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 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.
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