Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legal Impediments to Using F/OSS Screenshots?

Posted by Cliff on from the publisher's-headaches dept.

Software Illustrated asks: "When publishing books on how to use Linux desktop software, the legal/IP review process to make sure we aren't infringing on the property rights of 3rd party sources should be easier than for books about proprietary/closed source software, right? Microsoft makes it easy as long as you comply with their guideline. I didn't think it would be necessary to get permission to publish a screenshot of, for instance, the GNOME gconf-editor. But that is just what our legal/IP review team is pursuing. Is this necessary?" "If not, then how do you explain to a by-the-book contract administrator that the rules are different with GNOME? I find myself dealing with exactly this problem right now, resulting in a book ready for publication being put on hold. Is the solution here to get GNOME (and KDE for that matter) to publish their own permission guidelines ala Microsoft? Seems counterintuitive to the spirit of the F/OSS movement. But doing this sure would grease the skids for publishers. Has anyone else dealt with this issue?"

75 comments

  1. Well.. by Momoru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd say just do it...who is going to sue you exactly, and with what money and to what end?

    1. Re:Well.. by MankyD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Their legal department doesn't seem to understand nor trust that concept.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    2. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, that isn't exactly the greatest attitude to take is it. The same could be applied to closed-source software houses taking GPL'd code. "I'd say just do it... who is going to sue you exactly, and with what money and to what end?" We're making the argument (although I'm pretty sure you're not) that money talks and bullshit walks.

    3. Re:Well.. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Of course the author doesn't care. The publishing house doesn't want even the slightest threat of being sued.

  2. 404 by bob+whoops · · Score: 1

    The Microsoft links returns a 404 error.

    1. Re:404 by RealityMogul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure if this is what the poster was referring to , but here: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/permission/default .mspx#EMAA

  3. Why would you ignore your legal advice? by DjReagan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let me get this right.. your lawyers are advising you to do something, and you come to *slashdot* for a second opinion?

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    1. Re:Why would you ignore your legal advice? by hahiss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, you could have saved a LOT of money on atty's fees by coming to /. first!

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    2. Re:Why would you ignore your legal advice? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point of this article was to ask Slashdot whether any other free software projects had supplied permission to use screenshots.

  4. Wikimedia Commons by JimDabell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's some informative discussion at the Wikimedia Commons.

  5. Should be covered under fair use by ZosX · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are representing a product in a review correct?

    For reporting purposes you can show a lot of things. The worst you will likely get is a cease and desist letter, but from OSS, I would highly doubt it.

    Fair use covers reporting if I remember correctly. A screenshot is not even in any way related to the actual product other than as a representation, much less than say a picture of a painting or a snippet of an MP3.

    Seriously, just post screenshots. If you get a cease and desist, just take them down. Microsoft and a few other companies have used this tactic (witness the longhorn screenshot debacle), but nobody was sued.

    --
    zosxavius photography
    1. Re:Should be covered under fair use by secolactico · · Score: 1

      The worst you will likely get is a cease and desist letter, but from OSS, I would highly doubt it.

      If you publish a book, and print about 100000 copies, a cease and desist notice can be pretty expensive.

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:Should be covered under fair use by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      A screenshot is as much a work of art as a passport photo. Put your own copyright notice on it; register it even. It's yours.

      Of course the real discussion here should be that copyright is completely broken.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Should be covered under fair use by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      A screenshot is as much a work of art as a passport photo. Put your own copyright notice on it; register it even. It's yours. .... copyright is completely broken.

      So is your head. I'm familiar with the whole Dada/post-modern argument that art is whatever someone declares to be art and the philosopher in me finds it intriguing. But from any real-world practical standpoint, saying that screenshots are inherently "art" is laughable. Copyright law doesn't regard it as such (it's a derivative work, so you cannot register it or claim it for yourself), and if it ever does, then it would be broken.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  6. CORRECTION by ZosX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, I read your question and suddenly started thinking about reviews. A book about computer software is an educational tool. Also covered under fair use.

    You can't teach someone something without showing it to them right? Make your screenshots black and white too (it'll be cheaper anyways), unless of course you are writing a book about the gimp, but I digress. You should be ok to write a book with screenshots, free speech is a wonderful thing.

