[steering-discuss] screen-shots Documentation Team

Hi Tom, *,

@Tom: thank you very much for your kind words and your moral support
and practical help regarding Alfresco. However, usage of Alfresco is
really a bit off-topic for bringing to the attention of the SC.
Alfresco usage/non-usage is more a question of natural, Darwinian
survival/non-survival, and the SC would probably not want to get
involved in that :smiley:

@Tom, *: However, the question of acceptability of Windows screenshots
in LibreOffice documentation and web pages has more relevance.

As Tom explains, the issue has been discussed a number of times, with
various people perceiving a risk in the usage of screenshots of our
product taken on a Windows OS, and with various other people
dismissing any such risk as implausible.

My own 2 cents on the matter would be this:

"I've carefully read the pages put forward as pointing-up the problem
with taking screenshots under Windows, and I must admit that I don't
interpret them in a way that poses any risk to LibreOffice.

In the cited pages, IMHO, Microsoft is legitimately protecting itself
against screenshots of its own products' splashscreens, dialog boxes
and windows being hijacked to publicize other products. It is not
trying to limit use of the Windows platform by third-party products,
nor documentation of those products. It actually spends a lot of time
and effort promoting Windows as a development platform for third-party
products. And the Internet is *full* of screenshots of Open Source and
closed source products taken on Windows.

What's more, if it *did* take action against an OS project for simply
taking screenshots of the aforesaid OS product on the Windows
platform, it would probably score a considerable "own goal" of
negative publicity in public relations terms. So I think that
Microsoft would be very unlikely to do so.

And, even if it *did* do so, in what court/jurisdiction could it make
such action stick? Under US federal law? In certain US states? I'm not
convinced they'd succeed. In European courts? I'm even less convinced
they'd succeed. And if they *did* succeed, what could they possibly
win other than a cease-and-desist order? I really cannot imagine them
winning damages as such. And, in either case, it would truly be a
Pyrrhic victory in terms of image damage.

So, IMHO, it's rather implausible.

This is a subject that has been discussed a number of times over the
past months. I think I'll ask for it to be discussed at a forthcoming
SC confcall.

It would be very convenient for docs team contributors to be able to
take screenshots under Windows, as well as on Mac and Linux. Plus it
would contribute to making it clear to users that LibreOffice is a
truly multi-platform package, and not a niche product that seems to
mainly target Linux. (I say this as a daily Ubuntu user and total
Linux lover.)"

Please may I request this subject be discussed at the next SC meeting?
(Or at your earliest possible convenience?) If you accept the subject
for the agenda, I will be there to listen in and, if invited, debate
the angles.

Hi :slight_smile:

In the MS vs TomTom case significant 'damages' were awarded to MS because TomTom
were using a file-system that could be read by Windows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v.TomTom%282008,_USA%29
TomTom 'should' have been paying MS for the privilege of selling a product that
worked on MS systems.

The issue about Alfresco is a side-issue. It's about trying to disrupt
work-flow and doing so 'behind the back' of the established team-leader. While
David & Jean have spent months setting up good work-flow with lots of discussion
in the team Gary just suddenly decided to throw that out and tell new people to
use his personal inadequate systems. The team seems to be re-asserting itself
now at last.

The legal issue about screen-shots is more important. Should we risk using
stuff that some people that have legal experience or knowledge tell us is risky
or should we stick to using safer screen-shots that look almost identical
anyway? I realise that "almost" is the key-word there but since everyone uses
different themes and skins it's impossible to make it all identical for
everyone.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

David,

How much clearer can this page be :

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Permissions/Default.aspx

"You may only copy, modify, distribute, display, license, or sell the
content if you are granted explicit permission within the End-User
License Agreement (EULA) or License Terms that accompany the content or
are provided in the following guidelines. __For more information,
consult your copyright attorney.__"

"Fonts
Use the free Font properties extension to determine who owns a font that
Microsoft distributes. A number of Microsoft fonts may be licensed from
Ascender Corporation. These include Verdana, Georgia, Comic Sans MS,
Microsoft Sans Serif, Nina, Tahoma, Wingdings, Webdings, and Trebuchet
MS. For more information regarding fonts, and for links to font vendors,
visit the Microsoft Typography Web site."

