[steering-discuss] screen-shots Documentation Team

Simon Phipps schrieb:

As someone who also has worked in this field for the best part of a
decade, and given the advice Alex has already provided appears
extreme, I would suggest also seeking counsel from another specialist
if TDF wishes to pursue this path, perhaps from SFLC.

+1

Bernhard

An excellent suggestion.

Alex

Hi all,

Someone suggested I sling in some caselaw or other references on whether
copyright protection is available for UIs :

US
Just one caselaw review :
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/crind.htm

Europe
In European Union Court of Justice Case C-393/09 :
http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/03/24/protection-of-guis-graphical-user-interfaces-some-comments-about-the-ecj-‘s-preliminary-ruling-in-bsa-v-ministervo-kultury/

involving the BSA against the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic
relating tp television broadcasting of user interface.

What the latter ruling states is that copyright is not available under
the Computer Program Copyright Directive 91/250/EEC, as that is intended
to protect code per se. However, copyright is available for UIs under
the more general Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, providing that they
meet the criteria for awarding copyright, i.e. originality, author's own
work, etc.

So to all those naysayers who think that no-one sues anyone else over UI
elements - wake up, and take stock. Am I paranoid ? No, but people do
get sued. Do I represent the BSA ? No, but I know "peers" that do, and
believe me, love it or hate it, the BSA do sue people.

Please, by all means, get an opinion, hell, get several opinions, most
likely they will all be as different as there are different states in
the world.

Alex

Thanks, Alex. The fact there may be the scope to make a case is different from a calculation of whether this specific instance is likely to result in one. I do not doubt that it's possible to make a case; I'm saying there is no reason to believe in this specific instance that the risk of litigation is any greater than the risk of litigation on any other grounds, and thus it's not reasonable to restrict the effectiveness of the LibreOffice documentation in order to mitigate this risk. If you have any /specific/ cases that contradict this view I'd love to see them.

Regards

S.

Hi all,

Someone suggested I sling in some caselaw or other references on whether
copyright protection is available for UIs :

US
Just one caselaw review :
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/crind.htm

Europe
In European Union Court of Justice Case C-393/09 :
http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/03/24/protection-of-guis-graphical-user-interfaces-some-comments-about-the-ecj-‘s-preliminary-ruling-in-bsa-v-ministervo-kultury/

involving the BSA against the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic
relating tp television broadcasting of user interface.

What the latter ruling states is that copyright is not available under
the Computer Program Copyright Directive 91/250/EEC, as that is intended
to protect code per se. However, copyright is available for UIs under
the more general Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, providing that they
meet the criteria for awarding copyright, i.e. originality, author's own
work, etc.

What the ruling also say is:
"In a second question, the ECJ was asked whether television
broadcasting of a GUI “constitutes communication to the public of a
work protected by copyright within the meaning of Article 3(1) of
Directive 2001/29”. The ECJ answers that if a GUI is displayed in the
context of television broadcasting of a programme, television viewers
receive a communication of that GUI in a passive manner, without
having the possibility to interact with the program. According to the
ECJ, as individuals do not have access to the essential element
characterising the interface, that is to say, interaction with the
user, “there is no communication to the public of the graphic user
interface within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29”."

That same rational apply to screen shoot in a documentation.
iow common sens still prevail despite BSA's effort.

So to all those naysayers who think that no-one sues anyone else over UI
elements - wake up, and take stock. Am I paranoid ? No, but people do
get sued. Do I represent the BSA ? No, but I know "peers" that do, and
believe me, love it or hate it, the BSA do sue people.

I'm sure that people sue, and some jurisdiction are indeed very prone
to frivolous law suit... but does that means that we have to abdicate
basic freedom and right ?

If you are that concerned about liabilities, make sure that TDF itself
does not author nor 'publish' any documentation... and have a
money-less French loi-1901 association to do the publishing... The
fact that TDF 'endorse' the content of a book does not make it liable
for real or imaginary infringements in that book.

Norbert

Simon Phipps wrote:

Thanks, Alex. The fact there may be the scope to make a case is different from a calculation of whether this specific instance is likely to result in one. I do not doubt that it's possible to make a case; I'm saying there is no reason to believe in this specific instance that the risk of litigation is any greater than the risk of litigation on any other grounds, and thus it's not reasonable to restrict the effectiveness of the LibreOffice documentation in order to mitigate this risk. If you have any /specific/ cases that contradict this view I'd love to see them.

