Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Umbral de originalidad

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality and the translation is 64% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Threshold of originality and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:

Shortcuts: COM:TO • COM:TOO • COM:THRESHOLD

Derechos de autor
El logo de AMTRAK no es considerado un "trabajo de autoría" porque solo consiste en texto en un tipo de letra simple, por lo que no es un objeto de derecho de autor en relación con las leyes de Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, este logo aun está protegido por leyes de marca registrada.
El logo de AMTRAK no es considerado un "trabajo de autoría" porque solo consiste en texto en un tipo de letra simple, por lo que no es un objeto de derecho de autor en relación con las leyes de Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, este logo aun está protegido por leyes de marca registrada.

El umbral de originalidad es un concepto del derecho de autor que se utiliza para evaluar si una determinada obra puede tener propiedad. Se utiliza para distinguir las obras que son lo suficientemente originales como para justificar la protección de los derechos de autor de aquellas que no lo son. En este contexto, la "originalidad" se refiere a "viene de alguien como el creador/autor" (en la medida en que de alguna manera refleja la personalidad del autor), en lugar de "nunca ha ocurrido o existido antes" (que equivaldría a la protección de algo nuevo, como en la protección de patentes).

Por regla general, los derechos de autor se aplican a una obra en su conjunto. Si una obra contiene una parte que es lo suficientemente compleja como para recibir protección de derechos de autor, se considera que toda la obra tiene derechos de autor. No se puede subir dicho trabajo a Commons aplicando de minimis a la parte no trivial.

El resto de esta página analiza imágenes que un tribunal o una autoridad similar consideran no elegibles para la protección de derechos de autor. Por lo general, es imposible determinar si una imagen específica está dentro del umbral de originalidad sin una decisión judicial. Sin embargo, según el principio de precaución, si existe una duda significativa de que la imagen no está protegida por derechos de autor la imagen debe ser eliminada.

Para más información, véase Umbral de originalidad en Wikipedia.

Una infografía descriptiva que muestra cómo el "Umbral de originalidad" varía según la región.

Mapa

[This illustration is not explained enough. You may edit the page to make it clearer.]
 


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

Estados Unidos

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

  •  
    Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs 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 is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  •  
    DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is 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)
  •  
    (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)
  •  
    Cyberpunk 2077 logo (authority)
  •  
    Los Angeles FC logo (authority)
  •  
    Nikon logo (authority)
  •  
    San Francisco Shock logo (authority)
  •  
    Commvault Systems hexagon logo (authority)
  •  
    American Made Logo (authority)
  •  
    Jamba Juice logo (authority)

Despite repeated requests, the US Copyright Office found the Vodafone speechmark (shaded version) ineligible for copyright protection. It cannot, however, be uploaded to Commons because it's a UK logo.

These are   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.

  • These two "no soliciting" signs, although arguably relatively simple, have been issued copyright registration numbers by the United States Copyright Office, which means that they have been reviewed and determined to be eligible for copyright protection. It should be noted that the copyright registration applies to the images as a whole, including their borders.
  • A variant of File:CarCreditCity.png with an extra border.
  • American Airlines flight symbol VA0002130520; Copyright Office initially refused copyright as being just below the threshold, but upon a higher-resolution submission of the artwork, decided that the shading plus the arrangement pushed the logo just above the threshold and granted a registration. (DR)
Paintings

  Not OK for most paintings.

Even seemingly simple paintings consisting of geometric shapes are often copyrighted due to details that may not be immediately obvious to the viewer.

  • Photographic reproductions of paintings by Mark Rothko have been granted registration by the US Copyright Office, so it is reasonable to assume that the original works are also copyrighted.
Other

Although the threshold of originality for non-graphic works (such as architecture and sound recordings) follow the same standards, such cases can be difficult to determine.

  • The five-note melody that typically accompanies Intel's logo was granted copyright protection because it "combined and blended synthesized, digital sounds" and was "refined and mastered with a special spatial enhancer." [3]
  • Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate is a relatively simple 3D sculpture that was deemed eligible for copyright (VA0001983425)
  • The replica of public domain object Statue of Liberty in New York-New York Hotel and Casino is deemed eligible for copyright, also the United States Postal Service is being sued for copyright infringement for famously (and mistakenly) using this statue instead of the real Statue of Liberty on its Forever stamps. (VAu001149387 and VA0001882070) also see (DR1) (DR2)

Países de ley civil

Los países con ley civil requieren un nivel mínimo de creatividad intelectual relativamente alto, el cual excluirá de la protección de derechos de autor a las firmas típicas y los logotipos sencillos. Sin embargo, esto no se aplica a todos esos países. Por ejemplo, se sabe que Austria y China tienen un umbral de originalidad relativamente bajo, mientras que algunos logotipos simples de Filipinas obtuvieron protección de derechos de autor de la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual de ese país.

Si conoce un caso específico o asesoramiento legal sobre este tema en cualquier país, agregue una sección de "Umbral de originalidad" a la subpágina correspondiente Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por territorio del país, y agregue una enlace a él con una entrada a continuación.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Afghanistan

Afganistán

According to the 2008 Copyright Law, work that may be protected includes: Photography work that has been created using an innovative mode; Innovative work of handicraft or industrial art (carpet designs, rugs, felt carpet and its attachments etc.); Innovative work which has been created based on the public culture (folklore) or national cultural heritage and art.[2008 Article 6(1) items 7-9]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Austria

Austria

Austria has a low threshold of originality despite being a civil law country. See the archived discussion on the German Wikipedia.

These logos are    :

  • Bauer Logo.
[4][5]
  • Zimmermann Fitness logo.[6][7]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil

Brasil

There are some court cases related to threshold of originality in Brazil. According to one study, and the court decisions contained in it, the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States, and consequently the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States, which is the general reference in Commons.

[8]

Examples:

  •    . In the case of Boneco de Preço Miúdo (2011), puppets that were a tridimensional and humanized version of a logo were deemed by the court to lack enough originality to be protected. The court considered that there was no originality or unpublished work in the puppets because they represented an already existing symbol (the supermarket's logo), and that there were already previous 3D and humanized versions of that logo. The court did not grant any value nor legal protection to the specific 3D and humanized version of the logo in question, and called it something like a "stylization subordinate to a previous idea".
[9]
  •    . Copyright for compilations/ reorganizations of already existing elements has often been rejected on court, hinting that the threshold for what constitutes an "intellectual creation" in this respect is quite high in Brazil.
[10]
  •    . Slogans are generally acceptable. In rare occasions they may be protected, when there is such a level of creativity as to attain the level of a literary work. For example, in the Guerra das Moedas court case (2013), copyright in the expression was not recognized by the court. The verdict stated that the language is the cultural patrimony of the people, so language expressions can't be protected by law. The Rede Globo vs. Ronaldo Ciambroni case was similar.
[11][12]

Some examples help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:

