Commons:Deletion requests/Windows screenshots

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Windows screenshots

[edit]

Windows is a non-free operating system published by Microsoft, and the appearance of its GUI widgets is likewise non-free. Per Commons:Licensing#Screenshots, it appears that the use of non-free widgets such as the Windows title bar in a screenshot may not count as de minimis copying, making the whole image non-free. I'm not an expert at identifying close boxes, as I have never used Windows Vista, but I have difficulty believing that all of these screenshots were taken with Wine. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Dialog boxes, buttons, and the like are not copyrighted. In fact, this was Microsoft's position under oath in Apple v. Microsoft. -Nard 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I would have to say  Delete because the Luna theme is not simple enough not to be copyrighted. The specific parts that I am mentioning are the titlebar and the border around the window. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (GMT)
    • So Microsoft has a copyright on the blue spectrum now? -Nard 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a senseless discussion...on the same level you could say, the painter has no rights for his painting, because some other people produced the colors... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.196.72.102 (talk • contribs) at 13:30, 17. Apr 2008 (UTC)
Damian: the Aqua clones copied the whole interface (or "skin")! A screenshot is something different. A commentator on slashdot said about the Aqua and Apple controversy:
There is no issue here. These are not Aqua-inspired graphics, or reminiscent-of-Aqua graphics, or graphics that look sorta like Aqua, these are Apple's graphics, copied and pasted, bit for bit, into a Stardock theme. This is not "look and feel", this is just plagiarism. [..] This is a re-implementation of Aqua on Windows. [..] Taking someone else's work and calling it your own is being a dick. How can anybody reasonably defend this? ([1])
To take a screenshot of a program that incidentally show three window-icons or a scrollbar is on a completely different level. The "down arrow" or the "maximize icon" look quite differently in different versions of Windows or even in different Windows skins. I find it unlikely that they, by themselves, can be be copyright protected. Not everything can be copyrighted.
And how does http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm prove that every part of an operating system is copyrighted?
So I don't see any solid evidence why it should be copyrighted. I think User:Nard the Bard has on the other hand provided evidence of the opposite.
Fred J 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with User:O here, but I think most images can be saved by cropping. I have previously interpreted Commons:Licensing#Screenshots such that screenshots should not show titlebars from non-free operating systems. I would regard the rounded design, shadow effects, gradients and colour scheme as used by default in Microsoft Windows versions later than Windows 2000 and Windows XP, taken as a whole (not just "the blue spectrum"), as copyrightable. I would not regard its inclusion as incidental or de minimis, as it generally appears in full resolution without any distortion. I do recognise that it is a borderline case, but as much as I cannot say with certainty that it does infringe, one would be hard-pressed to make a substantiated argument with any reasonable degree of certainty that all courts in applicable jurisdictions would hold these elements to be below the threshold of originality. I don't, however, see a problem with screenshots with the older look of Microsoft Windows or screenshots cropped to exclude the titlebar. I believe we should err on the side of caution to protect the legal integrity of Commons and crop out unnecessary window decorations, and I think that would be a sufficient remedy in most cases to avoid deletion.
In summary:
Keep "Windows classic look" screenshots (e.g. Image:Jazilla milestone 4.png)
Crop all others to exclude Window decorations
Delete those screenshots where this is not possible (such as for MDI applications)
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since in KDE it is possible to select a "Redmond" Skin (i.e. a windows classic look and feel) and since KDE doesn't contain copyrighted images, those screenshot can be kept. In fact a normal user cannot distinguish between the Redmond skin of KDE and the native windows classical L&F. (e.g. Image:Wikipedia rss with mozilla thunderbird.PNG)
--193.206.186.101 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, some of those don't even look like Windows. (Image:Virtualdubmain.png) Rocket000 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most, Delete some. Nearly all of these do not contain non-free material (some do like the ones with Windows icons, and I'm not talking about simple generic geometric shapes like the "close" button or "down" arrow). The classic title bar is not specific to Windows. If it was, practically all free software would be in violate of Microsoft's copyrights, and I don't think that's the case. Rocket000 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I support deleting Image:Gnucleus - Downloads Screenshot.jpg, Image:Emule morpht.PNG, Image:POL eMule search results.gif, Image:Emule 047a.jpg, Image:7-Zip screenshot.png, Image:7-Zip Filhanterare.gif, Image:7-Zip File Manager ES.png, and Image:Wikipedia rss with mozilla thunderbird.PNG for those who hate Wikipedia's logo being used where it's not needed. The rest seem fine to me except maybe the Vista one. The title bar, scroll arrows, and right-hand buttons are not enough to be a copyvio. Mainly because it's way to generic and Microsoft didn't even design them, but also because I would say text, gradients, and extremely simple geometric non-artistic shapes are PD-ineligible. You might say it's eligible when taken as a whole, but Microsoft and the U.S. court system would disagree[2]. Rocket000 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Windows classic title bar is not enough to make it copyrighted by Microsoft. Platonides 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most, I think. Copyrightability standards can differ between countries... the discussion linked above is for the UK, but US rules are probably more applicable here. The symbols on the title bar icons are too simple to be copyrighted (and were taken from en:NEXTSTEP anyways), and likewise the WinNT / Win2K stylings are also too simple, I think. I'm less sure of the XP and Vista styles... they are more complex gradients, but if they are autogenerated programmatically, that is actually an argument against copyrightability (no human artistic involvement). They are certainly branding of a sort, maybe trademarkable, but I'm still unsure about copyright. Of course, most individual graphic icons are copyrightable, so screenshots which show task bar icons, the desktop background, program icons, system icons in file listings, etc. would all be copyrightable. Some of the above screenshots have those, and not all can be saved, but some can through cropping. Carl Lindberg 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"but if they are autogenerated programmatically, that is actually an argument against copyrightability": <sarcasm>Yeah, and SVG images are automatically {{PD-ineligible}}.