I have been handling marketing for high-tech companies for 30 years, and I have never heard of a litigation for a screenshot taken on a Windows system.

Of course, we must carefully avoid to show portions of the screen which are not relevant to LibreOffice, but it is now very important to show that LibreOffice runs on Windows.

IBM people are trying to spread the concept that LibreOffice is mainly a Linux product, and we must therefore avoid using Linux screenshots as much as we can because they endorse this completely faulty concept.

> extreme, I would suggest also seeking counsel from another specialist
> if TDF wishes to pursue this path, perhaps from SFLC.

  We are not (as a project) a client of the SFLC. Furthermore, the SFLC
have a very large number of topics on their plate. The "just ask a
lawyer" motif is often just a stalling tactic - the advice a lawyer can
give will often be a nuanced one, and that advice inevitably cannot be
published. So, ultimately, I guess the SC would need to make a call on
this in a private session if it was asked to.

While caution is certainly important, until there's a concrete
example of any one of those EULAs posing a concrete problem
I'd suggest we don't have one.

  Here I agree; clearly respecting the EULA is mandatory, and obviously
fair-use and other considerations give very broad rights; pragmatically
it seems that this is a non-problem, and that the whole software
industry (including openoffice.org) routinely publishes screenshots from
windows machines. OpenOffice.org gets even more risque like this:

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/1.1/images/ms_office_compatibility.jpg

  which I don't recommend :wink: so IMHO the existing practise seems to
suggest that this is un-controversial & non-problematic.

  Personally, I would prefer all our screenshots to be taken on Linux
because I love to support free platforms, but Italo is right - we need
to make clear that we work well on Windows too, one convincing way to do
that is clearly with screenshots.

  At least that's my 2 cents,

  ATB,

    Michael.

Hi,

published. So, ultimately, I guess the SC would need to make a call on
this in a private session if it was asked to.

I didn't get time to bring this subject up at the last SC meeting, but
I would indeed like to submit a request to the SC to take a decision
on this issue in a private session.

IMHO, it would be good to put the subject to rest once and for all.

Hi David,

I didn't get time to bring this subject up at the last SC meeting, but
I would indeed like to submit a request to the SC to take a decision
on this issue in a private session.

feel free to add the topic to the agenda in the wiki. It would be good,
however, if someone would attend the call who has insight on the topic.
I, for example, didn't follow the thread closely.

Florian

Hi Florian,

feel free to add the topic to the agenda in the wiki. It would be good,
however, if someone would attend the call who has insight on the topic.
I, for example, didn't follow the thread closely.

OK, I'll add it to the next agenda and would be there to listen, and
to present both sides of the issue, if invited. But if it's going to
be a private session then maybe non-SC members won't be party to the
discussions?

Hi,

OK, I'll add it to the next agenda and would be there to listen, and
to present both sides of the issue, if invited. But if it's going to
be a private session then maybe non-SC members won't be party to the
discussions?

we have a public session every week.

Florian

Hi Florian,

we have a public session every week.

Oh, sure, but Michael seemed to feel that this might be better
discussed in a private session? Would that be the intention? I can
sort-of understand that, given the kind of debate that might ensue?

In any case, I'll add it to the next agenda and thank you for your
permission for that.

David Nelson wrote:

Oh, sure, but Michael seemed to feel that this might be better
discussed in a private session? Would that be the intention? I can
sort-of understand that, given the kind of debate that might ensue?

I don't see why this should be a private discussion.

Screenshots usually have two main objectives:

1. Show the process for getting to a result through a combination of different features (inside manuals and how to documents)

2. Show the appearance of a new feature (for announcements of new releases)

In these two cases, screenshots are platform agnostic, provided that a feature is available on all platforms.

For a limited (I hope) amount of time, we need to have Windows screenshots in order to show to the external world that LibreOffice runs on Windows (something that should not be necessary, if the outside world was made of normal people, but we have some extraordinary people who hint that LibreOffice is mainly a Linux product, because of the relationship between SUSE and Microsoft, which is a total nonsense, and are actively promoting this insane concept).

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
to the idea of this being voted on by the SC/BoD without re-arguing the points.

