Commons:原創性門檻

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:TO· COM:TOO

This project page in other languages:
The logo of Boeing is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. However, this logo is still protected by trademark laws.

The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work, or a portion of it, can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection).

For further information, see Threshold of originality on Wikipedia

Official decisions[edit]

Deutsch: Bilder, bei denen durch einen Gerichtsbeschluss oder eine vergleichbare Instanz festgestellt worden ist, dass sie wegen einer zu niedrigen Gestaltungshöhe keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz genießen. Siehe Schöpfungshöhe.
English: Images judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. The last section contains selected images that may or may not be eligible for copyright protection.
Español: Imágenes juzgadas no elegibles para la protección de los derechos de autor por un tribunal u otra autoridad similar. La última sección contiene las imágenes seleccionadas que pueden o no pueden ser elegibles para la protección de los derechos de autor.
Français : Images qui, conformément à une décision prononcée par un tribunal ou autre autorité similaire, ne peuvent pas bénéficier d'une protection par le droit d'auteur. La dernière section contient une sélection d'images qui pourraient (ou non) bénéficier d'une protection par le droit d'auteur.
Italiano: Immagini giudicate come non soggette a diritto d'autore da un tribunale o da un'autorità analoga. La sezione in fondo contiene una selezione di immagini che possono o non possono essere considerate sottoposte a diritto d'autore.
System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Image casebook.

美國[edit]

These images are ✓OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.

  • Bridgeman v Corel: court ruling that 2D reproductions of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)

  • NFL abandoned its copyright claims on the fleur-de-lis (news report)

  • Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these are eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)

  • DUB Magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these are eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)

  • Nikken USA Inc. (authority)

  • Bruce Lee core symbol (authority)

  • New York Arrows logo (case report)

  • Car Credit City logo: Copyright office ruled this logo too simple to be protected, but a slightly more complicated version (shown in the linked letter) was accepted for registration (authority)

  • Symbols for "Myst" (authority)

  • Letter S (authority)

  • Registration was cancelled (authority)

  • Registration refused (authority)

  • Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: Photo is eligible for copyright protection, but not the bottle

  • A plastic version lacked originality (L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)

  • Koosh balls; "inseparable", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)

  • Map of Arkansas: Addition of shading, colors, labels to a free black and white outline map (case report)

  • Avenue of the Saints logo; registration refused despite compilation copyright claim for arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements (authority)

  • Geek Squad logo (authority)

  • Subway logo (authority)

  • Discover It logo: the Copyright Office found that the elements, including the shading effect, were insufficiently creative to be copyright-eligible (authority)

These are X mark.svg Not OK to upload to Commons (unless published under a free license by the copyright holder), because they are above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.

Civil law countries[edit]

Civil law countries require a relatively high minimum level of intellectual creativity which will exclude typical signatures and simple logos from copyright protection.

If you are aware of specific caselaw or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add an entry below.

奧地利[edit]

These logos are X mark.svg Not OK:

智利[edit]

The phrase "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33", a message from the Copiapó miners (penned by Jose Ojeda), was copyrighted (source).

中國[edit]

This image is X mark.svg Not OK:

哥倫比亞[edit]

Is ✓OK:

  • To be protected as an industrial design must be apparent to the eye. Para ser protegido como diseño industrial debe ser perceptible a la vista [5].
  • Names of newspapers, magazines, radio and television and other media does not give rise to copyright.Los nombres de periódicos, revistas, programas de radio y televisión y de los demás medios de comunicación no dan lugar a derechos de autor
  • The publication is free portrait as it relates to scientific, educational or cultural in general or with facts or events of public interest or have been occurred in public. La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público.
  • Tender is the reproduction, by any means, of a literary or scientific, ordered or obtained by the applicant in a single copy for private use and non-profit work.Es licita la reproducción, por cualquier medio, de una obra literaria o científica, ordenada u obtenida por el interesado en un solo ejemplar para su uso privado y sin fines de lucro.
  • It will be reproduced by means of painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public roads, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies or works.Será permitido reproducir por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías o películas cinematográficas, las obras que estén colocadas de modo permanente en vías públicas, calles o plazas y distribuir y comunicar públicamente dichas reproducciones u obras[6].

丹麥[edit]

不受保護[edit]

  • Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.

