Template talk:Non-free software screenshot/Archive 1

Archive 1

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?

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)

Category:Screenshots of software?

The category doesn't say anything about the software being non-free. Is the categorization imposed by this template appropriate? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging fair-use rationale

I have proposed a wording change to our non-free image templates, and I'm trying to keep the discussion centralized here. Please join in the discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Making things easier

Wouldn't it be easier if this template was modified so that instead of typing:

{{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of <whatever> software}}

You could just type:

{{Non-free software screenshot|<whatever>}}

And it would automatically assume that you meant "Category:Screenshots of <whatever> software?" For example, Category:Screenshots of Windows software or Category:Screenshots of Mac software. We'd probably have to use a bot to go through and replace the old style, but in the end it would make categorization quite a bit easier. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed category

I have removed the Category:Screenshots of software with missing fair-use rationale, because before the removal it would place all software screenshots, regardless of whether or not there was a FUR in them, as deletion candidates. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows UI elements etc.

Hi,

This issue has been somewhat discussed on commons, but is there a separate guideline for the en-wikipedia for copyrighted UI elements like scroll bars, close and minimize buttons, title bars etc, and things like the Firefox logo in web browser screenshots? Commons seems to have a rough consensus to forbid at least the Firefox logo, and a large bunch of images have been deleted for including copyrighted Windows UI elements. Now commons doesn't accept fair use at all, but as far as I understand correctly, those would still be considered non-free in Wikipedia and even if fair use would be permissible, be avoided if at possible (i.e. free replacements cannot be made, which in case of some browser screenshots at least is not true - you could crop away the Windows UI elements or, preferably, take the screenshot on a free system using IceCat as discussed in commons:Commons:Screenshots#Web browsers.)

Or perhaps more importantly, where should I discuss this before mass-tagging images? --SLi (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo in text

{{editsemiprotected}} The original text says "for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question", but the combination "of and" doesn't make sense. Maybe "for identification of a critical commentary on the software in question" would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EQ5afN2M (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 August 2009

Done (sort of). Welcome and thanks for pointing this out. I think the problem may be that the phrase "and critical commentary on" is somewhat parenthetical. I'm setting that phrase off with commas. Please let me know if this works for you. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive message.

Why does this send a message to the uploader to do what s/he has already done, as seen here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=File:Conficker_worm_AutoPlay_Vista.png&oldid=278682317 ? This is deceptive.--Elvey (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"To the uploader:1)Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." The FUR is already there. Here's a suggested fix: ---Elvey (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add a detailedIf you haven't already done so, please add a detailed

Oh, I see, the |image has rationale=yes option wasn't used. Still, I think this change is still a good idea. ---Elvey (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Simpler suggestion: change "add" to "include". I think the latter does not suggest that something needs to be fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As there was no response I have now done this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover#Edit request on 17 December 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)