This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.
What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki? Are we able to distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)? Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly others.
Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under one license and some under another? E.g. if the screenshot includes the MW logo or certain interface text does it affect how it can be licensed? What about the different skins?
It would be good to have this question answered officially, once and for all.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Hi,
I didn't receive any replies to this question (below). Is there perhaps a better place to ask it?
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
"Mark Clements" wrote:
This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.
What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki? Are we able to distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)? Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly others.
Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under one license and some under another? E.g. if the screenshot includes the MW logo or certain interface text does it affect how it can be licensed? What about the different skins?
It would be good to have this question answered officially, once and for all.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Firstly, TINLA, and brace yourself.
On 1/18/07, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
This pops up every so often at www.mediawiki.org, particularly in relation to the public domain help pages that we are trying to compile.
What is the correct license for screenshots of MediaWiki? Are we able to distribute them along with the PD help pages (when we get to that stage)? Currently they are variously tagged as GFDL, PD, (c) WMF and possibly others.
The simple answer is that MediaWiki is GPL, so screenshots of a plain old MediaWiki install, with no other things in it, are GPL.
Are there any considerations that may cause some screenshots to be under one license and some under another? E.g. if the screenshot includes the MW logo or certain interface text does it affect how it can be licensed? What about the different skins?
When you start mixing stuff you complicate things. If I were to take a screenshot of a page on Wikipedia, for example, the text of the page would be GFDL (unless there are some quotes or something in the text, which would be fair use), the MediaWiki elements would be GPL, the browser window could be anything (if you're in Firefox, for example, then the picture of the browser interface is under the Mozilla Public Licence). The skins that come with MediaWiki are GPL just like the rest of MediaWiki.
So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser. You could also create a screenshot with the MediaWiki interface and some other free content in it (like Wikipedia content) and the result would be that there would be different licences for different parts of the picture.
The last point is the logos. The Wikipedia logo, among others, is not under a free licence so you really can't show that in a screenshot if you want the image to be freely licenced. The MediaWiki logo, IIRC, still has a fairly iffy copyright status, noone seems to know whether it is PD or GPL. But that may have been resolved since the last time I read about it.
Lastly, here's a few examples:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Accueil-Safari-Alibaba.png French WP in Safari. The Safari elements are LGPL, MediaWiki elements are GPL and the WP content is GFDL.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aide_FR_Metadata_image.png Only shows MediaWiki elements, entirely GPL (the metadata shown is probably not eligible for copyright).
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:03:55PM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
When you start mixing stuff you complicate things. If I were to take a screenshot of a page on Wikipedia, for example, the text of the page would be GFDL (unless there are some quotes or something in the text, which would be fair use), the MediaWiki elements would be GPL, the browser window could be anything (if you're in Firefox, for example, then the picture of the browser interface is under the Mozilla Public Licence). The skins that come with MediaWiki are GPL just like the rest of MediaWiki.
So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.
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.
If I want to use that image for *commercial advertising*, there msy be some issues with respect to model releases for pictures of identifiable people, or trademarks (though this is even less clear), but -- and particularly if the destination of the image is pedagogy -- underlying copyrights don't, that I am able to determine, have anything whatsoever to do with it. Trademark law doesn't say you can't reproduce the trademark, it says you can't make money off it, or confuse other people about who it refers to.
I'm sufficiently confident of this that I'd say "don't worry about it" in a public place, unless I'm contradicted by an attorney whose practice is in copyright law.
Cheers, -- jra
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:29:04PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.
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.
And, to be clear about the point at hand: I the creator of that image can then license it's copyright under anything I feel like.
Cheers, -- jra
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. Whether this is the law I don't know, but certainly a photo of a copyrighted work is derivative of it (if even that).
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 law
I 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
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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 law
I 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.
IANAL either, but I think this is blatantly wrong. Photography and screenshoting are both forms of copying, and all copying (partial or total) are covered under copyright law. If the photo includes little previously copyrighted material, it is probably fair use. A screenshot of Wikipedia, however, includes an entire page of copyrighted material, so it is not likely fair use.
Think about it. By your logic, I could copy a whole book by taking pictures page by page.
Matthew Flaschen
On 2/26/07, Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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 law
I 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.
