Hi, On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 04:43 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 4:02 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Le 08/07/11 09:45, Gary Schnabl a écrit : > > > > Hi Gary, > > > >> My common-sense take on this (non)issue is that Microsoft would actually > >> not object to any such public exposure of their GUI than in suppressing > >> it, as it provides free advertising for the (now-obsolete) product. > >> Ditto for Apple. > > Common sense is often not the reflection of the law. Is the DMCA a piece > > of common sense legislation ? Is the EU Copyright Directive a piece of > > common sense legislation ? Some might say yes, many others, including > > myself (as an IP lawyer), no, given the extent to which the powers > > extended to IP rights holders may be wielded. Debate is irrelevant in > > the end, the rights in the "work" exist - either they are respected or > > they aren't, but IMHO that is for the SC to decide and not for the > > documentation subproject. > > > > > > Alex > > And there are some paranoid types today who think that legal (or > governmental...) permission is needed in order for anybody to "take a dump." > > Attorneys always can be expected to do those things that further their > own business interests, BTW, some of the worst (legal) advice or laws > purposely are created by attorneys--who either do or else should know > better). > > I have been fairly inactive the past year in my efforts as a technical > editor since my first OOo involvement in OOo documents (primarily as the > editor of the the Writer Guide for a while or template development > during the really lean-personnel days of OOoAuthors) beginning back > during 2006 for me. So, I have not been "reading the mail" in this and > other lists until fairly recently concerning OOo/LO document matters. > However, I thought from my occasional reading of posts in this list over > the past year that Jean Weber initially considered the changeover from > Winfows XP silver screenshots in the OOo documents (used by LO as the > major basis for newer LO docs) as being somewhat unnecessary. > > My point being: I, for one, will not worry myself or fret over any use > of indirectly proprietary screenshots ever appearing in my own > documents. That puts me firmly in the vast majority of writers or > editors in this regard. However, if any group or organization wants to > avoid doing that--for whatever reason, even foolish ones--that is OK > with me, too. > > Gary > > -- > > Gary Schnabl > Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... > > Technical Editor forum <http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/> > > The relevant legal issue is the that the copyright is valid and will be valid for many more years on Windows design elements. Under US copyright law the minimum length of a valid copyright is something like 70 years, so the XP copyrights will be valid for about another 60 years or so. The are two safe ways to avoid being sued: get permission from the copyright owner or do not infringe at all. The permission should be in writing, signed by authorized owner representative. To my knowledge the TDF does not have permission from Microsoft for use in of MS elements in a screenshot. The only way the copyright can expire before its statuary term is for the owner to put the work (as it is called) into the public domain. Alternatively they can issue the work under a creative commons or "copyleft" type grant allowing users to use the work freely with possible stipulations about attribution. To my knowledge MS has not done either for the Windows design elements. To gave an example, as an amateur photographer I own the copyright to all my photos from the moment of creation under US copyright law. Unless I grant you permission to use any of my photos I have the legal right to sue for damages and will probably win. I can give different people/groups different permissions for the some the work. If something is a trademark, the trademark holder must show that they will defend their trademark. Translation, they must sue trademark infringers aggressively or risk losing the trademark and any related brand value from it. This is different from copyright where the owner is not obligated to aggressively protect the copyright from infringement. I do not know what is specifically a trademark on the Windows GUI nor do I want find out by being sued. Coca-Cola is very aggressive about protecting their trademark "Coke" from infringement. If you call a cola you server in your cafe Coke, it had better be Coke and not Pepsi or some other cola. Coca-Cola is known to sue over this. The fact that others may use something without getting permission does not mean that we should also. It is not a valid defense in court. I suspect that most publishers know enough to get the appropriate permissions prior to publishing and releasing a work. It is possible they could a blanket agreement allowing certain uses for any work published during the agreement term. -- Jay Lozier [email protected] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