    --
    zosxavius photography
    1. Re:CORRECTION by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      A book about computer software is an educational tool. Also covered under fair use.
      No way. Check out this info on how fair use works. If it's a for-profit book, and they're selling thousands of copies, then it's very shaky to claim fair use. Whether it's educational is just one of the many criteria that have to be weighed together to decide if it falls under fair use. A typical textbook publisher never uses anything under fair use, because it costs too much money to print the book to risk it all on the possibility of a lawsuit.

      --
      Find free books.
    2. Re:CORRECTION by dasunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a typical textbook author never used anything undr 'Fair Use', how would you explain the existance of textbooks about Modern Art (complete with pictures), Architecture (again, more pictures), etc...

    3. Re:CORRECTION by bedessen · · Score: 1

      Read the fine print. For reproductions of paintings it will usually say "Courtesy of ..., used by permission" in the photo credits section, or something similar. That means that the publisher obtained permission from the copyright holder to include reproductions of the works in the book. It does NOT mean that because there are some books that include many reproductions of works of art that ANY book can do this under some misunderstanding of "fair use". Quite the contrary, it means that the publisher had to specifically clear everything.

      And in the case of architecture, buildings in the public space have special rules. A particular photo of such a building can be copyrighted, and the book must pay the photographer royalties (also arranged by the publisher) but the appearance of the building itself cannot be copyrighted if it's a public building.

  7. No restrictions on the use of the output of GPL... by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There are no restriction on use the output of GPL and LGPL licensed programs, unless the the program outputs copies of GPL/LGPL source code:
    Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
  8. Come back next week by jhoger · · Score: 1

    I'd be more interested to hear what your legal staff says about it than what /.ers think.

    That would be news.

    Personally I think a) it would be fair use unless some other contract you have formed is more restrictive than copyright and b) the GPL doesn't have anything to do with it. The GPL is only relevant in the copying of software code and executable binaries not side effects unless those side effects are program code or executable binaries.

    In any event the risk is low. Perhaps your legal staff is probably just bored because they don't have anyone to sue today.

    But who cares what I think. IANAL.

    -- John.

    1. Re:Come back next week by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the GPL doesn't have anything to do with it. The GPL is only relevant in the copying of software code and executable binaries not side effects unless those side effects are program code or executable binaries.

      BZZT, wrong. The GPL governs acceptable use of copyrighted material. As others have pointed out, it specifically includes (and makes no restrictions on) "use" when that use is governed under copyright, and specifically does not include use that is outside the scope of copyright.

      So, unless you're talking about trademark, there aren't any copyright issues in reproducing the output of GPLed programs.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Come back next week by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, unless you're talking about trademark, there aren't any copyright issues in reproducing the output of GPLed programs.

      Exactly. The GPL has absolutely no bearing on the output of the program, and introduces exactly zero issues.

      Just because Apple uses GCC, that doesn't make OS X free, does it? That doesn't mean you get to copy their graphics for your book, does it? No, of course not, on both counts.

    3. Re:Come back next week by jhoger · · Score: 1

      No, the GPL "governs" redistribution and copying not "acceptable use." You can use the software for whatever you want, since the GPL makes no limitations, not because it makes specific allowances. The GPL grants you a substantial ability to copy and redistribute the software as long as you are willing to live with its requirements regarding releasing your own changes.

  9. Wow, the lawyers are getting pretty creative. by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, it is their job to look for things that might get you into trouble, but this is taking things to the level of absurdity. It makes wearing a tinfoil hat look like locking your front door when you go out for the day.

    Let's leave aside the improbability that who gives his source code to the world is very likely to come after you for taking a picture of the results. A lawyer, after all, is not paid to trust in human nature. But we still live in a country that has some remnant of first ammendman rights; people have been quoting copyrihted works for critical, educational and scholarly works forever. Unless the license restricts reviewing the work, as some commercial database licenses do, it is laughably paranoid to worry about this.

    If you must, and the product is GPL, include a written offer to send the source code for a reasonable reproduction fee, and you're OK under the GPL (if posting on the web is too expensive). If BSD, then put BSD license at the end of the work and endnote any screenshots to point to it. You get the idea -- if the lawyers are worring that a screen shot is a form of redistributing the software, just comply with whatever the particular restrictions are for binary redistribution.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Wow, the lawyers are getting pretty creative. by linuxtelephony · · Score: 1

      The difference is that a book is typically published as a commercial product, for a profit. I think this is related to using pictures of recognizable people or property in commercial works.

