[steering-discuss] screen-shots Documentation Team

Isn't that exactly what 'Fair Use' is all about ?

Norbert

Hi Norbert, *

Hi :slight_smile:
Except screen-shots in Windows can't have any useful arrows or circles to point
out the exact thing being talked about in the documentation.

Only screenshots of /Microsoft/ products.

Isn't that exactly what 'Fair Use' is all about ?

Absolutely. Unfortunately "Fair use" is not a term in each and every
juristications of this world. E.g. German law does not know about "fair
use" - but has other ways to prevent misuse of copyright.

But: no matter what the real legal situation might be - Microsoft's
position is that all screen shots taken on a windows system need to
follow Microsoft's rules (what is quite exactly what Tom wrote).

So although I agree with Simon, that we should not be over-cautious,
there is still a legal risk which can easily be prevented. Furthermore,
we would need to set some specific rules for windows screen shots. MS
did protect some of the icons used in Vista, Windows 7 and Office by
registering those in the Design Register in Germany. I never checked
what icons exactly are affected, but it might be illegal to take
screenshots of the Windows File open dialogs.

This all sounds like complete nonsense but we have a quite easy
workaround: take screenshots on Linux.

regards,

André

I never checked
what icons exactly are affected, but it might be illegal to take
screenshots of the Windows File open dialogs.

Or it might not. The actual Microsoft rules in the EULA (which I agree need to be observed) suggest not. Only vague generalisations of those rules imply otherwise.

This all sounds like complete nonsense but we have a quite easy
workaround: take screenshots on Linux.

Which is fine as long as they actually do look identical.

S.

I don't really care about Microsoft's position (and it is doubtful
that most of the EULA conditions actually would hold in face of real
law - in most european jurisdiction private contract - especially the
one not entered into freely and not negotiated on equal footing - do
not trump common law), but:
Use it and if Microsoft actually has legal standing, let's put
'censured by Microsoft' sticker on the screen-shoot in place of the
'offending' icons.
and see how long it will take Microsoft PR department to weight to
pros and cons of the situation.

Norbert

There are more than 50 EULAs for Microsoft Windows 7. Throw in the other
versions of Microsoft Windows, and you are looking at more than a
thousand different EULAs.

jonathon

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.

S.

Hi all,

just to keep your eye on one of the phrases Alex wrote, I remove most of this mail:

Alexander Thurgood schrieb:

[...]
I make part of my living out of representing IP rights holders in legal
actions against those who do not respect those rights, but also
defending those who happen to be on receiving end when the boot is on
the other foot.

So I would take this position as an expert's view.

Perhaps it would be possible for Alex to attend the SC call when this topic is discussed.

[...]

It is a no-brainer : either ask in MS writing, consult an attorney for
each territory of interest (expensive no doubt, and possibly
unsatisfactory, with fairly heterogeneous answers), or just plain don't
use MS's stuff.

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: If Microsoft considers the icons to close or minimize a window as belonging to their product icons (they are icons of their product Windows XP/Vista/7), it's hard to avoid them.

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.

S.

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.