On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
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?
I'd guess probably not, since it's purely informative and not what might be called creative expression. But I don't really know.
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Fair use of *what*?
Of the software's graphical interface. Positioning of elements and choosing exact designs (such as the type of curve, font and color selection, etc.) can be copyrightable. Probably the element positioning alone isn't copyrightable, though . . . Word has a WordPerfect menu mode and vice versa, for instance, IIRC.
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.
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 :-)
There is generally no distinction at all between fine art and any other creative work in US copyright law.
Is there a postcard photographer in the house!?! :-)
Cheers, -- jra