  •    . The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique". The court ruled: "photographs are not considered artistic creations ... that portray in a manifestly simple way, without use of any differentiated technique, the front of a residential building and a partial view of the city, under a service contract with a real estate business with a predefined advertising purpose"
[13]
  •    . Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."
[14]
  •    . A 2000 ruling stated: "Photographs for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works. ... Neither should purely technical photographs, which reproduce a certain object without the slightest artistic concern, be protected by copyright."
[15]
  •     Another 2000 decision stated: "the photos [...] have an artistic character characterized by the originality, creativity and technique of its author, elements that reveal ... a work of art. They are not, as the appellant claims, mere reproductions of images for advertising purposes, or common snapshots."
[16]

  Puppets who were a tridimensional and humanized version of this logo were deemed in court to lack enough originality to be protected.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Czech Republic

República Checa

The work must be "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author".[121/2000–2006 Art.2(1)] For photographs and computer programs, it suffices if the work "is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation".[121/2000–2006 Art.2(2)]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Chile

Chile

Registration in the Intellectual Property Registry generates a "presumption" of copyright in favor of the registrant. Any work may be registered for "presumed" copyright, but Law No. 17.336 clearly states the "presumed" copyright may be contested. That is because, as established in "Astorga Sánchez José / Inversiones C. S. A.", C-2470-2009, 17.° Juzgado Civil de Santiago (28 October 2011), the Intellectual Property Conservator (Conservador) only makes the deposit of the documents into the registry, does not make an examination of their originality, or to determine whether the deposited documents are works or not, and so certificates of intellectual property generated by the Intellectual Property Registry do not establish that a work is new, original or viceversa. The Conservator of Intellectual Property expressed in 2011 it is up to the judicial system "to carry out an originality test to define whether the creation is indeed a particular manifestation of human ingenuity that can be classified as original compared to other equivalent creations, analyzed from a subjective perspective, that is, that the imprint or trace of the author can be perceived, that allows it to stand out from others". Such pronouncement was adhered to by the 17th civil judge of Santiago.[17]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO China

China

China has a relatively low threshold of originality standard; basic designs may be copyrightable. One of the most noticeable cases is the logo of a company named Gang Heng (listed below) ruled by China's supreme court as copyrighted (see below).

The following examples are    :

  • "Matchstick man" (image) with a black sphere as a head, black lines as torso, limbs and feet is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality (source).
  • Five SKECHERS logos (image) are not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality in 2020 (final judgement and related news coverage).
  • "BIOU" logo (image), with letter "b" and "o", and a small barcode in the upper right corner, is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality in 2018 (final judgement and related articles [3] [4]). Note that the logo was initially ruled as copyrightable by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and a lower court.
  • "KON" logo (see below), with three black bars crossed together, is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court in 2019 (final judgement and news coverage).
  • "Chao Qun" logo (see below), is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled China's Supreme People's Court in 2012 (original judgment by the Court). The court asserted that the expression does not show the existence of a unique style; there are only subtle differences when compared to the common Seal script and Clerical script, the "Chao Qun" logo does not reach a certain creative height, and does not have originality.
  •  
    A stick figure similar to this image, where the head is represented by a circle and other parts represented by straight lines, is not copyrightable.
  •  
    The SKECHERS's S logo is not copyrightable.
  •  
    KON logo with three black bars crossed together is not copyrightable.
  •  
    Chao Qun logo is not copyrightable.

The following examples are   Not OK:

are copyrighted (Copyright Law of the PR China: "Article 2 Works of Chinese citizens, legal entities or other organizations, whether published or not, shall enjoy copyright in accordance with this Law." ; "Article 3 'Works' mentioned in this Law shall include [...] in the following forms: (4) works of fine art and architecture" ; Regulations for the Implementation: "Article 4 (8) 'works of fine arts' means [...] such as paintings, works of calligraphy and sculptures;")
  • Handwriting: a hand-written manuscript was deemed copyrightable as work of art, according to a decision made by Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in 2017 (sources: [5] [6], Final judgement).
  • "LY" company logo (alternative link; archived from the original), although arguably relatively simple, has been ruled copyrightable by Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality.
  • Typefaces of characters "笑", "喜", and "城市宝贝" in these two logos are copyrightable, ruled Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in 2012. However the character "巴" in the same logo was decided not copyrightable for lacking originality in the same decision. (source, court decision full text: Final judgement)
  • Gang Heng logo: China's Supreme People's Court ruled this logo to be protected by copyright in 2014 (original judgment by the Court; related news coverage).
  • Dyneema logo (in this article): China's Supreme People's Court ruled this logo to be protected by copyright in 2017 (original judgment by the Court).
  • K2 Sports logo as shown in the image below is eligible for copyright protection, determined during trademark adjudication proceedings in 2010 (source).
  •  
    The logo of K2 Sports is copyrightable in China (but not copyrightable in its country of origin, the US).
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Denmark

Dinamarca

Status Example Notes
   
 
 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.)[18][19]
   
 
 The WWF panda logo is not protected by copyright[20]
   
 
 The GLOBAL knife design is copyright protected in Denmark.[21]
   
 
 A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp).[22]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Finland

Finlandia

For works of visual art, the threshold of originality is relatively low.[23] Simple logos, however, are generally below the threshold of originality.[24] In particular, the threshold is high when only basic colors and shapes (such as triangles, squares and circles or capital letters) are used.

[25][23]
  OK
 
 Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)
  OK
 
 Differences compared to the coat of arms of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality. (TN 1998:5)
    Commons:Deletion_requests/Aalto_vases "The wave-like forms of the [original Aalto vases] do not... result from the intended use of the object but the creative mental effort of the author. [Therefore the original vases] are independent and original enough to be considered works of art as meant in 1 § of [the Finnish Copyright law]" (p. 4). (TN 2010:10)
  OK A specific house type (Eurohouse S 2, court ruling)
  OK
 
 The logo is below the threshold of originality because it is "ordinary and [does] not express an independent and original result of a creative process of its author. Somebody else in undertaking a comparable task could have contrived a similar ... logo". (TN 2000:1)
    Save the Children Fund logo The logo is above the threshold of originality, because its "visual manifestation is the creative work of its author, whereby the ideological basis of the fund has been successfully conformed with in an independent and original manner... [N]o one else undertaking a comparable task could have reached a similar outcome". (TN 2010:3)
  OK
 

and

 
 The logos are "in their literary and visual manifestation simple and ordinary to the degree that they are not to be regarded as original works in their own regard." (TN 2009:2)
  OK
 
 The logo is "is not original and independent in such a way that it would be protected ... by copyright". (TN 2011:7)
  OK
 
 The logo is below the threshold of originality because "its central elements and the way in which they have been combined are commonly used in logos and are thus ordinary". (TN 2000:1)
    "Silmu" logo Although the logo consists of a "stylized, albeit fairly simple, red tulip", it is above the threshold of originality for works of visual art. (TN 2001:12)


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO France

Francia

French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". 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").

[26]

France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".

