Commons:Deletion requests/GPL screenshots

• File:Slide fgfs-screen-002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:F-14 Phanton Flying in Flightgear.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Those files are screenshots of a GPL program. However, they were not made by the uploader, but grabbed on a website (see the watermark). Several people think that the screenshots are automatically GPL. I disagree with that. My analysis is that the viral part of the GPL licence does not apply to the output of the program. What Commons:Screenshots tells us, in the principle, is that if a program is freely licensed (ex GPL), then their authors may not put restrictions over the content visible in a screenshot (at least, these restrictions would be at least as permissive as the license of the program), therefore is it safe for the creator of the screenshot to license the screenshot under the same license as the program. It does not mean that the output is automatically licensed in the same way, otherwise any gimp-generated image would be GPL, for instance. Therefore, if someone else has made the screenshot, they may have themselves put copyright-related restrictions over it ("all rights reserved" by default). This is why I think a permission from the website is needed in the case of these two pictures.

Comments are very welcome, especially from software licensing "experts"... --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  KeepI think there is some misunderstanding about software rendered output (in out case screenshots).

First case when someone using freely licensed software, absolutely same as using proprietary software creates original artwork - soft is just a tool to implement persons ideas and newly created work is copyrighted by person due to its iniquity. In this case author is free to put any license on his work no matter what tools where used in process of creation.

Secondary case is the visual output of software itself. Lets say for example Gimp, I think everyone agrees that of program itself isn't a unique artwork of person who pressed start button, it's is programicaly generated boxes and menus based on GPL licensed source code. So even if source code is changed to output different program graphical user interface source code and program itself is still licensed under same GPL license.

To the point of discussed video game. When user starts the game (program) he doesn't create unique artwork, it is same boxes and menus just in shape of clouds and airplanes rendered by freely licensed source code from freely licensed graphic elements. Putting watermarks on any of these screenshot doesn't make person who screen captured the game a copyright holder (same as we use PG-old and don't acknowledge clams of some museums copyrights just because they do scan work). --Justass (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your last paragraph. The screenshot is not simply the mechanical output of the program, it results of a choice from the person taking it (framing, maybe maneuvering of the aircraft, point of view, etc). It is similar to the photographic rendering of a 3D work of art, not to the mechanical photographic reproduction of a 2D document, and I think copyright can be claimed on it. It is more or less the point of view of Prosfilaes right below. --Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But from this logic it turns out that person who create any screenshot of any video game is copyright holder of image despite game creators legal claims and license terms appointed to game.I still think that a person who press PrintScreen button do zero original creativity, in technical terms screenshot is COM:DW of program output and it should be licensed under same license as program itself. --Justass (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the screenshot maker may (according to my reasoning, depending on an undefined creativity threshold) claim copyright over the screenshot. The point is that the creators of the videogame hold copyright over it too (as creators of the content of which the screenshot is a DW), which makes the screenshot non-free by default. It is only when the creators of the program release the game under a free licence that the screenshot taker can agree to the release on Commons. This is the whole point of Commons:Screenshots, I think. --Eusebius (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete If I were to go to an airport and take a photograph of the KLM on the tarmac, then I would have copyright, despite the fact that I didn't create the framework of the plane or the clouds, nor did I arrange where the plane was. In this case, they did place the plane where it is, which is a step more creative control then in real life. All the same creative choices are made in the game as would be in a real life photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete It's clear that if the depicted software and its artwork were public domain, the work would be copyrighted. The central question here is whether the GPL compels the screenshotter to release it under the same license. I believe the answer is: this requires a complex legal analysis and we should not depend upon it being the case, particularly when the screenshot is easy to replace with one constructed by a Wikipedian. I would only make an exception for a screenshot of a program running on a "default" system in its "default" configuration, which has no creative contribution from the screenshotter. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I don't care about the licensing issues, it's the hideous watermark. You could make your own screenshots, or download non watermarked screenshots from their wiki[1] and if you'll note at the bottom of every page it says the content of the wiki is GPL. -Nard the Bard 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In this case I think. For drawings made in something like the Gimp, it would be completely different, as the creative content would not have anything to do with the Gimp software itself. However, here, the 3D models, some emblems on the skin, the scenery, etc. are all GPL'ed items. The person making the screenshot would probably have a derivative work since they do have a lot of control over the arrangement and "camera" angle, but unless they were the author of the plane models as well (which is possible but unlikely -- those could have a separate copyright and be distributed separately), I think it is still at best a derivative work and GPL is the only license permissible. Taking a photograph of real airplane has no correlation here; we routinely consider *models* of airplanes as copyrightable (and have deleted photos of models that the photographer assembled because we deem that a derivative work). Since I think it is a derivative work, the only way it could be distributed is with a GPL license. They can be used under fair use of course, but once distributed, then yes they are "compelled" to use GPL, since they have no other authority to publicly distribute a derivative work. However, they *should* be credited as the author, which I don't see on those -- the watermarks can be removed, so they should not be counted on. One complication may be if the planes or scenery models were made by third parties; those would not necessarily have to be GPL. I am presuming though that the "official" screenshots only use items provided with the main game. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • You can make and distribute derivative works with a fair use claim, and the essence of such a claim is that you don't have to obey the terms the copyright holder of the original would have you follow. Secondly, if these are the official screenshots, the GPL doesn't bind the copyright holder; do they have rights necessary to produce these works under non-GPL terms? Thirdly, if I make a derivative work of a GPL work, nothing compels me to release my work under the GPL; I will merely be in violation of the license, a state the author, and only the author, has a legal right to object to, and I believe that a court would be highly hesitant to compel me to force me to license my copyright in a free way, preferring monetary damages and cessation of infringing publication and distribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good points. One thing though; Flightgear appears to be a collaborative project where copyright is not assigned to a central authority -- which means that there is no one "owner" which can license things as they choose. So any derivative work would have to be GPL, I think. The fair use claim would be kinda interesting. But pretty odd for a fully GPL project (their wiki site has everything licensed as GPL, according to the page footer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also good points. I think what it really comes down to for me is that we have images with a large copyright watermark from a webpage with no clear free license listed, and we have a wiki right there that states the GPL, and has plenty of pictures without watermarks; and if that wasn't good enough, we can make our own easily enough. The closing administrator can understand that it's not a burn with fire delete, but I still think we'd be better off deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, they are GPL, as the program, but have a hideous watermark. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]