"Microsoft Icons
Microsoft product icons are the thumbnail-sized images indicating that a
Microsoft product has been installed on your operating system. Icons may
not be used in advertising, in books and other printed matter, on
clothing or other promotional items, in online and Internet locations,
in software applications, in television programs, in commercials, in
movies, or on videotape.

You may use Microsoft product icons in training manuals or documentation
about a Microsoft product. The use of the icon must be specific to the
function of the icon within the Microsoft software. The icon may not be
used as a graphical or design element. Icons cannot be modified or
altered and must appear as they would within the Microsoft software.

Microsoft makes certain icons available to developers. (Find more
information about how to buy Microsoft developer products.) If you have
licensed a Microsoft development tool, review the redistributable
section of the EULA to learn which Microsoft properties may be
redistributed by licensees."

"Screen Shots
You may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens,
opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products
or other products that have not been commercially released. You may use
other screen shots in advertising, in documentation (including
educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web
sites, provided that, in addition to the requirements above, you:

    Do not alter the screen shot except to resize it.

    Do not use portions of screen shots.

    Do not include screen shots in your product user interface.

    Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content.

    Do not use screen shots that contain an image of an identifiable
individual."

This paragraph is dependent on the preceding limitations of use and
authorisations, or a form of exception if you prefer. As an exception to
the general rule, it is always construed narrowly, and indeed this
paragraph specifically mentions "__in addition__ to the requirements above".

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. Fortunately, I represent none of the parties here,
neither TDF, Microsoft, Apple or any of the Linux distribs so I would
like to believe I am fairly independent. For me, Microsoft have pretty
much summed it up in their last sentence of the first paragraph I posted
: "For more information, consult your copyright attorney."

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.

Alex

David,

How much clearer can this page be :

<snip>

It is very clear indeed that it is protecting /Microsoft products and property/. I see nothing there indicating that images of a LibreOffice window or dialog cannot be used, and in fact I see clear indications that even shots of a whole screen displaying only LibreOffice and the Windows desktop are acceptable.

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.

I profoundly disagree with this excessive over-caution.

S.

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. They can't even be
cropped to show off particular areas. Icons can't be shown (?) (without
altering the screen-shot??) and we have to get permission to use any of the
standard MS fonts.

So, the documentation's screen-shots in Windows can only be as unhelpful as the
screen that made the user want to dig into documentation because they couldn't
find what they were looking for. Screen-shots in Ubuntu (or Mageia or whatever)
can have a tight focus showing a tiny area much "larger than life" and include
arrows or circles/ovals so that people can really spot the useful part of the
screen.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

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.

They can't even be
cropped to show off particular areas. Icons can't be shown

/Microsoft/ icons

(?) (without
altering the screen-shot??) and we have to get permission to use any of the
standard MS fonts.

I believe that is an excessively cautious interpretation.

So, the documentation's screen-shots in Windows can only be as unhelpful as the
screen that made the user want to dig into documentation because they couldn't
find what they were looking for.

The restriction on cropping applies to screenshots of /Microsoft/ products, and even then is most likely waived by the documentation exception.

Microsoft are protecting their own products from abuse here, not telling developers on their platform that they may not document their own products. I hate their EULA as much as the next guy but really, the caution on display here is excessive.

S.

Hi,

I won't repeat what I said in my previous post but, basically, my
interpretation would be exactly the same as Simon's.

I see the pages Alex cited as simply protecting Microsoft's own
products - such as Office, etc. - in a perfectly legitimate manner. I
don't see them as preventing the LibreOffice project from taking
screenshots of its own software for the purposes of documentation and
website content.

Alex, Tom, *, would you happen have any other content to put forward
to support your POV, please? Thank you for your time and trouble if
so.

I think this is a good opportunity to put this issue to rest, one way
or another, once and for all, by asking the SC to adopt a position.
:slight_smile:

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