IANAL either, but I think this is blatantly wrong. Photography and screenshoting are both forms of copying, and all copying (partial or total) are covered under copyright law. If the photo includes little previously copyrighted material, it is probably fair use. A screenshot of Wikipedia, however, includes an entire page of copyrighted material, so it is not likely fair use.
Think about it. By your logic, I could copy a whole book by taking pictures page by page.
Brion asked that this discussion be taken to wikilegalargumentsbynonlawyers-l or something. It's not relevant to wikitech-l.
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
-----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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:15, you wrote:
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?
NVM me, I just read the linked article instead of the very short summary you pasted into the mail :D
best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Tue Jan 23 22:18:34 2007 with key 0x93B84C15. Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/posters PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation." -- Frederick Brooks, 'The Mythical Man Month'
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.
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.
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
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@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.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:38:07PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@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
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo. You trademark them.
That's not true. Logos, in general, are both copyrighted and trademarked. Here's the first link I found:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/logos.htm
Also, I happen to know that both the WMF and Mozilla explicitly claim copyright (as well as trademark) on their logos, in case that interests you.
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely derivative of your copyright in your work.
"Solely the derivative"? There's nothing "solely" in derivatives. By their very nature, they're shared copyrights: he owns the base work (the drawing), you own the derivative aspects (the angle, positioning, etc.). Both of you have exclusive rights to the resulting derivative work (i.e., either can "exclude" the other from distributing it), barring things like fair use and de minimis.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
After reviewing a summary of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp., I would agree with this statement, but not your conclusion. The *program code* has little, if anything, to do with it. The issue is mainly the *icons*, and other specific display elements.
For instance, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png. In the upper left, there's some funky four-colored icon of interlocked squares. Copyrighted. Next to it there's a drawing of a floppy disk. Copyrighted (although the concept isn't, the exact image is). Below it there's a clipboard, over to the right there are two interlocked A's. All copyrighted images.
Similarly, it seems not unlikely that the precise choices of font, positioning, and decoration for the various menus and so on are copyrighted. A general "look and feel" is not, and neither is the positioning of the elements themselves (which is basically utilitarian), but the precise choice of colors and fonts is definitely a creative exercise that can easily make the difference between visual attractiveness and unattractiveness.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:47:48AM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
And, incidentally, you cannot *copyright* a logo. You trademark them.
That's not true. Logos, in general, are both copyrighted and trademarked. Here's the first link I found:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/logos.htm
Also, I happen to know that both the WMF and Mozilla explicitly claim copyright (as well as trademark) on their logos, in case that interests you.
I'll look again; I've been told that logos are protected by trademark for lots of years.
You can claim anything, and your lawyers will recommend you do.
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely derivative of your copyright in your work.
"Solely the derivative"? There's nothing "solely" in derivatives. By their very nature, they're shared copyrights: he owns the base work (the drawing), you own the derivative aspects (the angle, positioning, etc.). Both of you have exclusive rights to the resulting derivative work (i.e., either can "exclude" the other from distributing it), barring things like fair use and de minimis.
*Assuming such a work is, in fact, derivative*.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
After reviewing a summary of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp., I would agree with this statement, but not your conclusion. The *program code* has little, if anything, to do with it. The issue is mainly the *icons*, and other specific display elements.
Yup. But those are incidental to the program, since they could be supplied by any desktop manager. That seems to me equivalent to Harley Davidson trying to trademark the sound of a V-twin engine, which is incidental to the operation of that engine design.
They were turned down, BTW; Supreme Court, as I recall.
For instance, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png. In the upper left, there's some funky four-colored icon of interlocked squares. Copyrighted. Next to it there's a drawing of a floppy disk. Copyrighted (although the concept isn't, the exact image is). Below it there's a clipboard, over to the right there are two interlocked A's. All copyrighted images.
Are they, indeed, copyrightable? They're functional icons, and they aren't practically subject to a lot of changeability without people not being able to figure out what they mean.
The average user would likely confuse them with the similar icons in other programs.
Similarly, it seems not unlikely that the precise choices of font, positioning, and decoration for the various menus and so on are copyrighted. A general "look and feel" is not, and neither is the positioning of the elements themselves (which is basically utilitarian), but the precise choice of colors and fonts is definitely a creative exercise that can easily make the difference between visual attractiveness and unattractiveness.