[27]

A decision from Supreme court (Cour de Cassation) on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality.[28] According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court does not control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

In 2017, copyright protection on this image of Jimi Hendrix was restored after a court initially denied protection.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Germany

Alemania

Works of fine art (including works of applied art and architectural works)

"Works of fine art", as defined in § 2(1)(4) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), is a catch-all term for works of fine art in a stricter sense, works of applied art, and architectural works. Fine art is distinguished from applied art by its lack of a utilitarian purpose.[29] For many decades, courts imposed a higher threshold of originality on works of applied art than on works of fine art ("two-tier theory").[30] In 2013, however, the Federal Court of Justice expressly changed its jurisprudence, holding that "in general, the copyright protection of works of applied art is not subject to other requirements than the copyright protection of works of non-utilitarian fine art or of literary or musical creation. It is hence sufficient that they attain a level of creativity that allows a public open to art and relatively familiar with views on art to justifiably speak of 'artistic' creations".[31]

In assessing whether an article with a utilitarian purpose is protected by copyright, one must take into account, however, that the aesthetic effect of the article can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not dictated by the article's utilitarian purpose, but instead is based on an artistic effort.[32] Only those features of a utilitarian article that are not entirely dictated by the technical function can justify copyright protection.[33] A feature is considered "dictated by the technical function" if the article could not function without it.[34] This includes features that, for technical reasons, must necessarily be used in articles of the same kind as the article concerned, as well as features that, while being used for technical reasons, are freely selectable or interchangeable. To the extent that the design of such features is entirely dictated by their technical function, they are incapable of justifying copyright protection of the utilitarian article.[35]

Examples from court cases on applied art:[36]

Protection denied:

  • a climbing structure for playgrounds made of ropes (pictured in the decision, p 3 bottom) because the structure consists of freely selectable or interchangeable yet technically required features and does not exhibit artistic creativity;[37]
  • a wooden toy train ("birthday train") with wagons in which candles and numbers can be inserted (pictured in the decision, p 3) because there were similar-looking, pre-existing toy trains.[38]
  • a logo (pictured here in black and white) consisting of the text "Match by Audiotec Fischer" and the commonly used "fast-forward" symbol because neither the design of the text nor the design of the symbol ("widely used in the audio world") nor the combination of the two could be considered an artistic creation.[39]

Protection accorded:

  • a logo consisting of a mouth, eyes, and wave lines ("eyebrows") (pictured in the decision, p 3) (in the case at issue, the design was painted on the exterior of a ship and therefore could be reproduced under the freedom of panorama limitation);[40]
  • a toy train comprised of wooden animal figurines on wheels ("birthday caravan") (pictured in the decision, p 3) because it was a complete redesign of pre-existing toy trains, whose locomotive and waggons were replaced with animals, and the overall design (shapes, colours) was not the result of technical necessities but an expression of the author's artistic creativity;[41]
  • an urn emblazoned with an airbrushed depiction of a deer (pictured in the decision, on the left);[42]
  • a Birkenstock sandal (model "Madrid");[43]

In the past decades, court cases where protection as applied art was eventually accorded primarily revolved around renowned designer objects, in particular items of furniture and lamps.[46] A few more recent examples:

  • chairs and tables based on drafts by the designers Marcel Breuer ("Wassily" chair, "Laccio" table) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe ("Barcelona" chair, stool, couch, and table; "Brno" chair; "Prag" chair);[47]
  • the "Wilhelm Wagenfeld table lamp";[48]
  • a brilliant-cut diamond ring ("Niessing-Spannring").[49]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greece

Grecia

The term “work” is defined as including any original intellectual creation expressed in any form, including alterations of other works as well as collections of works, provided that the selection or the arrangement of such collections is original.[50]

Originality is understood by Greek jurisprudence as a notion of “statistical uniqueness”, which means that the work involves skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work.[51]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary

Hungría

   

  • stylized text with a common stylized globe icon (does not show the actual image).
[52]

   

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Indonesia

Indonesia

Indonesia's threshold of originality is reportedly low, being based on common law ("Anglo-American model") principles, with "wallpaper, wrappers, packaging designs and technical drawings" being registered by copyright authorities.[54]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

Irán

   

for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in Iran seems very low.

The following are registrable for copyright protection: "(...) pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, (...) or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner "

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Italy

Italia

Hogan Lovells states "In summary, the threshold for an industrial design product to enjoy copyright protection is still quite high and even famous industrial design products have been denied such protection by Italian Courts."

[55]

Probably this applies to logos too. These files have been kept as simple logos:

But the logo of AC Parma was deleted as being a complex logo.

[56] Another Parma logo has been deleted but then restored.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan

Japón

Logos in the gallery below are     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.

[57]

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) Tokyo High Court's ruling: letters are a means of communication, shared by all. Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do. [58]
 
(DR) Tokyo High Court's ruling: although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters. [59]
 
Tokyo District Court's ruling: the Court is negative towards recognizing the symbol as a copyrightable work of fine arts, because it is considered merely relatively simple graphic elements. [60]
  • Furby toy: utilitarian, so not protected by copyright as an artistic work. Not utilitarian in the United States, so photos of the toy can't be uploaded to Commons.
[61]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya

Libia

For photographic and cinematic works which are limited to the mere mechanical transmission of scenery, rights expire 5 years from the date of first publication.[9/1968 Article 20]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Luxembourg

Luxemburgo

According to Jean-Luc Putz, the threshold of originality in Luxembourg is not as strict as in UK but not as liberal as in Germany. During the legislation the intent was to orientate with other Benelux states or France.

[62]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Mexico

México

Como se indicó anteriormente, los siguientes son ejemplos de lo que está y no está protegido por la ley de derechos de autor de 1996:
Estas imágenes están   OK para cargar en Commons
  •  
    Letras, dígitos o colores aislados
  •  
    Nombres y títulos o frases aisladas
  •  
    Formatos simples o formularios en blanco para ser llenados con cualquier tipo de información, así como sus instrucciones (imagen de ejemplo)
  •  
    Reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente
  •  
    Reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización oficialmente reconocida
Esto   Not OK para cargar a Commons (a menos que se publiquen bajo una licencia gratuita del titular de los derechos de autor), porque están por encima del umbral de originalidad requerido para la protección de los derechos de autor y no están cubiertos por la ley misma.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Netherlands

Países Bajos

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. Whether something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgment "'Van Dale/Romme'". In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that:[63]

  • 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':[64]

  • The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product has to bear the personal mark of the maker means that there has to be a shape that is the result of creative human labor and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgment on Stokke v. Fikszo that:[65]

  • For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Norway

Noruega

Not protected

Two-minute theatre play.

[66]
Protected
[67]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

Perú

Indecopi estableció parámetros para calificar la originalidad de las composiciones gráficas y fotográficas. Debido al mayor umbral de originalidad (independientemente de su esfuerzo, novedad, inspiración y técnica, el requisito es dejar algún espacio para el desarrollo de la personalidad de su autor, no una copia o imitación, referido como "originalidad subjetiva"),[68] los diseños simples, las creaciones videográficas sin producción y las fotografías antiguas sin demostrar su individualidad pueden ser subidas a Commons. Véase también Comunidad Andina: Umbral de originalidad.

