Re: RFC: screenshot - whose work? GFDL?

Special terms for distributing the logo have been added to

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo

-- David

Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Hello. I have a request for comments.
> 
> We were contacted by a publisher asking permission to use a screenshot 
> of wikipedia in a publication. I am not in a position to give or refuse 
> any permission - since I am not the copyright owner. The material is 
> under GFDL. I told her all that. But then, I also thought it would be 
> helpful to give a little more (non-legal) advice on this issue, rather 
> than assuming that she will read and understand the GFDL and all realted 
> matters.
> 
> So I would like to hear your opinions. Is a screenshot copyrighted work?
> 
> 1) Text
> 
> The article (included only in part) is a collective work. It could be 
> covered by fair use-like provision under Japanese copyright law 
> (allowing quotation of copywrited works), or maybe not.
> 
> If not, I suppose it could be considered an "opaque copy" and 
> "modification" because the screenshot would likely to omit certain parts 
> of the document/work (it does not include the history section, it does 
> not perhaps include the whole main text). The screenshot may not include 
> the bottom of the screen - if that is the case, there wouldn't be a 
> license and copyright notices.
> 
> 
> 2) Logo
> 
> 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. This is not a problem, since the licensor retains the full 
> copyright and has the right to re-license anyway s/he wants.)
> 
> 3) Overall look and feel
> 
> 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?
> 
> 4) Relations of the elements
> 
> In a window, skin, text and logo are combined and arranged in a certain 
> way. I am not sure how to understand this.
> 
> Is this a copyrighted work in any sense?
> Is there a possibility that we are mixing GFDL and GPL stuff?
> Is this an aggregation in GFDL's sense?
> 
> As always, thanks for your attention.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Tomos
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying 
> Guide. http://special.msn.com/home/firsthome.armx