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