Template talk:Software-screenshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ownership: Developer or Creator

An ongoing debate about this topic is taking place on Slashdot at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=215456&cid=17493840. I'm linking this here because it may be the origin of this discussion, and because good points one way or the other may not make it between the two sites. Baricom 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm WNight on Slashdot, I posted the original clarification request based on your reference to Wikipedia on Slashdot. 24.82.19.224 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The page makes it sound like screenshots are owned by the authors of the programs when it means to imply that the screenshots themselves were likely made by the authors, and thus owned by them. The difference is that the first implies that the authors would own screenshots that you made.

I'd like to get a clarification to this template, based on seeing someone misunderstand it. In this post [1] someone mentions Wikipedia's wording of this template of proof of his misunderstanding of copyright law.

I'd suggest clarifying the page to read:

"This is a screenshot which was likely created by the authors of the software and would therefore be their property. It is assumed..."

then define "fair alternative" as "Screenshot you have taken and released under the GFDL."

Otherwise it sounds like screenshots of programs are the intellectual property of their author. This is obviously silly or your clothing manufacturers would own the rights to your family photos.

24.82.19.224 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are completely and utterly wrong, and in fact YOU are the one who is ignorant of copyright law. A screenshot of a copyrighted program will infringe the copyright of the authors of that program unless there is a valid fair-use defence, just as a photograph of a copyrighted building may infringe the copyright of that building, etc. Think about this logically - if a photograph of copyright material did not infringe copyright, it would be legal to photocopy books!

(The reason clothing manufacturers do not own the rights to your family photos is that you have a fair use defence: the clothes are not the subject of the photograph, nor do the photographs affect any commercial activities of the clothing manufacturers, and so forth.)

See this briefing for a summary of the situation in the UK; US law is unlikely to differ significantly. 81.86.133.45 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only is that article purely opinion, it clearly recommends going beyond legal restrictions to the realm of ass-covering. The world is full of people who will tell you that it's probably safer not to exercise your rights. Doesn't change the law: a screenshot of a document I'm writing using MS word is as much property of Microsoft as a photo of me in my car would belong to Toyota, even if I was making the car the ostensible focus of the picture.

If the photograph of a book you mentioned contained a limited bit of the text and was used in the context of commenting on the work, yes it would be fair use. People are acting as if this in uncharted territory, as if a copyrighted website is any different than a copyrighted car dashboard. Companies are able to take detailed pictures of cars and their parts in order to write an unauthorized manual detailing how to fix it, yet the visual design and original diagrams for these parts are copyrighted. No permission is needed and the manufacturers are unable to stop them.

I restate my opinion that this is fair use, pretty much *the* textbook example. 24.82.19.224 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparative evidence may not be worth much, but there's many software companies that believe they own the copyright to screen shots of their products. See, for example: Microsoft, Blizzard, and Mozilla. Baricom 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a line they'd like, so they're going to push it but what is the Groklaw opinion on the topic?

[edit] Wording change

I've changed the wording a bit.

It read: "and the copyright for it is most likely held" I changed it to: "and the copyright for its contents is most likely held"

Generally speaking, the creator of a screenshot cannot assert copyright over a bit-perfect digital representation under fair-use provisios. Software screenshots are supposed to present the software in its default configuration, and are ideally free of any kind of copyrighted material that isn't part of that software -- there's no wiggle room here for the capturer of a screenshot to assert any kind creative license.

Furthermore, it's absolutely not okay for someone to say, "I took a screenshot of copyrighted software and I release it under GFDL". You cannot do that, for the same fundamental reason that Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted text to be copied verbatim from other web sites. This could get the Wikimedia Foundation into a lot of trouble, because we are asserting rights of unlimited distribution that we are not in a position to grant! Screenshot, schmeenshot, it's the contents that matter. Any copyleft-tagged image of copyrighted content should be speedily deleted. -/- Warren 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that I believe I would own copyright over said screenshot, I could. If, as you say, an empty screenshot would not apply, then of course not. However, the blank default application is likely to not be as a screenshot useful as if someone opens some free content (Wikipedia page, GPL text, etc) and displays the app editing this. At that the claim that it's an original composition merely using the application as a tool is a trivial one to make. Really though, this argument is silly - makers of tools have never owned the products made with them after they sell the tool, nor can they forbid documentary use of their product in media.

I own my vacation photos and can assign rights to them, yet I don't own every element that may be in them, and if a corporation's logo (for instance) appeared in it. My ownership of the overall picture wouldn't necessarily imply usage rights on the cropped trademark, but neither would the presence of the trademark (or 'fair use amount' of copyrighted work) interfere at all with my ownership or distribution/sale rights. 24.82.19.224 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In cases where GPL, GFDL, or other copyleft content is included in a screenshot of copyrighted software, we need to display both the correct copyleft license(s) -and- the appropriate fair-use claim(s). You can see this on Image:Internet Explorer 7.png, for example.

Taking photographs of things is a different issue than taking screenshots. When you take photographs, you're getting into the realm of producing a creative work, where you have some control over many aspects of the work such as film used, time of day, weather, angle, focus, etc. etc. As a result, you are automatically assigned copyright on this new creative work. Screenshots don't follow the same premise. You may find Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies helpful in understanding how these issues relate to Wikipedia. -/- Warren 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree about properly tagging an image - we should explain to people that not all elements of an image may be available to use cropped or reattributed for many reasons, such as misrepresentation, obscenity, trademark violation, and the copyright reasons discussed here. However, this is because we're trying to help the user, not because these legal ramblings actually change the status of what we do.

I see the page you point me to and it's self-conflicting and merely restates the general opinion that screenshots might not belong to the user who created them, so I must still disagree. However, as that page is more central to the actual discussion than this template, shall we continue this discussion there? Wnight 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)