted? What if I copy & paste that text, is it still copyrighted?
*confused*
best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Tue Jan 23 22:15:03 2007 with key 0x93B84C15. View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Die deutsche Zensoren - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dummköpfe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -." Heinrich Heine