      Fair use only allows for limited, non-commercial uses (i.e. criticisms, news oriented, etc.).

      In other words, a How-To book would probably be considered commercial, while a review showing the current look of the application would probably fall under fair-use.

      --
      . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Wow, the lawyers are getting pretty creative. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Fair use only allows for limited, non-commercial uses (i.e. criticisms, news oriented, etc.).

      Last I checked, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times Book Review, etc were all for-profit corporations.

      Maybe the Gnome Foundation can give a fig leaf to make the lawyers happy??

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Wow, the lawyers are getting pretty creative. by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative
      Fair use only allows for limited, non-commercial uses (i.e. criticisms, news oriented, etc.).

      Not quite. "Fair use" is a deliberately subjective four-part test that considers:

      1. the purpose and character of your use
      2. the nature of the copyrighted work
      3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
      4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
      source: So you're not exactly wrong because "limited" and "non-commercial" are factors, but they're not the only factors, and it's conceivable that a large-scale, commercial use could qualify as "fair use" if the other factors weighed very heavily in favor of that judgment.
      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  10. Necessary? by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But that is just what our legal/IP review team is pursuing. Is this necessary?


    Of course it is; how else are your legal team going to justify their salaries?
    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  11. Fair Use by molo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are publishing in the U.S., Fair Use should apply in this situation. It is for a review/criticism/educational purpose to take the screenshot and comment on the program's use. See Wikipedia article on Fair Use

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  12. Not covered != No Restrictions by Anm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your quote of the GPL only serves to emphasize the dilemma. By declaring the output of GPL programs outside the scope of the GPL, means the copyright holders can choose to claim any restrictions they want on the program output.

    Sounds like every OSS maintainer indeed may need to have some such declaration.

    That said, it seems like screenshots and the like should fall under the category of fair use, not needing explicit permissions.

    Anm

    1. Re:Not covered != No Restrictions by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not at all. It says the output of the program is not covered by the license- in other words normal copyright law applies. Normal copyright does not give the copyright to the creator of the software. If it did, MS would own every program written via Visual Studio and every book written via Word.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Not covered != No Restrictions by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's outside the scope of the GPL because it's outside the scope of copyright. No license can impose restrictions on the output of running a program.

      If they could, all binaries would be owned by the people who wrote the compilers. Copyright is not viral in this sense. It's meant to protect your work from duplication, not the works of others or the trivialities of how people use your work.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Not covered != No Restrictions by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If [copyright] did [apply to a program's output], MS would own every program written via Visual Studio and every book written via Word.
      What? They don't?

      They sure act like they do.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    4. Re:Not covered != No Restrictions by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No license can impose restrictions on the output of running a program.

      Not so - the publisher of a software program can put whatever restrictions they want in the EULA. You are correct in stating that copyright does not cover the output (although arguably, *you* own copyright of the output, as you produced it (or caused it to be produced)), but that's not the same thing as a licence not applying.

      I could easily add a clause in a licence that states that I own all output of the software and that you're not allowed to publish screenshots, etc. The validity of such a clause would be on the same basis as the validity of most clauses in an EULA - ie I'd have to sue and hope the cour upheld it.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  13. music analogy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you ask Yamaha for permission to use the sound from their piano in a recording?

    You don't have to ask permissions for this kind of thing at all.

    You could use the fair use defense in most cases.

    If the screen shot contains copyrighted images (logos, icons, etc) then you have to follow the license for those images (which most certainly would allow some kind of redistribution).

    If the screen shot contains trademarks, then you might want to just disclaim those somewhere (e.g., "the name 'ArousedMonkey' and the 'tumescent simian' logo are trademarks of the Sweet Monkey Love corporation").

    Of course lawyers love to obsess about this stuff, it makes them feel loved and wanted, but really you can make screen shots in most cases without having to get permission.

    1. Re:music analogy.. by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Do you ask Yamaha for permission to use the sound from their piano in a recording?

      No, of course not... if you hear someone doing a cool riff on the piano and you decide to record it and sell it, you don't ask Yamaha for permission. As long as you own a Yamaha piano of your own, you're perfectly free to copy and distribute any song performed by anyone, as long as they perform it on a Yamaha piano.

      Similarly, if you own a copy of Adobe Photoshop, the license explicitly gives you permission to copy and distribute any work done by any artist, as long as that artist used PhotoShop at some point in the creation of the work.