Fotografías simples

Antiguas fotografías simples publicadas antes de 1976 tienen un plazo de copyright de 20 años contados a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente al de la divulgación de la fotografía. A continuación se explican algunos puntos de la expirada ley de 1961:

  • Para las imágenes antiguas tomadas antes del 31 de diciembre de 1975 y que no fueron publicadas dentro de la propia obra de un autor   fallan en cumplir con la definición general de "obra" según la ley de 1961 (y el artículo 4.3 of de la Convención Universal de los Derechos de Autor: "Las disposiciones [...] no se aplican a las obras fotográficas [...] la duración de la protección no podrá ser, para tales obras, inferior a 10 años").[69] No se renovaron durante la fecha de la URAA. [13714/1961 Art. 27 y 57] Utilice {{PD-Peru-photo}}.
  • La duración se reduce si produce lo siguiente: cuando el autor no colocó el nombre del rótulo con el mensaje "Prohibida su reproducción" o que el autor publicó en una obra sin nombre completo o con un seudónimo desconocido.[13714/1961 Art. 58] La duración de las obras anónimas anteriores al 31 de diciembre de 1980 era de 15 años después de su publicación y expiró el 1º de enero de 1996. No se renovaron durante la fecha de la URAA. Utilice {{PD-Peru-anonymous}}.
  • Si fueron usadas en obras literarias, científicas o documentarias, o son reproducciones de material artístico "de dominio privado", y el autor murió antes de 1946 (de antes de 1966 si alguien no tenía herederos familiares), la ley considera las fotografías como   la obra del autor (vida + 30/50 años).[69] En el caso de obras colaborativas, la fecha se considera como el último autor sobreviviente. Si murieron después de 1947, están protegidas por la ley actual. Utilice {{PD-Peru-1961law}}.

Las fotografías publicadas recientemente con un bajo umbral tienen un plazo de derechos de autor de 70 años contados a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente de la toma de la fotografía. Afortunadamente, este plazo suele ser flexible en los casos y hechos que se muestran a continuación:

  • La definición general de un "trabajo" en la ley de 1996 es "toda creación intelectual personal y original que pueda ser divulgada o reproducida en cualquier forma que sea o pueda llegar a ser conocida".[822/1996 Art. 2(17)] Las fotografías simples tomadas o divulgadas después de 1976 son aquellas en las cuales   fallan en acercar la definición general de una "obra",[822/1996 Art.144] pero aquellas que pasan la categoría de obras por superar el umbral   recibirán protección estándar (vida + 70 años, véase abajo).
  • El Tribunal del Indecopi considera que la originalidad en una fotografía debe limitarse a la originalidad de cualquier obra, requisitos que protegen contra el plagio. Según el artículo 3.c del Reglamento de Inscripciones en el Registro Nacional de Derechos de Autor, establece que "no podrán ser objeto de registro las fotografías que se limiten a simples reproducciones de personas, de cosas, o de objetos ya existentes o que muestren un mero carácter documental [...] la fotografía para ser una obra no puede constituir sólo una simple reproducción de objetos ya existentes".[70]
  • La revista Derecho PUCP explica ejemplos de sucesos altamente distinguibles que superan el umbral de originalidad: uso creativo de las luces, momento único, transmisión de un mensaje en su obra y la personalidad del fotógrafo. Por debajo de estos y otros criterios, las fotografías simples están legisladas bajo el Decreto Legislativo 1044 sobre competencia desleal.[71]

Ejemplos de fotografías bajo la ley de 1961:

  •  
    Esta fotografía llevada en un anuncio que no se considera como "obra literaria". La protección de la imagen expiró en 1988. Tampoco se puede proteger en la ley de 1996. Véase UR.
  •  
    Fotografía tomada en 1973 para una revista deportiva. Al tratarse de un encargo periodístico para una organización, la fotografía permaneció protegida durante 20 años hasta su expiración en 1993. Tampoco se puede proteger en la ley de 1996. Véase DR.

Ejemplo de fotografías bajo la ley de 1996:

  • En 2002 el Tribunal consideró dos imágenes de electrodomésticos inferiores del umbral de originalidad debido a la carencia de evidencia creativa, a pesar de formarse parte del catálogo bajo individualidad. Véase Resolución Nº 354-2002/TPI-INDECOPI.[72]
  • También, en el año 2002, el Tribunal dictaminó que una fotografía de una revista de la banda de chicos Skándalo con vestimenta ordinaria y fondo de color sólido recibe únicamente derechos conexos ya que carece de individualidad. Véase Resolución Nº 378-2002/TPI-INDECOPI, Alomi Producciones S.A.C. contra Karinto S.A p.13.[70]
  • En el año 2007 el Tribunal justificó que una fotografía de caja de regalo para un catálogo web era una obra original por su selección de tonos y que durante el proceso de edición llevaba detalles minuciosos, específicamente el tono de color creado artificialmente. Véase Resolución Nº 1263-2007/TPI-INDECOPI, Enrique Capella contra Grupo Americano de Comercio S.A.C. y Citybank del Perú S.A p.4.[73]
  • En 2008 el tribunal determinó que las instantáneas de prensa de eventos deportivos, políticos o meteorológicos carecen de originalidad por falta de preparación previa en su producción. Véase Resolución No 2521-2008/TPI-Indecopi, Agencia Efe S.A. v Las Rosas Editorial S.A.C.
  • En 2012 el Tribunal concluyó que las técnicas no artísticas de las fotografías no son protegibles (por ejemplo, el escaneo). Ver Resolución Nº 059-2012/059-2012/TPI-INDECOPI e Indecopi (2015), p.75.[74]
  • En el 2013 el Indecopi dedujo que una fotografía promocional de una modelo vistiendo ropa de una empresa textil sí es portadora de originalidad debido al encuadre, enfoque y composición para resaltar su atuendo. Véase Resolución Nº 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI, Peruvian Connection Ltd. contra SENATI p. 9 y 10.[75]
  • In 2021 the criteria for originality of photographs were simplified to three points: transmittable, framed and lighting that shows their personality. Between pages 77 and 82 of this resolution the court evident that press photographs from Hildebrandt en sus trece magazine do carry originality because they focus on the gestures of the photographed and the depth of the camera. See Resolution No 0096-2021/TPI-INDECOPI, Plutón Editores S.A.C. v DP Comunicaciones S.A.C..

Proceso videográfico

Existe un umbral de originalidad para las creaciones audiovisuales, pero su protección es similar tanto para las obras como para las grabaciones (publicar/crear + 70 años). Mientras que las obras cinematográficas ("obra audiovisual") están protegidas en su totalidad, los derechos conexos sólo pueden concederse al productor de la filmación no artística ("grabación audiovisual"),[822/1996 Art. 140] que también incluye interpretación y radiodifusión.[822/1996 Art. 143] Resolución 000111-1999-ODA-INDECOPI establece diferencias entre ambos términos, en particular, y de forma similar a las simples fotografías, la fijación de la sucesión de imágenes. Pero, Resolución 371-2001/TPI-INDECOPI establece que el principal requisito para recibir derechos conexos del productor de filmaciones no artísticas consiste en: "presentar en su proceso de creación un determinado   grado de creatividad, destreza técnica u organizativa suficiente para justificar el reconocimiento de un derecho conexo a su favor" (p.e. Pay-per-View eventos).