  • Sketches of windows and doors not eligible for copyright protection (The Maritime and Commercial Court 8 August 2003 (V-74-01) and 3 February 2004 (V 98/01)).

受保護[edit]

A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp) (Supreme Court 306/2009)

Finland[edit]

  • Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)

  • Differences compared to the CoA of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality (TN 1998:5)

  • Technical drawing from a textbook does not demonstrate creative personal decisions to such a degree, that no one else would arrive at the same end result, when setting out to draw the same subject. (TN 2011:12)

France[edit]

Unlike the "creativity" doctrine in the US and Germany, or the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in the UK, French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author."[3] In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint"). (Direct link to the work in question)

France has «a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works».[4]

A recent decision from Supreme court on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision sayaing that a quite artistic picture of 2 fishes on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal. You can see the picture from Patrick Box there, and it not protected by French law because of lack of originality ! According to this decision, level of orginality required by this appeal court is very high ! This decision was criticized but French supreme court doesn't control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

These are X mark.svg Not OK:

Germany[edit]

Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details.

Not protected[edit]

German copyright law: see also[5]

Hungary[edit]

Protected[edit]

Iran[edit]

en:Intellectual property in Iran

logos are ✓OK ? :The essential requirement is that the mark presented for registration should be distinctive.

Japan[edit]

Logos in the gallery below are ✓OK to upload. Article 2 of Japanese copyright law defines that a work is eligible for copyright when it is a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain. [7][8] Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general.

  • (DR) Letters are a means of communication, shared by anyone. Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do. (Tokyo High Court 平成6(ネ)1470) [1]

  • (DR) Although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters. (Tokyo High Court 昭和55(行ケ)30, Supreme Court 昭和55(行ツ)75) [2]

  • The Court is negative towards recognizing the symbol as a copyrightable work of fine arts, because it is considered merely relatively simple graphic elements. (Tokyo District Court 昭39（ヨ）第5594 [3])

Netherlands[edit]

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. If something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgment "'Van Dale/Romme'" (HR 04-01-1991, NJ 1991, 608). In this judgment, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) ruled that:

“ Bij de beoordeling van het middel moet worden vooropgesteld dat, wil een voortbrengsel kunnen worden beschouwd als een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst als bedoeld in art. 1 in verbinding met art. 10 Aw, vereist is dat het een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt. ”

In English:

“ In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker. ”

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgment ''Endstra-tapes' (NJ 2008, 556):

“ [D]at het voortbrengsel een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter moet bezitten, houdt, kort gezegd, in dat de vorm niet ontleend mag zijn aan die van een ander werk (vgl. art. 13 Aw). De eis dat het voortbrengsel het persoonlijk stempel van de maker moet dragen betekent dat sprake moet zijn van een vorm die het resultaat is van scheppende menselijke arbeid en dus van creatieve keuzes, en die aldus voortbrengsel is van de menselijke geest. Daarbuiten valt in elk geval al hetgeen een vorm heeft die zo banaal of triviaal is, dat daarachter geen creatieve arbeid van welke aard ook valt te aan te wijzen. ”

In English:

“ The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, the work may not be a based on another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand is that the product contains creative elements of the maker. This means that the product must be the result of human labor where creative choices are made which are products of the human mind. Excluded from this are products with trivial or banal forms that it contains no creative elements ”

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgment 'Stokke/Fikszo' that:

“ Om voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming in aanmerking te komen, is vereist dat het desbetreffende werk een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt (vgl. HR 30 mei 2008, LJN BC2153, NJ 2008/556 (E)). Het HvJEU heeft de maatstaf aldus geformuleerd dat het moet gaan om "een eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur van het werk" (HvJEU 16 juli 2009, nr. C-5/08, LJN BJ3749, NJ 2011/288 (Infopaq I)). ”

In English:

“ For a work to be eligible for copyright it is necessary that the work has an own original character and shows creative elements brought on by the maker (vgl. HR 30 mei 2008, LJN BC2153, NJ 2008/556 (E)). The Court of Justice of the European Union has defined that the work must be: "A own, intellectual creation of the author of the work". CJEU 16 July 2009, nr. C-5/08, LJN BJ3749, NJ 2011/288 (Infopaq I)). ”

¨

Norway[edit]

Not protected[edit]

Two-minute theatre play

Protected[edit]

A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp) (Norges høyesterett)

Peru[edit]

The general definition of a "work" in Art. 2.17 of the 1996 law is work: any personal and original intellectual creation.[6]

Simple photographs have a copyright term of 70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the taking of the photograph (Art. 144).[6] Simple photographs are those which fail to meet the general definition of a "work".