I had hoped the discussion would just congratulate the Documentation Team on
neatly avoiding potential pitfalls that would take months to fix if MS used it
as a side-issue in a any future dealings with them. It makes sense to use
primarily Windows screen-shots in marketing, for the reasons Italo stated, but
Documentation takes a LOT longer to fix.

Inevitably there will be specific sections that focus on individual OSes but the
bulk of the documentation tries to stay consistent with itself rather than look
randomly thrown together. A flippant vote taken in under 5 mins to change
documentation to use Windows screen-shots would result in many months of
hard-work for the tiny documentation team and would result in no documentation
being out-there until that work gets re-done. Right now there are questions
about whether to bother continuing to work at the documentation at all until
after the SC/BoD has decided to tell the team how to do their work.

If the SC/BoD wants official documentation to be done in a way that demands
using Windows screen-shots and also relinquishes any responsibility for the
completed work so that individuals might be left facing the full wrath of MS as
individuals then i think we can forget about any documentation ever getting
done!

The question is really about whether to support the Documentation Team or to
tell them to re-do everything in Windows and then not support them at all! Have
they really wasted their time and effort doing a bad job?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Tom Davies wrote:

I had hoped the discussion would just congratulate the Documentation Team on
neatly avoiding potential pitfalls that would take months to fix if MS used it
as a side-issue in a any future dealings with them. It makes sense to use
primarily Windows screen-shots in marketing, for the reasons Italo stated, but
Documentation takes a LOT longer to fix.

Sorry, but I don't see why we should mix two completely different issues. The documentation team sets the rules for documentation, and I don't see why the SC should change these rules if they are - and they are - well thought.

On the other hand, marketing has different - short term - needs, which are important for the project but should not be taken as a rule for the entire project. Marketing, sometimes, is very tactical, because of the changing situation of the outside environment.

Documentation, on the other hand, is totally strategical, and has long term objectives and rules. So, the two projects should follow two paths according to their short or long term objectives.

In my opinion, documentation screenshots can be entirely Linux (unless there is a specific feature on a different OS).

At the same time, screenshots that we provide to the media can be entirely Windows (while on the web we can post both Linux and Windows in order to give a choice).

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
I totally agree with all of that :)) It's a relief even if it's not the
finalised vote. Thanks Italo :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Italo, *,

In my opinion, documentation screenshots can be entirely Linux (unless there
is a specific feature on a different OS).

My feeling about this (and I *believe* that Jean Weber agrees) is that
documentation contributors should have the option of contributing
screenshots indifferently from Mac, Linux or Windows - although it
would probably be preferable to maintain consistency within a given
guide.

Firstly, this makes it clear that LibreOffice is mult-platform and
consistent across platforms.

Secondly, we want to keep the barrier for new contributors as low as
possible, and not *oblige* them to install new software in order to
work in documentation. This way, hopefully, we can get a lot more
people involved.

These are the key reasons why I'm asking for the SC to take a
position, because we've been meeting quite a bit of opposition from a
relatively small number of people for quite some time now (who want
screenshots taken under Linux only), and it would be nice to get the
issue cleared up one way or another.

I could point out that I'm a daily Linux user myself, but I don't
think we should be dogmatic about it.

Hi :slight_smile:
At some point i would like to see a mix of screen-shots done using different
themes and different OSes but done in a planned way rather than just looking
accidental and unprofessional. It could look very artistically pleasing if done
with some consideration or it could just look messy if done without any
thought. At the moment there are a few people that focus on the wording and
just mark where they want screen-shots updated. Some people have focused on
screen-shots to the point of learning an unfamiliar OS although he has moved to
doing both screen-shots and being a word-smith.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I think I need a reset:

When and where did Microsoft ever sued a community driven
documentation effort for using picture of a the community's own
software running on Windows ?
Did that really ever happened ?
if so, did Microsoft ever actually win such ludicrous case ? (I'm not
asking if by some convoluted legal rambling it is perceived as being
_possible_ in some obscure jurisdiction)
Note that if the concern is that 'it could happen' then it can happen
with _any_ gui, including Linux-based GUI.