And as I noted before, *that is in the hands of the person who themed a particular workstation (or the default theme for the OS)* -- it's almost *explicitly* not in the hands of the writers of the word processor.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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).
Of course you can. A logo is a work of art, and is always copyrighted (unless copyright is specifically rejected which never happens in practice) and possibly trademarked.
Matthew Flsachen
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:59:14PM +0100, 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?
Because they listened to the lawyers advising the librarians who wrote that page, in the UK?
And incidentally, that reliance on Bridgman v Corel seems completely out of whack to me; the case doesn't appear to speak, at all, to the issue at hand.
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
The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack, is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.
That's what that UK site tells me. It wasn't written, so far as I can see, by an attorney, and it doesn't cite cases.
Clearly, this issue is at the point where the Foundation needs to go pay an IP attorney for a formal written opinion that he'll back up -- in detail, stating exactly what the copyright in a screenshot created by J. Random User is, by analogy to any other way that image could be created.
I'm sure we can find a couple, if we look.
I recommend paying for the opinion, even if someone offers to give it out pro bono; that's how people pay their mailpractice and E&O insurance, and one wants to be able to rely on it.
Notwithstanding that, there are several on Ask.Metafilter, as well, where I'm heading to post a query.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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
The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack, is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.
I'm pretty sure Apple is very proud of its Aqua widgets, and equally sure they'll be after you with a thousand lawyers if you try to claim their graphical designs are owned by you because they happen to be visible in a screenshot you made. If you successfully fend them off, let me know, I could use a bunch of textures, and clipping them from WoW screenshots will save me a lot of time, not to mention Blizzard's artists have better technique than I can muster.
Stan
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:40:16PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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
The terrible truth about laywers, courtesy of the late Mark MacCormack, is that they'll tell you what's *safe*, not what's *reasonable*.
I'm pretty sure Apple is very proud of its Aqua widgets, and equally sure they'll be after you with a thousand lawyers if you try to claim their graphical designs are owned by you because they happen to be visible in a screenshot you made.
If Apple could find a lawyer who could successfully argue that, because I was *exhibiting* a screenshot of an application that *happened* to be running on a desktop managed with their icon set, that I was "trying to claim their graphical designs are owned by me" -- such exhibition simply *does* *not* make that claim.
If you successfully fend them off, let
me know, I could use a bunch of textures, and clipping them from WoW screenshots will save me a lot of time, not to mention Blizzard's artists have better technique than I can muster.
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.
Copyright and trademark law is what it *is*, not what inside counsel of largr corporations *tell* you it is. They aren't *your* lawyer, you shouldn't rely on them.
Cheers, -- jra
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@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@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.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 03:30:24PM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
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@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@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.
Well, Stephen, I don't know, because you've clipped too much of your second quote, and it's not clear to me which "any of these things" I meant.
Wait one.
I was specifically talking about textures the end-user in question wanted to lift off of WoW. I don't see that that conflicts in any way with my first assertion, nor do I think it's internally inconsistent.
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?
I don't believe I said any of those things.
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?
Nope. Your hand-drawn picture is a piece of creative work in which you own copyright. Referring to Bridgeman, which *does* apply to this circumstance, though I'm still not convinced it's generally applicable because I haven't read the case -- the summary suggests it doesn't cover enough to apply generally to the issue on point -- if I made a photograph of your drawing which was purposefully a clean reproduction with no artistic modification, then any copyright that would inhere in my photograph would be yours.
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely derivative of your copyright in your work.
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.
*To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my photograph*.
It's widely accepted that screenshots of software/etc is exactly the same as this.
Shepardize?
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.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
You got any cases that suggest that interpretation is incorrect?
Statutes, even?
Cheers, -- jra
2007/1/24, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com:
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?
Nope. Your hand-drawn picture is a piece of creative work in which you own copyright. Referring to Bridgeman, which *does* apply to this circumstance, though I'm still not convinced it's generally applicable because I haven't read the case -- the summary suggests it doesn't cover enough to apply generally to the issue on point -- if I made a photograph of your drawing which was purposefully a clean reproduction with no artistic modification, then any copyright that would inhere in my photograph would be yours.
