File talk:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png

This file was nominated at Wikipedia:Files for discussion on 2017 June 1. The result of the discussion was No consensus; defer to WMF Legal.

Computing File‑class

	This file is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
File	This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled section by 49.193.32.246[edit]

I don't think a "use rationale" would apply to such a screenshot as nobody is identifiable as the rightful owner of it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.193.32.246 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the non-free use rationale because it passes the threshold of originality, though there are a couple of discussions going on about this, one and two. @Itu and Jo-Jo Eumerus: You may be interested in this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crop the GUI and that should make it under the same license of which is free. Not like the author is going to come forward.--Barbwrecker (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I take the points above, but doesn't the use of a licensing template that starts "This is a screenshot of copyrighted computer software" make WP look a tad daft. There is no evidence of copyrighting on the screenshot, and as a valid copyright statement has to include an authors name it seems very unlikely that it is copyrighted. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things are copyrightable without requiring such information. However, since this is was created as part of the commission of a crime, would it even be copyrightable in this instance? BFeely (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit of a stretch to say a computer program that is designed to aggressively copy itself onto a third-party computer system without the recipient's knowledge or consent, could be protected by copyright. Otherwise wouldn't that mean people whose computers get infected by the virus are committing copyright infringement by possessing unauthorised copies...seems like the kind of bizarre result no court would uphold, regardless of jurisdiction. Meodipt (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus; defer to WMF Legal[edit]

Hello

I see that the deletion discussion is ended with the "no consensus; defer to WMF Legal" verdict. Alright. What does that entail, exactly? Is any of us supposed to contact WMF Legal (and how?) or are they contacted already?

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question is a legal one ("Can you claim copyright on parts of malware?") and I think that the WMF legal department does sometimes provide guidance on such questions. So you should ask them; perhaps User talk:Mdennis (WMF) is the place to start. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Maggie Dennis, and her alter ego Moonriddengirl, have been away from Wikipedia for a very long time. I dropped her an email. Let's see what happens. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]