Re: RFC: screenshot - whose work? GFDL?

Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:

> So I would like to hear your opinions. Is a screenshot copyrighted work? 

A screenshot is certainly capable of copyright, although a lot of the 
uses for screenshots may fall under fair practice, fair use, or some 
related concept.

> The logo is a work of User:Nohat. It is released under GFDL at meta. 
> But I am not sure about the logo at the upper-left corner of the window.
>
> There had been an understanding that the logo would be used in this 
> way, so that usage itself I think is no problem for Nohat. But it 
> seems that it is not under GFDL there. (i.e., the logo is GFDL on 
> meta, not GFDL on other part.

If the original release is GFDL, then any uses that are traceable to the 
original also have to be GFDL.

> The overall look and feel of the screen is largely determined by the 
> design of the skin. Is this also a copyrighted work of, say, some 
> developers? If so, is it under GPL (as opposed to GFDL) ? Or is this 
> something more akin to a work automatically generated by machanical 
> process, and therefore not a copyrighted work? 

Legal protection of intellectual property is also available for look and 
feel. Since that's a composite effect, presumably it's also a composite 
work, partly that of the developers and partly that of contributors who 
organized the material. I don't think trying to differentiate between 
the various GNU-type licenses is all that important here, since the 
effect is the same.

--Michael Snow