      Regardless, it's very, very unlikely that the intellectual property lawyers for a book publisher have ever heard of "fair use", and they are probably unfamiliar with the concept of "derived work." Simply show them this discussion, and the bright, clear, and applicable examples provided by many helpful slashdot posters, and you'll be in the clear.

    2. Re:music analogy.. by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      You forgot to use tags. Seriously, some people might not get it.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:music analogy.. by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      That's because Yamaha licenses out the sounds in their instruments. These types of things have actually been taken to court before. If you use midi to get some other sounds onto your keyboard you could be violating copyrights of the owners of the sound. I've heard of this happening before. I would be worried about any special artwork in the programs.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
  14. Not a problem for GPL software by andyross · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the GPL, right up at the top, in paragraph 0:

    The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output
    from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work
    based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the
    Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

    Taking a screenshot is clearly "running" the program, so that is not
    restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work
    of the program, so that's fine too.

    Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal
    team could have a problem with this.

    1. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by Kymermosst · · Score: 1
      Taking a screenshot is clearly "running" the program, so that is not
      restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work
      of the program, so that's fine too.

      Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal
      team could have a problem with this.

      What is says is that the output of the program is not restricted by the GPL, because the GPL does not cover the output, only the program.

      I can write and release a program under the GPL ... say it writes bad haiku, and the output is thus:

      The following is (c) 2005 Kymermosst, All Rights Reserved:

      Nineteen ninety-five
      Is but only one less than
      Nineteen ninety-six


      The output is copyrighted by me. Also, since the GPL specifically says that it does not cover the output, nothing is stopping me from adding that restriction.

      Now what?
      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work of the program, so that's fine too.

      Actually, what seems clear to me is that a screenshot (an image) is a derived work of the program.

    3. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work of the program,

      That is not at all clear. If the visual design of a program is a copyrightable work (and it is), then a screenshot of it is just as much a "derivative work" as a scan of a professional wedding photo is. You need to make a "fair use" argument for it (which seems pretty easy).

      Besides, this GPL-gazing is missing the point. This legal verbiage is included in the licence to assure people using Free software that they don't have to GPL everything they produce with it (their GCCed executables, their Blendered pr0n, their Abiworded autobiography, their KMailed letters to mummy). Applying it to the ''interface'' of the program rather than ''output'' of the program is the kind of deliberate semantic torture that you're disparaging lawyers for engaging in.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The output is copyrighted by me.

      Saying you own the copyright on something don't make it so. You have to have some legal backing. I could stick a big (c) on your back right now, but it wouldn't mean I owned the copyright on you!

      It is not clear that you have added that restriction, since such a restriction might well only be enforcible if you have made a contract with the program's recipient. Since your program is licensed under the GPL, you do not have a contract.

      So the output only claims to be copyrighted by you, and in practice, you might have some difficulty proving to a court that you own it. If you wrote the output yourself, then sure, it's yours. If the program wrote it, it's not so clear.

      Now what?

    5. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      I think that output of the program is referring to any work you do with the program, (e.g. the document you typed up in a word processor).

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    6. Re:Not a problem for GPL software by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      It is not clear that you have added that restriction, since such a restriction might well only be enforcible if you have made a contract with the program's recipient. Since your program is licensed under the GPL, you do not have a contract.

      That is not necessarily true.

      If the program is distributed under the GPL, the GPL only covers the program itself. Adding restrictions to the program that are outside the scope of the GPL is not a problem.

      The GPL only guarantees the right to distribute a program and derive works from it and have available the source, it does not grant you the right to execute the program, though distributing software usually implies that the right to do so is included.

      Restricting what can be done with the output of the program does not appear infringe on the GPL, since the GPL specifically says it does not cover output (except when the output is a derivative work of the program), and does not restrict the act of running the program. It also does not say that these cannot be covered by additional restrictions.

      So, what if I say: "The source and binary forms of this program are licensed under the GPL. The output of this program, however, is copyrighted by me and licensed to you for your exclusive personal use. Your decision to execute the program constitutes acceptance of this condition."

      The GPL does not have a conflict with this (see section 0 of the GPL), so I see no reason why this restriction would not hold. Then again, IANAL.

      So the output only claims to be copyrighted by you, and in practice, you might have some difficulty proving to a court that you own it. If you wrote the output yourself, then sure, it's yours. If the program wrote it, it's not so clear.

      Not clear, but not necessarily untrue or unenforceable.

