On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/23/07, Tels <nospam-abuse(a)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(a)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
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274