Legal Impediments to Using F/OSS Screenshots?

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?"

Comments

Well..

[Momoru]

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

Wikimedia Commons

[JimDabell]

There's some informative discussion at the Wikimedia Commons.

CORRECTION

[ZosX]

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.

No restrictions on the use of the output of GPL...

[NZheretic]

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.

Re:Why would you ignore your legal advice?

[hahiss]

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

Fair Use

[molo]

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

Not a problem for GPL software

[andyross]

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.

Re:Not covered != No Restrictions

[benjamindees]

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.