      I suspect we'll be waiting to hear what the courts say. It's only a matter of time.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  15. TV by wbren · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This question may seem completely unrelated to the story, but I'll ask anyway. Why is Windows shown so little on TV, while the Mac is shown so much? If you watch a commercial where a website is shown on a computer screen, it's almost always a Mac interface. Are the producers afraid MS will sue? If so, why aren't they afraid Apple will sue? Or do they just like Macs better in Hollywood?

    --
    -William Brendel
    1. Re:TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Apple is nearly going out of business, it makes sense to use their interface. They're less likely to sue.

    2. Re:TV by wbren · · Score: 1

      Thanks for resolving that.

      --
      -William Brendel
    3. Re:TV by guardian653dave · · Score: 0

      That is true, even ads about web sites are always shown using an Apple interface. I've even seen pictures on BestBuy.com showing an Apple interface on what is obviously an HP laptop.

      --
      God's in his heaven-All's right with the world. Karma=Bad ? F*ck that
    4. Re:TV by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      Probably because macs are more prevalant for graphic designers and advertisers. If it's a tv show or movie apple's probably paying to get it in their, I'm sure microsoft doesn't see a point in them doing that.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
  16. Re:No restrictions on the use of the output of GPL by Piquan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The screen shots of most GNOME programs would contain portions of the source code: icons, UI widget graphics, etc.

    I'm not saying that it would be a copyright problem; I'm just saying that the "output" clause of the GPL does not cause screenshots to be exempted.

  17. Fork it? by WoTG · · Score: 1

    If one particular OSS group really raises a stink, could someone "fork" the software and take screenshots of their "own" application? I suppose one would have to blur out or replace any trademarks, but that's not too hard.

  18. Re:Fair Use ... in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's in the UK, remember we don't really have "fair use" (you can't even watch a taped episode of Eastenders twice without breaking the law, or have an mp3 copy of a CD) and that you probably wouldn't be considered to be doing a review or critique unless you had established yourself as a critic by prior publication. Educational purposes - means education of yourself here!

    Publishing it is copyright infringement.

  19. Do you have something against tinfoil hats? by Mordant · · Score: 1

    >It makes wearing a tinfoil hat look like locking your front door when you go out for the day.

    For your information I wear my tinfoil had and lock my door and wash my hands when I go out for the day - although I try to go out as little as possible, it must be noted.

    Am I alone in this?

    1. Re:Do you have something against tinfoil hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [paranoid rituals for going out, snipped] Am I alone in this?

      Of course not. We're following you all the time.

  20. Re:No restrictions on the use of the output of GPL by alienw · · Score: 1

    Wrong. The program is outputting copyrighted material (images from the GTK theme, for instance). The themes for GNOME have varying copyrights. It would definitely be a good idea (not to mention polite) to get permission before putting copyrighted material in a book. By your argument, copying a Windows binary with cp would remove Microsoft's copyright on it, which is clearly not the case.

  21. Nope:icons, UI widget graphics,etc are all OUTPUT by NZheretic · · Score: 1

    The X Windowing system is a client server protocol. All such icons, UI widget graphics,etc are ALL output from the program, NOT part of the source code.

  22. Themes and Fonts are seperate from the Programs by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Because of the implementation of GNOME/KDE themes and X11R6 font systems, both Themes and fonts are considered seperate from the program.

    Like a browser is a viewer for HTML'ed content, KDE/GTK+/GNOME applications are also viewers for the Themes. .The majority of KDE and GNOME themes are GPL'ed. I do not know of any non-GPL'ed GNOME Themes for a start. All the themes on Fedora are GPL'ed.

    The GPL applies to the source and binaries of the Themes. However, in the same way that you can run GPL'ed applications on propriety platforms such as Solaris, because of the design of the theme system, can even be used by non-GPL'ed applications. In the same way, either the X11R6 Xserver display or the applications themselves are also viewers for fonts. All the fonts shipped with the X.org implentation of X11R6 can be freely used in screen shots and printing.

    1. Re:Themes and Fonts are seperate from the Programs by alienw · · Score: 1

      Themes are not separate. The program always outputs them (sometimes using shared libraries). A shared library is considered part of the program: for instance, you cannot legally link a non-GPL program to a GPL library. Also, if the themes are indeed GPL, you cannot legally include them in a book without obtaining separate permissions from the copyright holder (unless the book is also licensed as GPL).