Teóricamente, una cámara de seguridad captada en un lugar público podría   carecer de su productor (al ser un bien público se asume principalmente al Estado Peruano) ser de dominio público. Las grabaciones de las cámaras de seguridad del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Ciudadana se entregan de forma anónima a la Policía Nacional del Perú o al Ministerio Público, al igual que las cámaras estatales en espacios públicos, no se conoce al productor original del material.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 18] Opinión Consultiva 60-2019-JUS/DGTAIPD indica que los registros de filmaciones son divulgables si estos son de interés público y se comparten en proceso de datos abiertos (véase también Obras del Gobierno peruano ),[N° 007-2020-IN Art.22] los lugares filmados corresponden a "lugares de dominio público",[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 7] existe el control humano pero no interfiere con la capacidad técnica o creativa de la cámara de vigilancia para grabar.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 2] Tampoco es una obra artística ya que su custodia no puede ser alterada del original,[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 19] como resultado, la filmación está por debajo del umbral de originalidad y no cumple con los derechos conexos del artículo 143 de la ley de 1996.[76][77] Prevalecen los derechos morales de la persona involucrada en este medio. Para estas obras que fueron incluidas en textos oficiales, use {{PD-PE-exempt}} y {{PD-ineligible}}.

Logotipos, diseños y otros trabajos

Los logotipos y diseños simples u ordinarios están   aptos para subir a Commons, porque están por debajo del umbral de originalidad requerido para la protección de los derechos de autor. En palabras de Indecopi y el Ministerio de Justicia citando la Resoluciones No. 1349-2001/TPI-INDECOPI (primera parte) y 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI (segunda parte):

“ Según el artículo 3 de la Decisión 351 [de la Decisión Andina], de conformidad con el artículo 2 del Decreto Legislativo Nº 822, se entiende por obra toda creación intelectual original de carácter artístico, científico o literario, susceptible de ser divulgada o reproducida en cualquier forma. [...]No será considerado [creación original] lo que ya forma parte del patrimonio cultural -artístico, científico o literario– ni [original] la forma de expresión que se deriva de la naturaleza de las cosas ni de una mera aplicación mecánica de lo dispuesto en algunas normas jurídicas, así como tampoco será la forma de expresión que se reduce a una simple técnica o a instrucciones simples que solo requieren de la habilidad manual para su ejecución. ”

—Indecopi, La originalidad como requisito de protección por derechos de autor ("requisito de la originalidad"), Precedentes y normativa del Indecopi en Propiedad Intelectual (2015)[74]

En el párrafo 18 de Casación Número: 1686-2011 se explica el uso de la originalidad con obras arquitectónicas que cumplen funciones utilitarias:

La originalidad de la obra arquitectónica [...] deberá buscarse esencialmente en los rasgos creativos que se distancien en mayor medida de los fines propios del modelo realizado, de su naturaleza, su contexto geográfico, paisajista y las exigencias funcionales del cliente, así como las normas técnicas y urbanísticas aplicables al caso; y respondan más bien, en forma particular o en su conjunto, a la individualidad o personalidad artística del autor. [El] modelo arquitectónico [...] deberá ser sometido a análisis bajo el propósito de identificar si estos responden únicamente a elementos de funcionalidad o características naturales de la especie a la que pertenecen o, por el contrario, contienen rasgos que corresponden al capricho o personalidad propia que el autor ha querido atribuirles, más allá de su funcionalidad o rigurosidad técnica; logrando dotar de individualidad a la obra, en relación con el resto de construcciones de su especie.

  •  
    Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "no es posible otorgar un monopolio sobre esta letra en favor de un solo titular".
  •  
    Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. contra Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "Cuando exista certeza de que una creación carente de individualidad ha sido copiada textualmente, tal circunstancia no convierte a ésta en obra".
  •  
    Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Si bien no es un tipo de letra común y eventualmente puede presentar algunas diferencias con respecto a la gráfica clásica, esto no es suficiente para considerar que la obra está protegida por derechos de autor".
  •  
    Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "El título del cartel consta de una frase sin creatividad y directamente informa y anuncia el contenido del acontecimiento".
  •  
    Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "Los bordes con motivos incaicos y el tipo de letra utilizado para representar la palabra "CUSCO" no cumplen con el requisito de originalidad suficiente para ser considerada una obra artística".
  •  
    Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): el tribunal determinó que el "estilo de letra chillón" de los carteles de Chicha para este logotipo no es original debido a su uso común.
  •  
    Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: En el "dibujo", llevan los textos y la corona de la Estatua de la Libertad, que carecen de individualidad.
  •  
    Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "El hecho de que [...] el signo de exclamación esté escrito de forma irregular y que cada letra o signo tenga un color diferente, [no] determina que tales características doten al diseño solicitado para su registro de los rasgos de originalidad exigidos por la norma para otorgarle protección como obra".
  •  
    Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "El Tribunal determinó que no existen elementos originales, ya que se trata de figuras que no presentan ninguna particularidad, que han sido reproducidas de forma habitual, sin que se haya incluido ningún elemento".
  •  
    Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (véase Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
  •  
    Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "Son elementos ornamentales que carecen de originalidad, ya que los mismos o similares están siendo utilizados por diferentes personas y empresas para identificarse".
  •  
    Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "Sólo se puede adquirir derechos exclusivos sobre la melodía [frente a la armonía o al ritmo]. Ella equivale a la composición o al desarrollo de la idea en las obras literarias y no a la idea misma. La melodía es la creación formal".[78]
  •  
    Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
  •  
    Lejos de la ficción, Duff es un elemento que individualmente carece de la protección como obra de arte. Posteriormente, Fox logró obtener características de identificación para ser registrada como marca de cerveza (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).[79]
  •  
    Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: "si bien es cierto el ángulo que forma el mango con la línea horizontal o la profundidad de la parte cóncava de la cucharita podrían ser variaciones a la forma estándar, sin embargo, estos elementos no llegan a convertir el objeto en una obra original, debido a que la forma de la cucharita materia de registro es la forma común de las cucharitas para té o para algunos postres".[80]
  •  
    Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: La Sala considera que otorgar protección al objeto [endurecido y plastificado] como materia de registro implicaría que ninguna otra persona pueda realizar miniaturas de la ciudadela de Machu Picchu.[80]
  •  
    Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "la elaboración del [escenario desmontable] puede haber significado un esfuerzo intelectual por parte de su autor, no reúne características suficientes como para que puede ser considerado obra [de tres dimensiones], pues consiste en la simple disposición de paneles desmontables a manera de biombo."
  •  
    Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "Aun así, la Sala considera que dejando la protección a un diseño compuso exclusivamente de figuras o diseños en el dominio público, como la chacana inca, significaría para ninguna otra persona pueda ser capaz de utilizar tales diseños que pertenecen al patrimonio cultural común".
  •  
    Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI no considera la protección al uso de Tumi con texto común.
  •  
    Un titular que no está sujeta a la protección del autor. La imagen tampoco se considera una obra individual, pero está sujeta a los derechos conexos hasta 70 años después de su creación.
  •  
    Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"

