Board Thread:New Features/@comment-13918697-20140924084804/@comment-452-20140930013426

One interesting situation I've encountered at least twice is noticing a videogame screenshot taken specifically for the wiki being re-used on the official video game website.

That's definitely one case of "accept it as flattery", although when I notice it, I joke about it not being credited.

Some extra moral issues for everyone to think about:

Personally, I don't see any tangible originality of a screenshot of a tv show or movie. Every single frame of it is identical every time, so anyone can reproduce it. If I take a screenshot at 4m52s, and you take a screenshot at 4m52s, then the screenshots will be identical. Selecting a time to take the screenshot could be seen as "composition", however.


 * If you take a photo of the Mona Lisa, and I take a photo of the Mona Lisa, how original are our photos? (Does "Composition" factor into it?)
 * When someone uses a camera, the photo is almost always copyrighted to the photographer, unless they sign their rights away. What if the subject is owned by someone else?  Like a bottle of Coke?  The shape, colour, name and logo are also owned.  (Does "Composition" factor into it?  Did Andy Warhol have trouble with this?)


 * If you create a collage from multiple film screenshots, the source isn't original, but the arrangement is: does that matter? (I researched this once, long ago, when I first discovered that crediting screenshots wasn't required, but I forget what I found.)


 * I think that screenshots of videogame gameplay have some degree of originality. While the models and textures aren't original, it would be fairly difficult to reproduce an identical composition in many modern games.  (Depending on the game.  Not talking about Mario Bros, or other games which are "the same every time".)  Often, when taking video game screenshots, lighting must be considered, as well as backdrop, angle, NPCs walking around, as well as selecting the subject itself.  Many of those things are compositional issues professional photographers must consider.


 * What happens if you use a camera to take a photo of your computer screen?

In all of these cases, Wikia Staff will err on the side of the subject, and if it is something copyrighted, you cannot claim you created it. Which is reasonable, from Wikia's standpoint, considering how much debate there is about it.

But to be fair to all involved, I would expect a photo of the Mona Lisa to be credited as: Original work by Da Vinci, photo by Joe PhotoMan.

(Note: I've been to the Louvre: you're not allowed to take photos of it. Plus it's smaller than you think it is, and you can't get anywhere near as close as you'd like, and there are people standing in the way.)