  23. Microsoft makes it easy? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    I like the fact that "Microsoft makes it easy" is linked to a page which says "We're sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page that matches your entry."

  24. Is Microsoft's claim based in law or desire? by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, this is a question for a competant copyright lawyer. You should not base business decisions on the musings of /. posters. That said, I'll pitch in my two cents because I think it should spark something for you to do some research on.

    You have pointed to a non-existant page at Microsoft, so reading the terms you referred to is not as easy as following the link. However, regardless of what these terms are, if I were in your shoes, I would first want to know: is Microsoft's claim of being able to set terms by which screenshots are used based on some law? If they have no grounding in law, then their terms are useless, no matter how "easy" they make it for publishers to acceed to their request. You make it sound like your publisher is simply letting Microsoft tell them how to run their business, by blindly accepting and working within the limits drawn up by Microsoft then using that (possibly bogus claim of power) as a means of framing the debate for copyright holders in the free software world.

    Questioning Microsoft's power is critical to answering your question because if Microsoft's claims are based on nothing but their desire to control you and your publisher, then you'll find that there is nothing for the free software community to do. Hence, asking the free software community for screenshot licensing terms is a moot point.

    The text of the GNU GPL is an excellent example of this point: in the GPL, the most commonly used free software license, you'll find the text that reads "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.". This is because the FSF put a lot of work into writing a license that is actually based on copyright law, enforcible around the world wherever there is a copyright regime (because, at the basic level at which the GPL is written to work, these copyright systems are quite similar). The FSF, and all GPL licensors, draw strength from working so closely to what copyright law actually gives copyright holders power to work with. Microsoft, on the other hand, claims powers in its licenses which I doubt they have the power to enforce, such as their claim of prohibitng you from using FrontPage (Microsoft's web page editor) to make webpages which disparage Microsoft.

    I would also question the validity of Microsoft's screenshot licensing terms because I'd wonder if a screenshot is not simply the output of a process, something which the FSF claims is "legally impossible" for a copyright holder to control. The GPL has proven to be legally defensible (both because lawyers agree it is defensible and therefore encourage their clients not to bring suit based on the GPL, and in the few cases which have gone to court), hence I tend to trust the FSF's interpretation of copyright law.

    --
    Digital Citizen
    1. Re:Is Microsoft's claim based in law or desire? by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      As a comics reviewer, I have occasionally run into publishers that assert that I cannot use excerpts from their works without permission, even for review purposes. I ignore such claims, because they have no lawful basis for that restriction.

      The U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, and a previous President of the United States say that I can do what I'm doing. As a citizen and resident of that country, that's good enough for me.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Is Microsoft's claim based in law or desire? by russotto · · Score: 1

      The problem is some people and organizations -- particularly including publishers -- are lawsuit-averse to a fault. They'll insist you get permission for every single quote you use, every excerpt from a song, news article, etc, and yes, every screen shot. They don't want to be sued, even if they're right. And they know damn well that the courts could come down against them.

      Not much you can do about that attitude, unless you have a few million dollars to publish, promote, and distribute it yourself.

  25. Here is what I do. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I ignore those stupid laws.
    If I post and write about some piece of software I'm even ADVERTISING their product, what's the issue?

  26. Incorrect Because the program always outputs them by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Informative
    A) The Program OUTPUTS images generated by the themes to the Clients X Server. This is important. The GPL license does not restrict what you can do with the output of a GPL program. You can capture the output from the X Server with a screen shot, put it on the web, or reproduce it in printed media. Reread the GPL license.

    B1) The GPL comes under effect only when you distribute the result outside of your organization. You are entirely free to use the GPL source code as you wish as long as you do not distribute the derivative outside of your organization.
    B2) The theme plug in DDL library used by applications for GTK+/GNOME and KDE is LGPL licensed. You can link and distribute NON-GPL licensed code that links to those DDLs.
    B3) The applications are distributed seperate from the themes and the applications are in no way dependent upon a any theme to run.
    B4) It is the users, NOT the application distributer, who get the applcations to load individual themes. Because the end user does so within their own organization, they are free to do so : see (B1)

    As I have already stated: Like a browser is a viewer for HTML'ed content, KDE/GTK+/GNOME applications are also viewers for the Themes.