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely derivative of your copyright in your work.
Watch your use of the word 'solely'. If it is a slavish copy, it's the copyright of the original author. If it is just a minor thing on a larger photograph, it is copyright of the photographer (with the image being fair use or some similar defense). In cases in-between, there might well be a double copyright - when you make that picture in such a way that (say) the picture is half of the photograph, and then someone goes and publishes that photograph, he might well be infringing on BOTH your AND my copyright.
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.
*To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my photograph*.
No, to the extent that the photograph is a derivative work of the picture.
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.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
Well, there must be a creative act on the side of Microsoft and its programmers. Whether there are such decisions of any importance, or the choices are all either caused by the nature of being a text editor or otherwise non-creative, is something for the judge to decide - although the more likely outcome, I think, would be that the judge finds "no reasonable case of damage". Actual speaking in favor of Microsoft would probably only have chances if the outlook of Microsoft Word would be copied quite precisely by another text editor program.
You got any cases that suggest that interpretation is incorrect?
Statutes, even?
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:17:56AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely derivative of your copyright in your work.
Watch your use of the word 'solely'. If it is a slavish copy, it's the copyright of the original author. If it is just a minor thing on a larger photograph, it is copyright of the photographer (with the image being fair use or some similar defense). In cases in-between, there might well be a double copyright - when you make that picture in such a way that (say) the picture is half of the photograph, and then someone goes and publishes that photograph, he might well be infringing on BOTH your AND my copyright.
I don't know *precisely* how that line is drawn in copyright cases, but yes, I understand your point. Of course, being derivative is sort of like being pregnant; I'm not sure you can do it "a little bit".
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.
*To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my photograph*.
No, to the extent that the photograph is a derivative work of the picture.
I believe those to be functionally equivalent, but yes, you're right.
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.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does *not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
Well, there must be a creative act on the side of Microsoft and its programmers.
Oh, certainly. But those are incidental to the primary purpose of the program.
Whether there are such decisions of any importance, or the
choices are all either caused by the nature of being a text editor or otherwise non-creative, is something for the judge to decide - although the more likely outcome, I think, would be that the judge finds "no reasonable case of damage". Actual speaking in favor of Microsoft would probably only have chances if the outlook of Microsoft Word would be copied quite precisely by another text editor program.
Sure. But again, an affirmative ruling in such a case would be tantamount to ruling that indeed, a software manufacturer automaticall got -- without filing for it -- copyright in the appearance(s) of a program automagically when copyrighting the code -- and since the appearance depends on the *OS* much more than the program itself, I don't think *that's* reasonable either.
Certainly, getting a test case to go in a reasonable direction here would require having, oh, say, Larry Lessig try it... :-)
Hey. I'll ask *him*. He ought to be equipped to have an opinion... (and, along eith Eben Moglen, inclined to give it).
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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.
This is great news. Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com, take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.
Or perhaps you are just clueless.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:51:53PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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.
This is great news. Now we can "view first page" in amazon.com, take a screenshot, and then upload that to Wikimedia Commons.
Or perhaps you are just clueless.
Or perhaps you, and the people who wrote the policy are.
Are *you* an attorney specializing in intellectual property practice, Lars?
If not, I'd recommend you pedal it back to "I believe you're incorrect", instead of being attacking and insulting.
I saw no evidence that *any* such attorneys had been consulted in the creation of the relevant paragraphs on Commons:Licensing.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Are *you* an attorney specializing in intellectual property practice, Lars?
If not, I'd recommend you pedal it back to "I believe you're incorrect", instead of being attacking and insulting.
While I agree that the "clueless" comment was needlessly insulting, you really ought to consider the possibility that, when everyone else says you're wrong, that _might_ mean that you are, in fact, wrong.
In particular, you seem to be confused about what [[derivative work]] actually means. Go ahead, look it up in Wikipedia -- that page explains it better than I could.
Of course, you're right about none of us being intellectual property lawyers, and about laymen being more often wrong than lawyers on legal matters. However, the conclusion that you are right and all of us are wrong would only follow from that if you were an IP lawyer yourself.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:00:22PM +0200, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Are *you* an attorney specializing in intellectual property practice, Lars?