</sarcasm> Gradients in such vector images are also generated programmatically, but the choice of the area in which the gradient is applied, as well as the colors and directions of the gradient, are creative steps. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously SVG images are not automatically ineligible. A single gradient though, should not be eligible by itself. Drawing a straight line involves choices in placement, angle, and color, but that would not be anywhere close to copyrightable by itself either. If a generic effect can be applied to arbitrary shapes, then simply adding that effect to an uncopyrightable image does not automatically add a copyright, I don't think. Does Adobe get part ownership of a derivative copyright if you use one of its Photoshop effects on one of your images? The XP title bar style seems to be horizontal gradients... is that original enough, or is that just common practice to create a 3D-ish effect? It is probably arguable either way. Simply changing the colors is not enough to add a copyright either, so I'm not sure that enters into it. According to this, Copyrightability depends upon the presence of creative expression in a work, and not upon aesthetic merit, commercial appeal, or symbolic value. From the same document, a combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations is not copyrightable either. It seems to me the design of the title bar falls into that area, but it may be arguable. Obviously, cropping away the title bar is safer, but I'm not comfortable with deleting images solely on that basis either. It may be protectable via trademark or design patent, but copyright, to me, seems borderline at best. Carl Lindberg 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth. Totally unfounded nomination. Keep them all. Among the topmost unfounded listings here are for example Image:Blender 2.45 screenshot.jpg (uses all its own UI elements) and Image:AWB Username.png (does not display a single Windows UI Element). --Ligulem 15:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's founded until COM:DW lists an explicit exemption for de minimis use. The AWB screenshot has a down arrow from a scrollbar, and one might argue that the specific shape of this down arrow comes from the (copyrighted) Windows library. Blender has a non-classic titlebar, or is this titlebar drawn using a custom toolkit in the same way that the titlebar of Office 2007 windows is drawn? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where the objection is on the basis that there are minor elements of Windows OS in view as part of the free software's screen shot. Where a screen shot includes a piece of Microsoft software (e.g. OS utility or applet, or stand-alone application), then certainly it should be removed from Commons (perhaps to be hosted on a platform that permits fair use images and images with other licenses permitting limited use). I don't see any images in this collection that meet those criteria. Application title bars, scroll bars and drop-down list arrows don't, IMHO, meet such criteria. Webaware talk 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rocket000's selection of images have file listings which include file icons, including system and third-party ones, so those could be a problem. Image:Emule-transfer-stats-window 048a.png needs to have the windows task bar cropped off for sure. Carl Lindberg 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll grant that the emule image needs cropping as you say - I had not scrolled down far enough to see the Windows task bar before, sorry! I don't think that the others Rocket000 lists should be deleted, however, as they are not representing the icons as anything more than what their owners intended them to be, and are themselves but a small part of the image (compare to a photograph of a street scene with shop signs, cars with manufacturers' badges, etc.) Webaware talk 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's interesting that you mention "cars with manufacturers' badges" See this adrants story about Ford Motor claiming copyright on pictures of its cars. (Found via Slashdot) --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting... although it sounds like their claims are solely around trademarks, with nothing to do with copyright. I was not able to find the details of the actual complaint -- just a vague description from someone a couple people removed from the original -- but it's quite possible that they are just claiming that a third-party calendar of all Ford Mustang photos is either trademark dilution or something people may mistakenly assume is a Ford product. Trademarks have to be more vigorously protected, as they are easier to lose. It's also quite possible the lawyers are trying to stretch trademark law to (or beyond) its limits, but without knowing the actual claims it's hard to say either way. As a similar example, the shape of the Empire State Building is trademarked I believe. None of which has anything to do with copyright... you can trademark all kinds of things which would not qualify for copyright. Carl Lindberg 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crikey, it would put the blender amongst the pigeons if some heartless companies took a similar view of, what, 20% of the images here on Commons? At any rate, the image referred to by Crotalus horridus, below, adequately demonstrates my point, FWIW. (oh, and note that Ford have not done as you say - they have requested that Cafe Express "cease and desist" producing images of its trademarks for profit, and Cafe Express have gone hunting through its customers' uploads) Webaware talk 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • crop Crop the part of the image that is clearly Microsoft to avoid and problems.
  • Keep screenshots containing the classic (95/98/2K) Windows interface. First of all, the site that has been quoted above is irrelevant since it is based in the United Kingdom and discusses UK law. Copyright law in the United States is different in a variety of ways. I don't think that 16×14 toolbar buttons containing only simple geometric shapes have enough creative aspect to be subject to copyright at all, and even if they are, their use here is incidental. It's no different than the Times Square wide-angle shot that happens to contain some trademarked/copyrighted logo. They are not the primary subject of the picture, so their presence is irrelevant. That said, we could always remove any ambiguity by using Wine to take screenshots and employing a theme that looks similar, but not identical, to the standard Windows theme. Crotalus horridus 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