  27. My mistake... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    You're right. That was a poorly chosen phrase on my part. I meant to express that it covered "All use that is governed by copyright" without listing them all, including distribution of derivative works.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  28. Re:Nope:icons, UI widget graphics,etc are all OUTP by Piquan · · Score: 1

    Not my point. My point is that, as a part of how the program works, it displays substantial parts of itself. That's also true of, for instance, Bison. (Bison includes a special exemption for that reason.) The fact that it happens to operate over a client-server protocol is irrelevant to that issue.

    Sure, it's output, but the output incorporates part of the program. The clause you originally stated makes it clear that the output may be covered.

    IANAL.

  29. Re:Incorrect Because the program always outputs th by arkanes · · Score: 1

    The output clause is totally irrelevant because a) the output clause only applies to works under the GPL. The copyright violated by a screenshot would be the copyright of the theme creator, not the person who wrote the theme engine. So the license of the engine or, indeed, of Gtk itself is irrelevent. Whats important is the license of the theme, and of the specific piece of software you're screenshotting. The theme should have an explicit license, most of them are LGPL or some Creative Commons, and therefore should have no problems with screenshots. The software itself is potentially more complicated, because the layout and look & feel may be protected, and the rights granted by (L)GPL do *not* extend to that - thats why the Firefox trade dress is protected, for example.

  30. What themes are NOT licensed GPL or more liberal? by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    arkanes, A challenge for you:
    1) What GTK+,GNOME or KDE themes are NOT licensed either as GPL or a more liberal open license that allows screen shots?
    2) What Linux distributions package ship a copy of that theme that matches #1?

    Again:
    A) The Program OUTPUTS images generated by the themes to the Clients X Server. This is important. The GPL license does not restrict what you can do with the output of a GPL program. You can capture the output from the X Server with a screen shot, put it on the web, or reproduce it in printed media. Reread the GPL license.

    B1) The GPL comes under effect only when you distribute the result outside of your organization. You are entirely free to use the GPL source code as you wish as long as you do not distribute the derivative outside of your organization.
    B2) The theme plug in DDL library used by applications for GTK+/GNOME and KDE is LGPL licensed. You can link and distribute NON-GPL licensed code that links to those DDLs.
    B3) The applications are distributed seperate from the themes and the applications are in no way dependent upon a any theme to run.
    B4) It is the users, NOT the application distributer, who get the applcations to load individual themes. Because the end user does so within their own organization, they are free to do so : see (B1)

    As for Mozilla's Firefox tradmark ( not trade dress ) demands, the Mozilla foundation only prevents developers from releasing newly compiled binaries ( See opensource definition 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code ), it does not restrict screenshots.
  31. Re:What themes are NOT licensed GPL or more libera by arkanes · · Score: 1
    1) Just because I don't know that there are any doesn't mean that they don't exist. But it's the themes copyright thats important, not Gtks. The GPL, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to say about screenshots - a GPL license on a theme would allow redistribution of the theme elements, which would cover screenshots, but you can absolutely make a case that GPL licensed source code does not extend to the copyrightable elements of an interface.

    2) Irrelevant.

    A) The GPLs output clause does NOT remove copyright from output that would otherwise be copyrighted. If I write a program that outputs popular music, is that music still copyrighted? In fact, the GPLs output clause is a clarification that the GPL isn't viral with regards to produced works, such as the output of GCC, and has nothing to do with any other copyrights that might exist on the output. This is why Bison has a specific exemption on output, for example. The theme engine can have any license it wants, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a screenshot would infringe. If you thought about this for 20 seconds you'd probably understand it.

    B1) Broadly correct, if simplistic. Copyright law, for example, does not support the idea that internal distribution doesn't count.

    B2) Correct, but irrelevent.

    B3) True, and thats why the copyright of the application AND the theme are important

    B4) Irrevelent, and only sort of correct

    Trade dress, by the way, is a commonly used term for the aggregate of trademarks used in a product.

  32. What risk? by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    arkanes stated "1) Just because I don't know that there are any doesn't mean that they don't exist."
    arkanes, don't look behind you, there is a pack of unicorns stampeding in your direction ( Just because I don't know that there are any doesn't mean that they don't exist). In reality there is little risk from being run down by unicorns, thats what the (1)+(2) challenge was about. If the prepackaged themes that come with the Linux distributions are all freely licensed then, like the stampeding unicorns, there is virually NO risk with taking screen shots.

