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.