And quite frankly if that were to happen, it would be a PR bonanza for
us. 'Hiding' the offending 'gui' item under a black dot with 'Censured
by Microsoft' on top... that will get us quite a bit a coverage, most
of them sympathetic I bet..... well worth the aggravation... Heck I'll
even volunteer to add the 'Censured by Microsoft' sticker :slight_smile:

IOW: let the documentation team use what-ever platform they want for
their screenshoots, and stop muddying the water with
convoluted-maybe-scare-issues...
Otherwise we are going to have to revise the release schedule to take
into account December 21st 2012. :slight_smile:

There are enough real problems to deal with without inventing imaginary one.

Norbert

Hi David, all,

David Nelson schrieb:

Hi Italo, *,

In my opinion, documentation screenshots can be entirely Linux (unless there
is a specific feature on a different OS).

This is what the Documentation team (project) has done over the last years, IIRC.

My feeling about this (and I *believe* that Jean Weber agrees) is that
documentation contributors should have the option of contributing
screenshots indifferently from Mac, Linux or Windows - although it
would probably be preferable to maintain consistency within a given
guide.

I would really like to read Jean's opinion on this point.

She has been leading the Documentation Project at OOo, she proposed the present compromise discussed and voted on at the Design list. All of her comments I remember are based on a Linux theme.

In none of her postings I read I saw any mentioning of Windows screenshots.

Now - exactly at her holidays - you're pushing this topic up to the SC, while the discussion and the voting at the Design list doesn't follow the direction you want it to go.

My impression of the people involved in this topic (including Sigrid and Jean) felt very well about the Linux theme Clearlooks, that resembles quite strongly to newer Windows versions. The previous theme agreed upon by the documentation team was a silver theme resembling Windows XP - probably not the best reference for 2011 and beyond...

I might be wrong, but is there really a discussion in the Documentation Team where others than yourself want to use different themes - and especially Windows themes - for LibreOffice documentation?

What I read was that they want to have a consistent theme for the documentation, so it is possible to re-use some of the screenshots in other documents.

Mixture of screenshots with different themes in one document has never been a goal of the documentation team. Consistency is much more important for professional documentation than trying to inform the reader about the different platforms by using different themes.

We already discussed your points on the design list, and you got valid replies by several different people. Now you want this discussion to be overruled by the SC members - if you insist on it, we can repeat our points here too...

Firstly, this makes it clear that LibreOffice is mult-platform and
consistent across platforms.

Consistency is the key: A good documentation is based on consistent content, visual design, and overall look-and-feel.

Except of platform specific topics a consistent theme is one stone in the wall of professional documentation.

Secondly, we want to keep the barrier for new contributors as low as
possible, and not *oblige* them to install new software in order to
work in documentation. This way, hopefully, we can get a lot more
people involved.

We all know that new contributors need guidance much more than the easiest way to do any work. Especially if we want them to continue their contribution it is crucial to not let them alone - not even with screenshots. They don't know about the area to copy, scaling factors, additional arrows and rings. And helping them by providing easy understandable guidelines can include a preferred theme and even a slight modification to this standard theme.

You might be right that there are people on Windows interested in contributing to LibreOffice documentation - they would be the one to install a new theme for screenshots, but they can contribute without screenshots (or take screenshots with a Linux live CD) too.

On Linux there is no need to install new software, as the Clearlooks theme is standard in GNOME and available in KDE too.

These are the key reasons why I'm asking for the SC to take a
position, because we've been meeting quite a bit of opposition from a
relatively small number of people for quite some time now (who want
screenshots taken under Linux only), and it would be nice to get the
issue cleared up one way or another.

While this relatively small number of people consist of Sigrid and Jean as well as several people on the Design list and Alex Thurgood, I can't measure your "we" in active contributors. My impression is exactly the other way round: While the vast majority of active people showed their interest in a consistent documentation with a standardized theme for screenshots and other elements, you repeated your arguments against such a consistent theme several times being nearly alone with your opinion.

I could point out that I'm a daily Linux user myself, but I don't
think we should be dogmatic about it.

Right - this has absolutely nothing to do with the present topic.

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: I didn't mention consistency as basic rule for branding, brand recognition and a positive feeling about a product in this mail.
I didn't comment on the legal aspects on Windows and Mac, as Alex pointed possible problems out.
(And even if the SC would recommend Windows screenshots, each contributor would have to decide for him/herself if s/he would like to take the legal responsibility on his/her own).