The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote
> If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright
> infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no 
> lawyer,
> so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.)
>
> I'm not copying the work - I'm providing a detailed description
> of a portion of it (its user interface).

Nope.  The original author of the software cannot possibly copyright all 
possible screenshots.  Copyrights only apply to a specific piece of media, 
and since you were the creator of that media, you can copyright it.

However, it may contain trademarked elements, such as a logo.  However, it 
is possible to have trademarked material as long as you are critiquing 
something, and you represent who the owner of the trademark is properly.

Even if there was some possible way to copyright the UI, this should fall 
under fair use as you are presenting a 'clip' of a copyrighted piece of 
media for critique.

> If I write a piece of fan fiction starring Captain Kirk and the starship
> Enterprise, I'm technically infringing on Paramount Picture's copyright,
> since my book would be considered a derivative work of Star Trek.

Nope, but you are infringing on the trademark names of 'Captain Kirk' and 
the starship 'Enterprise'.  I think there is probably some restriction on 
making money from the trademark.

If you wrote a book with 'Captian Jerk' and the starship 'Doorprize', then 
you would have no problem :)

> That is the worst case - I would have copied no actual words, just the
> abstract information of Kirk's characterisation. Yet, technically, the
> law says I can't do that without Paramount's permission.

Because you would be using Paramount's trademarks in order to make money. 
There is a huge amount of weight behind those simple words, and most likely, 
you would enjoy Paramount's ability to sell anything that is star trek 
related, without having created the original idea.  That is why trademark 
law exists.

> One could easily argue that transmitting something like source code
> down the Internet is sending a very detailed description of the product
> (product == the compiled executable) rather than copying the work.

The source code is also copyrighted.  Copyright is inherently assigned to 
the author (even if he doesn't label it as such).  He can assign the 
copyright to someone else if he wants.

> I didn't copy the executable itself - I sent a detailed description of it.
> This description just happens to be detailed enough for the compiler to 
> create
> a perfect copy from it.

If you sent a detailed description of the source code (i.e. an english 
description of how it works), this is not a violation of copyright, as you 
cannot copyright ideas.  Many companies use 'clean room' techniques where 
one team disassembles code, figures out how it works, then describes that to 
another team which writes a compatible piece of software.  They are not 
infringing on copyright because the developers have not seen any of the 
original code.

In some countries, however, you can patent software 'business methods', i.e. 
ideas (which to me is absurd for software).

> The only difference between that description and a verbal description
> of the program is the resolution of detail. In both cases, I am spreading
> information about it.

No, the difference is that the code is copyrighted.  If you build the code 
from reverse engineering, it is a derivative work.  The verbal description 
is a description of the ideas, which are not copyrightable.

-Steve