    "But it's the themes copyright thats important, not Gtks."
    Which is why I stated:
    1) What GTK+,GNOME or KDE themes are NOT licensed either as GPL or a more liberal open license that allows screen shots?

    "The GPL, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to say about screenshots"
    Because of the design of the X-client server protocol interface, screen output can be considered normal program output of data. But should you choose to inteprete the GPL license in that way, all a publisher would have to do is attribute the theme and application and make an offer ot supply a copy of source of the theme package according to section 3 of the GPL license.

    Extra notes
    B1) The GPL lisence is a grant which extends further rights to the recipiant, so (B1) is still valid.
    B4) if (1) (2) (A) and (B1-3) are correct then how is B4 Irrevelent?

    1. Re:What risk? by arkanes · · Score: 1
      You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. The license of a theme is of obvious importance to someone looking to redistribute screenshots, and just because all the themes you know about are under the GPL doesn't mean that they shouldn't ensure that the themes they're actually screenshotting are also under the GPL or a similiar unrestrictive license (there are actually a number of KDE and Windows themes under CC licenses, for example).

      Get the hell off the output clause. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't get any sort of goddamn magic immunity to copyright because it was output from a GPL program. It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the copyright on screenshots of a program. It's even more irrelevant because X11 and X.org aren't even GPL. Sorry for the profanity but you're totally on the wrong track here and need to take a minute to actually figure out what you're talking about.

      I know exactly what the GPL is and what it covers - far better than you, apparently. They're irrelevent because the copyright on the source code does not neccesarily cover copyrightable elements of an interface, which would be what you'd need to satisfy a pedantic lawyer seeking release for screenshots. The copyright on a screenshot of a program would lie with a) the programs creator, to the degree that the interface is copyrightable, and b) with the theme creator, to the degree that the elements of the theme UI are copyrightable. The license of the X server (which isn't fucking GPLed anyway), of GTK, of GTKs theme engine, or anything else aren't important.

  33. arkanes is a scaremonger by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    arkanes: "The license of a theme is of obvious importance to someone looking to redistribute screenshots"

    Then excuse the following language: Arkanes you are a gutless scaremonger.

    1) Where are the non-freely licensed theme packages for GTK+,GNOME and KDE? IF you do not use any such theme package, and only used freely licensed ones the then it does NOT limit ability to publish screenshots.

    2) What Linux Distribution ships any Theme package that *prevents* you publishing screenshots? There is no freely available Linux Distribution that ship with such packages THEREFORE it does NOT limit ability to publish screenshots for those Linux Distributions.

    Your looking for problems that, in general use, are not there. Unless *you* can a point to:
    3) ANY widely distributed Linux application that restricts screenshots; OR
    4) ANY widely distributed X.org/Distro Font that restricts screenshots; OR
    5) ANY widely distributed KDE/GTK+/GNOME Theme package that restricts screenshots; OR
    6) Where the KDE/GTK+/GNOME Framework, from which the default inteface widgits are sourced, restricts screenshots.

    Have a look at the hundreds of professional publications with Linux screenshots over the last decade. Has there been any single legal incident over published Linux screen shots in any book, PDF or webpage? NO. Why? Because the inclusion of any Linux screenshot and screenmovies has been considered fair use by the community.

    The GPL states that for program output is a derivative "Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.". Print and image capture of Themes, fonts, application display has always been considered Fair Use.

    As for themes and GPL/non-GPL programs, what I have repeatedly stated, is that the theme packages are seperate from the programs, not linked by the program distributer. The program is linked to the LGPL licensed library that loads the plugin them at run time. The end user, within his rights of the GPL internal use, loads the theme package.

  34. EULA=Copyright+Contract : GPL=Copyright+Grant by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    An End User License agreement is a Contract to use a Copyrighted work.
    The GPL is NOT a contract. The GPL license is a Grant to the reciever of rights greater than what is provided to the reciever by copyright law.

    A EULA can take way your rights under copyright law.
    The GPL, by its nature as a grant, cannot do so.

  35. Cynic says product placement ads by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The cynic in me says it's a paid promotion.

    I've seen laptops where you never see the screen sprouting the Apple logo.

    I wouldn't put it past studios to put such tv-screen-real-estate up for sale.

    Heck, I'm so cynical that for today's movies and prime-time TV shows, I just assume every can of brand-name cola or box of brand-name cereal is a paid ad, even if it isn't.

    "All your product placement are belong to us."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.