Nota: Algunas creaciones superan el umbral de originalidad y   no son válidos para subir a Commons:

  • Logo de Tres Olivas: un racimo con tres olivos con tonalidades, degradados de brillo y sensación de movimiento. Véase Resolución N°1774-2012/TPI-INDECOPI, Olivos del Sur S.A.C. vs Antonio Moncayo Cortés.[81]
  • Emblema La Primera. Véase Resolución Nº 2361-2016/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • Un personaje ficticio en Superman: Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite. Véase Resolución Nº 1164-2014/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • Un logo de una persona con la antorcha apuntando la letra E encima de la letra T. Triunfo Empresarial. Véase Resolución Nº 0319-2018/TPI-INDECOPI.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Philippines

Filipinas

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Poland

Polonia

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Portugal

Portugal

w:File:Juventude Socialista Portugal.png was deleted as it was considered to be above the threshold of originality.

Photographs

In Portugal photographs have been consistently specifically required to have a significant degree of creativity in order to be copyrighted. Article §164 of the current 2017 copyright law states that "the choice of a photograph's subject and the conditions of its creation must be deemed to be a personal artistic creation by the author before a photograph may qualify for protection".

Court cases
  • Landscape photograph: Ruled as without originality. In 2009 the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa ruled as void of copyright for lack of artistic creativity a landscape photograph the author was claiming copyright on due to his choice of the setting, light and other conditions. It was considered by the court "a vulgar photograph resultant from the mere choice of an object, such as a city council building and part of a group of trees, without a minimum of creativity".[82] The subject is discussed in a 2017 article published by the Instituto Portugues de Fotografia.
[83]
  • Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition: Ruled as without originality.[82]
  • Clothing/Fashion: Ruled as without originality.
[84]
  • Puppets wearing Madeira national costumes (generally tourist souvenirs) following old and common models were considered without copyright.[85]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia

Rusia

Automatic camera works

  use {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}}

    A photowork or a videowork made by automatic camera (Russian: автоматическая камера, not to be confused with automated camera: автоматизированная камера) is not the subject of copyright, because such work is made by technical tool without creative human activity. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Examples

  • Any photowork or videowork made by automatic camera for administrative violation record (for example, by automatic camera for driving offense record[86]). The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Simple creative works

    Simple result of creative work (creative human activity) is copyrightable. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Examples

  • Simple black square as geometric shape is uncopyrightable as itself. However Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable because this painting was the result of creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and it is in Public Domain because of copyright term expiry, not because of result simplicity.
Logos

  In doubt There is no clear precedent in Russian courts for the threshold of originality for simple logos.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Senegal

Senegal

Works of the mind may enjoy protection only if they are original. "Originality" means the work bears the stamp of the author's personality.[2008-09 Article 7]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Slovenia

Eslovenia

The threshold of originality in Slovenia depends on the field of creativity. If the maneuvering space of the possible creativity is narrower, it requires more creativity for a work to be copyrighted.

[87]

In this regard, the following court cases are relevant:

Applied arts:

  • VSL0069492 - the design of a couch set has been found to be below the threshold.
  • VS0011606 – the design of a sales stand has been found to be above the threshold.

Architecture:

  • VSL00432 – only the works that constitute an original artwork are copyrighted; the renovation plan of Ljubljana Castle as well as the newly built and (at least some of) the renovated parts of the castle count as such.

Logo:

  • VSL00013281 – the logo with inscription "I Feel Slovenia" [7] was found to constitute a copyrighted work.
The court opined: "The slogan and the logo, which contains both verbal and graphic elements, do not allow them to be separated. Only the synergy of the verbal and graphic elements allows the observer to identify the overall message of the author's work."

Titles:

  • VS07924 – the title "Brez zavor" (meaning "Without inhibitions") has been found to be below the threshold.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Korea

Corea del Sur

According to a machine translation of the Copyright Act as amended up to Act No. 14634 of March 21, 2017,

  • "Work" refers to a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings.[432/1957–2017 Article 2.2]

The Supreme Court of South Korea declared that it is sufficient to be work if:[88]

  • it is not just an imitation,
  • it has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts, and
  • it can be distinguished from existing ones.

Seoul High Court judged the seagull pattern and the figure of Ebisu of EVISU Japan is not copyrighted because they cannot be recognized for originality.[89] Also, The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that typefaces are not copyrighted. (See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea § Signatures)

However, the Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted.[90]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Spain

España

STS 4443/2004 notes that a work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection.[91]

STS 1644/2017 concerns architecture and states "The terms in which an architectural project is drawn up largely respond to the technical or functional requirements and compliance with urban regulations. When this is the case, the project or the architectural buildings are not protected by copyright in the part imposed by those technical, functional or normative requirements"; and more generally, "the factor of recognizability or differentiation of the work with respect to the pre-existing ones [is] essential to grant an exclusive right with moral and patrimonial aspects".[92]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden

Suecia

"A simple general rule is that if it is unlikely that two persons would create, for example, a text identically or similarly, the text is probably sufficiently original to qualify as a protected work. (..) Often, the requirements for copyright protection are considered to be relatively low."

[93] From the court cases below it can be concluded that the threshold of originality in Sweden is significantly higher then the ditto in the United Kingdom even though it might be considered low compared to the one in the United States.
Status Example Notes
   
 
 The text itself can't be considered to fulfill the general threshold of originality considered for copyright protection. This same interpretation is made whether one sees it as Roman numerals or Latin letters. The logo itself does have some figurative design. The font must however, despite some inconsistancies along the edges, be considered as ordinary and the black rectangle in the background does not contribute to any distinctive character. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende nr 2017/00120/01, Registrering nr 540495
   
 
 The logo consists of an a and a 6. The round part of each character is not closed, however the characters are, besides that, made in a fairly ordinary font without any distinctive character. Between the characters is a simple, sun-feather resembelling, figure with a pointy tip which goes down between the characters. Above this figure there are four points, two to the left and two to the right. The logo is way to simple to be granted such copyright protection which can constitute an impediment for others' trademark registration. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende nr 2005/0006/0001, Registrering nr 369154.

This ruling was appealed to Patentbesvärsrätten (Patent court of appeals) which settled the original ruling (Mål nr 06-304, vm.reg. 369.154), albeit with one member of the court with a dissenting opinion. Unfortunately, they did not elaborate as to why they settled the original ruling.