If not, I'd recommend you pedal it back to "I believe you're incorrect", instead of being attacking and insulting.
While I agree that the "clueless" comment was needlessly insulting, you really ought to consider the possibility that, when everyone else says you're wrong, that _might_ mean that you are, in fact, wrong.
I might, in fact, be wrong. I've tried to avoid speaking authoritatively *about the law* as opposed to what I think is reasonable and just.
In particular, you seem to be confused about what [[derivative work]] actually means. Go ahead, look it up in Wikipedia -- that page explains it better than I could.
# A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived # from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it # includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of # authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include # such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, # fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in # which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other # modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship # is a "derivative work" or "new version."
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Of course, you're right about none of us being intellectual property lawyers, and about laymen being more often wrong than lawyers on legal matters. However, the conclusion that you are right and all of us are wrong would only follow from that if you were an IP lawyer yourself.
True, and my stand on that is "I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong; bring citations". No one is. No one is at AskMe either, damnit. But while I'm not a lawyer of any type, I have read and paid attention to quite a bit of work on this particular topic (for obvious reasons), and I actually read what's put in front of me... which some people seem not to bother to do.
*Specifically* though, what troubles me is the approach to the characterization on Commons:Licensing. It seems to be making legal assertions that may not actually be valid, when perhaps what it ought to be saying is that the issue is not entirely clear, and Commons chooses to err on the side of (over-)caution.
Cheers, -- jra
On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:00:22PM +0200, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
In particular, you seem to be confused about what [[derivative work]] actually means. Go ahead, look it up in Wikipedia -- that page explains it better than I could.
# A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived # from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it # includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of # authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include # such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, # fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in # which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other # modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship # is a "derivative work" or "new version."
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy.
Anthony
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:45:51PM -0500, Anthony wrote:
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy.
Well, that's largely a strawman, since 3 lines earlier I made it clear that I was *not* discussing merely "a photograph of a painting" in the Bridgeman sense.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:45:51PM -0500, Anthony wrote:
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy.
Well, that's largely a strawman, since 3 lines earlier I made it clear that I was *not* discussing merely "a photograph of a painting" in the Bridgeman sense.
The way I see it, Bridgeman vs. Corel is pretty much irrelevant here. A work can be subject to multiple copyright claims. Bridgeman is about whether a person making a copy gets to claim copyright on it. The issue we're discussing is whether the person who made the original gets to enforce their copyright on the derivative work. The two issues are more or less orthogonal -- all the four possible combinations can and do occur.
Examples:
1. Person A paints a picture. Person B scans it. Per Bridgeman, the copyright on the scan belongs to person A only.
2. Person A paints a picture. Person B takes it to their studio and photographs it in a carefully chosen artistic setting. The photograph incorporates creative work by both A (the painting) and B (the scene it is set in), and both thus have copyright on it.
3. Person A paints a picture and makes posters of it. Person B takes a photo of a busy street where one lamppost in the background happens to have one of A's posters glued to it. Since the inclusion of A's picture in the photo is incidental and quite insignificant, it counts as fair use and/or _de minimis_. Even if the photo technically counted as a derivative work (which is a matter of definition), A would not be able to enforce their copyright on it.
4. Person A paints a picture. Person be uses a spectrometer to analyze a spot on the painting and to determine the chemical composition of the paint there. Since the resulting dataset bears no traces of creativity by either A or B, it is ineligible for copyright.
On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:45:51PM -0500, Anthony wrote:
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy.
Well, that's largely a strawman, since 3 lines earlier I made it clear that I was *not* discussing merely "a photograph of a painting" in the Bridgeman sense.
It doesn't matter if it's merely "a photograph of a painting" or if it's "a photograph of a painting and some other stuff". It's still a copy. Adding more stuff to the photo doesn't change that.
Anthony
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I might, in fact, be wrong. I've tried to avoid speaking authoritatively *about the law* as opposed to what I think is reasonable and just.