[edit]
  • Delete / crop XP and Vista titlebars, icons, taskbars; classic taskbars and non-trivial icons. Also, for instance, remove Image:Dasherwindows2.png, if the toolbar settings do not matter or if it is replaced or if it is unused. The other classic stuff can wait for a replacement (or be cropped), icons and the W98 gradiented titlebar being probably the most vulnerable part. --AVRS 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible solution: What if we use ClearLooks for Windows XP? Windows decorations are replaced by Clearlooks decorations, including buttons and other UI elements. Clearlooks for Linux is GPL theme, and this version was released under GPL too. It would be easier than installing Linux or even Wine. FedericoMP 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OS-GUI appearing in a screenshot of a free program is fair use 193.190.253.144 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair use is prohibited on Commons. --AVRS 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an argument for moving all such screenshots to your local Wikipedia or Wikibooks, not for keeping them on Commons. As I understand the policy, the test for Commons is whether it's legal to copy the widget images pixel-for-pixel, use the images for widgets in a Free operating system, sell copies of the Free operating system, and market the Free operating system as a direct competitor to the operating system that the images came from. That distinguishes de minimis copying (which appears to be allowed on Commons but has no solid definition as of March 2008) from fair use copying (allowed only on some language editions of some other Wikimedia projects). --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some free OS's we allow screenshots of have themes that directly mimic XP. Pixel for pixel. And we allow those screenshots. It'd be silly therefore to exclude actual Windows screenshots. -Nard 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A square with a cross, blue headers and simple ractangulars filled with texts are not copyrightable see, en:Merger doctrine#Copyright and en:Threshold of originality. Software created for Windows using it's widgets is also not automatically copyrighted by Microsoft. What makes the interface unique is the arrangement of the simple elements. So lets Keep the screenshots and crop away trademarked Windows Logos / copyrighted wallpapers, but not grey bars. --Matt 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep screenshots with classical windows gui elements (buttons, title bars, scrollbars, panels, etc.) --Ilya K 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

[edit]
VMWare is unfree altogether, and such screenshots are subject to speedy deletion. This deletion request is about screenshots of free software containing window decorations and other elements of proprietary software. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the information. I had no idea of what VMWare was before I took a look on en.wiki right now, and I now see that it’s proprietary software. If i did know that I would right away mark it as speedy. The only thing I did know was that the Vista decoration is not free. ;) Sorry! — H92 (t · c · no) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cropped out the Vista specific stuff from Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-03.png and Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-04.png. Firefox UI is not copyrighted for Microsoft, FYI. --AtteL 15:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the obvious problem images. Left the others for further discussion.

This DR cannot be dealt with properly on the basis of the policies we currently have. There is a need to set out some general principles, agree them, and apply them. Before we can deal with difficult questions like "can Windows minimize/maximize icons be allowed?", we ought to discuss the whole concept of de minimis generally. I propose the following:

  • 1. Write a de minimis proposal, not specifically screenshot-related. I have done this at Commons:De minimis.
  • 2. Discuss and agree that page
  • 3. Apply whatever principles are agreed to screenshots, and draft some easy-to-apply rules that we can use for screenshots
  • 4. Discuss and agree
  • 5. Re-open this DR as needed, and apply those rules.

Please come over to Commons talk:De minimis and discuss. --MichaelMaggs 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Windows_screenshots&oldid=71024792"