   
 
 Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court.NJA 2004 s. 149
    https://shop.textalk.se/shop/4541/files/entombed/ENT_logo_web.png The logo has been created using a Gothic font in a way which is frequently used among bands in the genre in question [death metal]. The logotype can thus not be considered to fulfill the demands of originality and distinctive character needed for copyright protection. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende 2013/0133/0001, Registrering nr 514059.

According to the court, after a comprehensive assessment, the wordmark shows such level of indivudual, distinctive character that it must be considered to possess copyright protection. The court especially values the font of choice, the individual design of the first and last letter and the fact that the first and last letter has been written in caps. - Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court) PMÄ 10796-16

This ruling was appealed to Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Patent and Market Court of Appeals) which settled the previous ruling (Mål nr PMÖÄ 5441-17). Unfortunately, they did not elaborate as to why they settled the previous ruling.

    A black-and-white version of fr:File:Dunderklumpen Logo.png Ruled above the TOO by Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) (Varumärkesansökan nr 2014/00870), another part of the same ruling was appealed to the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court) which settled the original ruling (Mål nr PMÄ 10748-16). Neither instance elaborated further as why the logo was ruled above the TOO but one can speculate that it was because it was a very obvious case.
    Michelin man lamp Ruled above the TOO by Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) (Varumärkesansökan nr 2015/03538). The office did not elaborate further as why the logo was ruled above the TOO but one can speculate that it was because it was a very obvious case.
   
 
 Mini Maglite torch (Mål: T 1421-07, Högsta domstolen)
    Porcelain [8] "Sundborn", made by Rörstrand
    Photo illustrating a newspaper article RH 2009:18 (removed from the website in 2004 because of copyright infringement, protected as a photographic work for 70 years after author's death)
    Knitted tunic (NJA 1995 s. 164)
    Technical drawings (NJA 1998 s. 563)

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Switzerland

Suiza

Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose".[94] Such works are protected by copyright: "Up to 70 years after the death of the author (50 years for computer programs); 50 years from the taking of a photograph without individual character; 70 years from the performance/publication of a phonogram or audio-visual fixation; 50 years from the transmission of a broadcast."[95] This section discusses some types of subject matter.

Photographs: Photographs may be protected as works on the basis of their individual character (individual photographs). Some photographs that lack individual character may also enjoy protection (non-individual photographs).

  • Individual photographs: The individual character may manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as the choice of the depicted object, the decision on when the picture is taken, or the editing work done after the picture has been taken.[96] In a 2003 decision, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland held that a photo of Bob Marley taken at a concert by a spectator with a handheld camera was eligible for protection as a photographic work because it had the required individual character by virtue of the aesthetic appeal of the picture, combined with the orientation of the picture's components and the distribution of light and shadow. It also found that the photograph was a "creation of the mind" by being shot at a specific time during the singer's movement on the stage.[97] By contrast, in the 2004 case Blau Guggenheim v. British Broadcasting Corporation, the Court found that a photo (en:File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg), shot by a reporter to document Christoph Meili with the files he had taken from his employer, lacked individual character. It found that the scope of conceptual and technical possibilities was not exploited, and that the photograph did not distinguish itself in any way from what was common use.[98] The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.[99]
  • Non-individual photographs: Effective 1 April 2020, Swiss law also protects certain non-individual photographs. Article 2(3bis) URG provides that "photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography are considered works, even if they do not have individual character". While no individuality is required, according to the official motives accompanying the (eventually adopted) revision draft, these photographs are still required to be "based on human actions", and thus "automatically created photographs such as radar pictures, pictures from surveillance cameras or camera traps" are ineligible for protection.[100] It should be noted that the new right also applies to photographs created before 1 April 2020 that had previously not been protected for failing the individuality test; however, if a particular use of a non-individual photograph was "begun prior to the commencement" of the new law, it "may be completed".[101] According to the official motives, this has the effect that "if non-individual photographs are used on a web page, the web page may be maintained after the entry into force of the protection of non-individual photographs. If, on the other hand, such photographs are included into an existing or a new web page after the entry into force of this protection, permission is required from the owner of the rights in the non-individual photographs."[102] The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.[103]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Taiwan

República de China

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turkey

Turquía

Might be   OK The Turkish copyright laws depend on the work bearing the characteristics of its creator while deciding whether the work is original, and considered on a case-by-case basis.[104]

Países de ley común

Template:Ve también Comúnmente, las leyes de los países suelen utilizar una prueba de "habilidad y trabajo" para determinar el nivel mínimo de originalidad capaz de atraer la protección de los derechos de autor. El nivel requerido es extremadamente bajo en algunos países como Australia y el Reino Unido. Sin embargo, Canadá e India son dos excepciones importantes. Sin alguna búsqueda a leyes individuales, no pueda ser supuesto que un logotipo de texto de un país de ley Común es necesariamente dejado en Commons. Si hay duda real sobre la posición un tribunal local tomaría, entonces la imagen tiene que ser eliminada bajo el precautionary principio.

Si el logotipo es extremadamente sencillo (p. ej. en una fuente estándar), no sea elegible para copyright incluso en común países de ley.

Si eres consciente de ley de caso concreto o asesoría jurídica en este asunto en cualquier país, complacer añadir un "Umbral de sección" de originalidad al apropiado Commons:reglas de Copyright por país de territorio subpage, y añadir un enlace a él con una entrada abajo.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Australia

Australia

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada

Canadá

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."

The same case also stated:

For a work to be “original” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, it must be more than a mere copy of another work. At the same time, it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work. This exercise of skill and judgment will necessarily involve intellectual effort.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hong Kong

Hong Kong

    for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection is presumably very low.

Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom for more details.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO India

India

India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts, called Modicum of Creativity. Older cases may have similar thresholds of originality to the UK Courts called Sweat of the brow but this is no longer applied. Robbin Singh has written an essay on the subject that may be useful.

[105]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ireland

Irlanda

  Unknown

Despite uncertainty on the required level of originality needed to qualify for copyright protection, images that have been retained on Commons include:

! Image !! Description !! Discussion
  ISPCA official logo Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Israel

Israel

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.[106] 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.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Malaysia

Malasia

The threshold of originality situation in Malaysia remains   Unsure. Some previous discussions:

  1. The File:Hcc.png was deleted probably based on calligraphic Chinese words, and cited that COM:TOO UK may also applied for deletion;
  2. But the File:Petronas Logo.svg was nominated and decided to keep twice, despite that this may also beyond COM:TOO UK. Note that this logo is used before June 2013, and since that, the Petronas modified their logo to be more modern and fairly complex, the current Petronas logo is located at English Wikipedia for Fair use, though some users oppose that.


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nigeria

Nigeria

Under the Copyright Act of 1988 (Chapter C.28, as codified 2004), A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless (a) sufficient effort has been expended on making the work to give it an original character;...[C28/2004 Section 1(2)]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO New Zealand

Nueva Zelanda

As stated in the New Zealand government's NZGOAL copyright guide (January 2015),

  • 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”. 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.
[107]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Singapore

Singapur

For logos

  Likely not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection is presumably very low.

Because Singapore was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1963, Singapore law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom for more details.