Fair enough. Of course, that may also be part of the reason why there's been so much confusion over this: in copyright law, and especially with regard to derivative works, there's a broad category of things that are _in principle_ illegal, except that a) no-one will probably bother to sue you, making it effectively OK until and unless they do, and b) if they do, the judge is likely to find no actual harm and let you off with a slap on the wrist and an admonition not to do it again.
Many of these technically illegal uses (a prime example being the use and distribution of "abandoned" works) fall squarely in the "reasonable and just" camp. Of course, there are also things that are so reasonable and just that they actually qualify as legal fair use -- but you can't tell for sure where the line between the two actually lies until the dispute has gone to court, a judge has ruled on it and all appeals have been exhausted. And in many instances this is unlikely to happen, precisely because, even if a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, they couldn't really expect to get enough out of it to justify the cost of a lawsuit.
I've actually read quite a lot on the subject too, and most of the sources I've seen tend to say that the first question you should ask in practice isn't "is it legal?" but "will I probably get away with it?". However, the Commons, like Wikimedia in general, doesn't operate on that principle; for them, the question is closer to "is it 99.9999% certain that not only I, but also anyone else reusing this, will get away with it?" Which is about as close to "is it legal?" as you can get.
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
You know, you could turn that around and claim equally well that the photograph isn't based on the likeness of the artist, since *anyone* could've been standing there next to the painting.
Your claim seems to be that the inclusion of the painting in the photo is only incidental. Depending on the actual circumstances, this might in fact be the case, if the main subject of the photo actually was the artist and not the painting. Depending on other factors, such as whether the painting was shown in its entirety or not, and whether your photo might compete with the original painting or other works (such as posters) based on it, you might be able to claim the use as fair -- or you might not.
Look at it this way: If I take the latest MTV hit single, play it in the background while recording myself repeating "Yo!" over and over again, and release the recording as my own song, I *will* get sued and probably lose no matter how hard I might claim that the song is merely incidental background to my creative rapping.
*Specifically* though, what troubles me is the approach to the characterization on Commons:Licensing. It seems to be making legal assertions that may not actually be valid, when perhaps what it ought to be saying is that the issue is not entirely clear, and Commons chooses to err on the side of (over-)caution.
If you think this is the case, feel free to fix it (or suggest improvements). Just try to be careful not to replace any existing legal assertions with other equally dubious ones, express or implied.
On 24/01/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Look at it this way: If I take the latest MTV hit single, play it in the background while recording myself repeating "Yo!" over and over again, and release the recording as my own song, I *will* get sued and probably lose no matter how hard I might claim that the song is merely incidental background to my creative rapping.
Isn't this how most of our modern music is made?
Rob Church
On 1/24/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Look at it this way: If I take the latest MTV hit single, play it in the background while recording myself repeating "Yo!" over and over again, and release the recording as my own song, I *will* get sued and probably lose no matter how hard I might claim that the song is merely incidental background to my creative rapping.
Isn't this how most of our modern music is made?
Right, but they license the music.
On 24/01/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but they license the music.
Ah, yes.
Anyway, I believe the original question was relating to the licencing status of MediaWiki screenshots, no?
I'm of the opinion that distributing a simple, cropped screenshot of the MediaWiki interface, taken in a common browser such as Firefox is unlikely to upset anyone. I have, personally, absolutely no problem with anyone taking pictures of any of the forms I've put *so much* creative thought and expression into[1] because it's all a matter of making our software easier to understand through documentation.
*Unfortunately*, there's this horrible and stupid bloody viral GPL crap in the way of all that, and I expect there's some cretin who won't agree with my line of thinking, above. So I guess we're back to square one.
[1] Obviously, MakeBot encapsulates the emo in me.
Rob Church
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:36:46PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
Anyway, I believe the original question was relating to the licencing status of MediaWiki screenshots, no?
No, actually. At least when I arrived, it was "posting screenshots to Commons", which is, obviously, a larger topic.
I'm of the opinion that distributing a simple, cropped screenshot of the MediaWiki interface, taken in a common browser such as Firefox is unlikely to upset anyone. I have, personally, absolutely no problem with anyone taking pictures of any of the forms I've put *so much* creative thought and expression into[1] because it's all a matter of making our software easier to understand through documentation.