Sweden[edit]

Not protected[edit]

  • Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court [4]

Protected[edit]

Switzerland[edit]

Common law countries[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#Common law countries and #Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc..

Most Common law countries use a "skill and labour" test to determine the minimum level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection, and in some countries such as the UK the required level is extremely low. Without some research into individual laws, it cannot be assumed that a text logo from a Common law country is necessarily allowed on Commons. If there is real doubt about the position a local court would take, then the image must be deleted under the precautionary principle.

If the logo is extremely simple (e.g. in a standard font), it will not be eligible for copyright even in Common law countries.

If you are aware of specific caselaw or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add an entry below.

Australia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in Australia is very low.

These images are eligible for copyright protection:

Canada[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: en:Originality in Canadian copyright law.

✓OK for most logos.

Unlike other common law countries, Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for being too low of a standard, but at the same time, stated that the creativity standards for originality were too high:

A creativity standard implies that something must be novel or non-obvious — concepts more properly associated with patent law than copyright law. And for these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise."

Israel[edit]

Although Israel historically used a "skill and labour" test similar to that used by the UK, since the 1989 Israeli Supreme Court's ruling in Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA they have tended fairly close to a US-style requirement equating originality with human creativity (see [12] for a 2007 paper on this shift; or see [13], which notes that "In Israel, the Supreme Court in the Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA decision adopted the Feist ruling with regards to both the interpretation of the originality requirement and the general rejection of the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine and the labour theory as a legitimate interest for establishing a copyright claim.").

New Zealand[edit]

The threshold test for originality is not high (New Zealand Govt)

"As the Court of Appeal has stated, the “threshold test for originality is not high”, the determining factor being “whether sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgment has been expended in producing the work”. 67 The Court has also reiterated the axiom, or principle, that copyright is not concerned with the originality of ideas but with the form of their expression.

A work is not original, however, if:

  • a it is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of another work; or
  • b it infringes the copyright in, or to the extent that it infringes the copyright in, another work."

United Kingdom[edit]

✓OK Lego bricks (see w:Interlego v Tyco Industries)

X mark.svg Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low.

These images are eligible for copyright protection:

Commons decisions[edit]

See Category:Threshold of originality related deletion requests

Logos and flags[edit]

Architecture[edit]

Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis:

  • Larouvieremarseille.jpg
  • CSG Ariane 4 Launch Site.JPG
  • CSG - BIF.JPG
  • Paris-Parc-des-Princes.jpg
  • Gare du Stade-de-France-St-Denis CRW 0777.jpg
  • Ronchamp Notre dame du Haut 1954.jpg
  • Stade-Gerland-RWC2007.JPG

Note that some of these decisions were controversial.

Photographs[edit]

Photographs which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:

  • (DR) Photograph of a three-dimensional object (drawer pull) with bevels and cast shadows

Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works[edit]

When a file copies only part of a copyrighted work, that file's copyright status is determined only by what it has copied. If it only copied uncopyrightable elements, then the file is also uncopyrightable. In other words, we judge the copyright status of a file only by what the file itself contains, not by the status of other content the original source contained that was not copied by the file.

  • This image of the front cover of a novel is public domain in the USA because it only copies uncopyrightable text, not copyrightable contents of the book itself or possibly-copyrightable contents of the back cover. (DR) It would probably not be PD in UK because of the UK's publisher's 25 year copyright on typography.

Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ↑ Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.
  2. ↑ Fishman, Stephen () The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on . ISBN: 1413320287.
  3. ↑ http://m2bde.u-paris10.fr/content/le-concept-d%E2%80%99originalit%C3%A9-dans-la-l%C3%A9gislation-fran%C3%A7aise-du-droit-d%E2%80%99auteur-et-dans-celle-du-co
  4. ↑ Mathilde Pavis (University of Exeter), 2015.
  5. ↑ Schack, Haimo (in german) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, pp. 118
  6. ↑ a b Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996

See also[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:原創性門檻&oldid=332028087"