Nowadays,
File talk:BackupHDDVD GUI Screenshot.png is a topic that has captured the attention of many people around the world. With its relevance in today's society,
File talk:BackupHDDVD GUI Screenshot.png has become a topic of interest for experts and hobbyists alike. From its impact on the economy to its influence on popular culture,
File talk:BackupHDDVD GUI Screenshot.png has proven to be a phenomenon worthy of study and analysis. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to
File talk:BackupHDDVD GUI Screenshot.png and examine its meaning in various contexts. From its history to its future projection,
File talk:BackupHDDVD GUI Screenshot.png will continue to be an important topic today and for years to come.
- Image:BackupHDDVD_GUI_Screenshot.png - No evidence is provided to suggest that this software is in the public domain. Furthermore, this screenshot contains non-trivial graphical elements from Microsoft Windows XP; those elements of the image need to be addressed and have not been. Iamunknown 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article, and the project page reflect the software's PD license. I haven't a clue about what to do with the elements of XP (and a default Swing theme) that are present, though. A new screenshot can be taken with a public domain visual style (i.e. ), but Swing is a problem. I am not sure if it can be made to use Windows' visual styles to skin widgets, or whether there are PD themes for it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I never considered taking a screenshot with a different, more free, graphical theme. The screenshot would then arguably be free and arguably be un-free. The un-free elements could arguably be considered ineligible for copyright because of lack of creative authorship (well, except for the Java logo), but the copyright of screenshot, as a derivative work of the software and of Microsoft Windows, could be arguably owned by Microsoft per case law. (I am not a lawyer.) --Iamunknown 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Absolute nonsense. The screenshot covers only the window of the program. Any XP elements are trivial. This is called copyright paranoia - if you were correct, MS would own every screenshot taken by other ISVs using default themes. They don't. --kingboyk 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Commons has a discussion of the legal issues here. Reviewing the discussions regarding screenshots here on Wikipedia it appears that the WP's policy is slightly more permissive than Commons, permitting screenshots containing non-free graphical elements to be used, but only with a fair use rationale. —RP88 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I highly highly doubt that Microsoft, whose opinion is much more important to the Wikimedia Foundation than yours, than mine, than anyone else's, would agree with your statement. XP elements are not trivial: they are neither commonplace nor ordinary, because they are only found in the Windows XP GUI; and they are neither of little importance or value, because they are part of the branding with which Microsoft advertises their product and maintains a significant share in the technology market. --Iamunknown 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- You may be right about this, but this would surely survive under fair use. Just needs to be re-tagged with {{windows-screenshot}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. To have free screenshots in more places would be preferable, but thanks to Fair Use, the world doesn't end without them. I might look at retaking a few with free skins later; it's certainly nicer than manually clipping the title bar et al out of the image. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've never been fond of retagging others' images because of my interpretation of the statement, "You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal," from Wikipedia:Fair use, and I would ask everyone to consider that interpretation as well. I won't, however, revert any license change anyone makes.
Furthermore, however, the use of the screenshot in the article does not, I argue, satisfy both "identification of and critical commentary on the software in question." How can an image that merely sits in an infobox, that is not even explicitly referenced to in the article, be criticized? --Iamunknown 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to chime in and say that this kind of paranoia seems awfully silly to me. If Microsoft or Sun claimed ownership of all screenshots that use their GUIs, wouldn't they in effect be claiming ownership of all GUI-based software using their platforms? I may be misunderstanding you, but what you are asserting is that any use of third party GUI elements relinquishes a developer's claim of copyright ownership to the third party. In effect this would mean that if I wrote a graphical application for Windows, Microsoft would own it and I would retain no rights to it. Noclip 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's only a problem if your software contains elements of Windows' graphics, and claims that their copyright belongs to you. Most Windows software just uses the API to let Windows create the interface elements. Likewise, most screenshots of software do not make the claim that the copyright of the screenshot, in its entirety, belongs to the person who took it. They usually don't make any copyright claim at all, which we can't do. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