*Unfortunately*, there's this horrible and stupid bloody viral GPL crap in the way of all that, and I expect there's some cretin who won't agree with my line of thinking, above. So I guess we're back to square one.
[1] Obviously, MakeBot encapsulates the emo in me.
Well, yeah... *if* the copyright on code extends to the visual representation of that code on a screen, given a particular OS, theme package, and possibly browser... which is the current topic on point as I've been arguing it.
Cheers, -- jra
"Jay R. Ashworth" jra@baylink.com wrote in message news:20070125000104.GB10932@cgi.jachomes.com...
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:36:46PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
Anyway, I believe the original question was relating to the licencing status of MediaWiki screenshots, no?
No, actually. At least when I arrived, it was "posting screenshots to Commons", which is, obviously, a larger topic.
The original question (which I asked) was a very specific one regarding the legal status of screenshots of the MediaWiki software.
My specific reason for asking was to find out whether it is possible to distribute such screenshots as part of the public domain help we are developing at mediawiki.org.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:18:09AM +0200, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
However, the Commons, like Wikimedia in general, doesn't operate on that principle; for them, the question is closer to "is it 99.9999% certain that not only I, but also anyone else reusing this, will get away with it?" Which is about as close to "is it legal?" as you can get.
I'm not sure that actually follows, but...
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
You know, you could turn that around and claim equally well that the photograph isn't based on the likeness of the artist, since *anyone* could've been standing there next to the painting.
Your claim seems to be that the inclusion of the painting in the photo is only incidental. Depending on the actual circumstances, this might in fact be the case, if the main subject of the photo actually was the artist and not the painting. Depending on other factors, such as whether the painting was shown in its entirety or not, and whether your photo might compete with the original painting or other works (such as posters) based on it, you might be able to claim the use as fair -- or you might not.
I'm actually pushing it farther than that: I'm asserting that *even if the artist requested that I take his photo whilst he was showing off said painting* (which perhaps he just won an award for) that the appearance of the painting in the photograph is incidental and incurs me no derivation of his copyright.
Let us examine news photography in that context, shall we?
Look at it this way: If I take the latest MTV hit single, play it in the background while recording myself repeating "Yo!" over and over again, and release the recording as my own song, I *will* get sued and probably lose no matter how hard I might claim that the song is merely incidental background to my creative rapping.
Not the same situation, and I believe you realize that.
*Specifically* though, what troubles me is the approach to the characterization on Commons:Licensing. It seems to be making legal assertions that may not actually be valid, when perhaps what it ought to be saying is that the issue is not entirely clear, and Commons chooses to err on the side of (over-)caution.
If you think this is the case, feel free to fix it (or suggest improvements). Just try to be careful not to replace any existing legal assertions with other equally dubious ones, express or implied.
Certainly. Why do you think I'm *submitting* myself to all this ignominy. :-)
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I'm actually pushing it farther than that: I'm asserting that *even if the artist requested that I take his photo whilst he was showing off said painting* (which perhaps he just won an award for) that the appearance of the painting in the photograph is incidental and incurs me no derivation of his copyright.
You don't get it, do you? You're trying to convince *us* on this list, while in the real case you need to convince the *owner* of the copyright of the painting and a *judge* in a court of law.
In order to convince anybody here, you need to point to legal cases where your principle has prevailed.
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:03:55PM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
When you start mixing stuff you complicate things. If I were to take a screenshot of a page on Wikipedia, for example, the text of the page would be GFDL (unless there are some quotes or something in the text, which would be fair use), the MediaWiki elements would be GPL, the browser window could be anything (if you're in Firefox, for example, then the picture of the browser interface is under the Mozilla Public Licence). The skins that come with MediaWiki are GPL just like the rest of MediaWiki.
So unfortunately you can't get PD screenshots of MediaWiki. The best you can do is GPL screenshots, but only if you show only GPL content in it and either cut out the browser interface or use a GPL browser.
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.
Really? So, you can override any and all copyrights of anything, just by taking your own picture of it? I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guys, can we please take it off-list or find an amateur legal arguments list to duke it out in?
Thanks.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 04:23:54PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
Guys, can we please take it off-list or find an amateur legal arguments list to duke it out in?
O*kay*, dad. :-}
Cheers, -- jra
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org