For buildings

Assume all Singaporean buildings as copyrighted, regardless of design or artistry involved. Copyright Act 2021 (Act 22 of 2021) explicitly considers all buildings as artistic works: a building or a model of a building (whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not).[22/2021 Section 20(1)(a)(ii)] Please use {{FoP-Singapore}} even to plain-looking Singaporean buildings instead of {{PD-structure|SGP}}.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United Kingdom

Reino Unido

    for Lego bricks (see w:Interlego v Tyco Industries).

    for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low.

In determining whether a work is protected, typographical copyright, publication rights and database rights need to be considered.

These images are eligible for copyright protection:

[The defendants] submitted that the claimant can have no copyright in its EDGE logo because it is not original over the Franklin Gothic typeface. I do not accept this submission. The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work: see Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 16th Ed at 3-130 and Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 287. The claimant's logo is original within this test.

— Mrs Justice Proudman, in: Future Publishing Ltd v The Edge Interactive Media Inc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1489 (Ch) at [10][109]
Digital copies of images

In 2014 (updated 2015) the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued an advice notice, which said, in part:

[110]


Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts.

This was restated in a November 2023 Appeal Court judgement (THJ v Sheridan, 2023) which confirmed that no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork, and that this has been the case since 2009.[111][112]

Logotipos y banderas

Arquitectura

Imágenes cuáles han sido mantenidos debido a carencia de originalidad o de minimis:

Nota que algunos de estas decisiones eran polémicos.

Fotografía

Fotografías que se han considerado no elegibles para la protección de derechos de autor:

  •  
    (DR) Fotografía de un objeto tridimensional (tirador de cajón) con biseles y sombras proyectadas
  •  
    (DR) Photograph of a three-dimensional object (drawer pull) with bevels and cast shadows

Mapas

Mapas cuáles han sido considerados inelegibles para protección de copyright:
 
Darden v. Peters.

Darden v. Peters: la adición de "selección de fuente y color; efectos visuales como relieve, sombreado y sombreado; etiquetado; llamadas" y suavizado a un mapa preexistente está por debajo del umbral de originalidad

Uso: {{PD-map}}. Consulte la sección más abajo sobre la copia parcial o el recorte de elementos no protegidos por derechos de autor de obras protegidas por estos.

 
Darden v. Peters.

Darden v. Peters: the addition of "font and color selection; visual effects such as relief, shadowing, and shading; labeling; call-outs" and anti-aliasing to a preexisting map is below the threshold of originality

Use: {{PD-map}}. See the section farther down on partial copying or cropping of uncopyrightable elements from copyrighted works. Véase también:

Gráficos

Gráficas que se hayan considerado inelegibles para la protección del derecho de autor. Use: {{PD-chart}}.. "Ver la sección más abajo sobre copias parciales o recortes de elementos inelegibles para derechos de autor de obras protegidas por derechos de autor. Véase también:

Copiado o cortado parcial de trabajos con derechos de autor

Cuando un archivo copia sólo parte de una obra con derechos de autor, el estado de los derechos de autor de ese archivo se determina sólo por lo que ha sido copiado. Si sólo se copió elementos no elegibles para derechos de autor, entonces el archivo tampoco tiene derechos de autor. En otras palabras, juzgaremos el estado de derechos de autor de un archivo sólo por lo que contiene el archivo en sí, no por el estado de otro contenido en la fuente original que no fue copiado por el archivo.

  OK
 
 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, except for the fact that this typographical arrangement was published over 25 years ago.

Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.

Véase también

Referencias

Algunas citas pueden no haber sido transcluidas
  1. ↑ Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.
  2. ↑ Fishman, Stephen (2014) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ Bauer logo.
  5. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  6. ↑ Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  7. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  8. ↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  9. ↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  10. ↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
  11. ↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
  12. ↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 mayo 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  13. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  14. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
  15. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  16. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
  17. ↑ Sentencia nº C-2470-2009, de 17º Juzgado Civil de Santiago, 28 de Octubre de 2011
  18. ↑ V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  19. ↑ 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  20. ↑ Sø- og Handelsretten (The Maritime and Commercial Court) in March 1998, U 1998:946 S and NIR 69:3, p. 413-418 [2000]
  21. ↑ Violation of the copyright of the Global Knife Series. Supreme Court (19-09-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24. "Det var for Højesteret ubestridt, at Global-knivene er ophavsretligt beskyttet i medfør af ophavsretslovens § 1. Højesteret udtalte, at Global-knivene som brugskunst er beskyttet mod meget nærgående efterligninger. Højesteret fandt, at Royal-knivenes design ikke indebar en tilstrækkelig frigørelse fra det særegne ved Global-knivenes udformning, men måtte anses som en meget nærgående efterligning. (It was undisputed to the Supreme Court that the Global blades are protected by copyright under section 1 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court stated that the Global blades as a utility art are protected from very close imitations. The Supreme Court found that the design of the Royal blades did not sufficiently differ from the distinctive nature of the design of the Global blades, and had to be regarded as a very close imitation.)"
  22. ↑ Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  23. ↑ a b TN 2011:7
  24. ↑ TN 2014:13
  25. ↑ TN 2001:12
  26. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Paradis
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pavis
  28. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  29. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  30. ↑ See, in particular, Bundesgerichtshof 27 November 1956, case I ZR 57/55 Morgenpost, 22 BGHZ 209, 215ff; Bundesgerichtshof 22 June 1995, case I ZR 119/93 Silberdistel, (1995) 97 GRUR 581, 582. See further A Ohly, "Where is the Birthday Train Heading? The Copyright-Design Interface in German Law" in G Karnell and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Jan Rosén (eddy.se ab 2016) 593ff.
  31. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  32. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  33. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  34. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  35. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  36. ↑ Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  37. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  38. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  39. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  40. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  41. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [29]–[31]. Finding of copyright protection not challenged on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 16 June 2016, case I ZR 122/14 Geburtstagskarawane, (2016) 118 GRUR 1291.
  42. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  43. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 October 2021, case 5 W 40/21 Grand Step Shoes, (2022) 124 GRUR 565 [22]–[26].
  44. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 7 April 2022, case I ZR 222/20 Porsche 911, (2022) 124 GRUR 899 [26]–[32].
  45. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2023, case 5 U 84/21, (2023) 27 ZUM-RD 481.
  46. ↑ S Zentek, "Acht Jahrzehnte verkanntes Design im deutschen Urheberrecht: Die Geschichte des Schutzes von Gebrauchsgestaltungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nationalsozialismus" (doctoral thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 2015) 276. See also L Mezger, Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht (V&R unipress 2017) 60f ("hardly possible" in particular to keep track of the jurisprudence on designer furniture).
  47. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 27 April 2011, case 5 U 26/09; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 91/11 Marcel-Breuer­-Möbel II, (2016) 69 NJW 2335 [26]–[28].
  48. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2011, case 5 U 207/08; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 76/11 Wagenfeld-Leuchte II, (2016) 69 NJW 2338 [20]–[22].
  49. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
  50. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  52. ↑ Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  53. ↑ SZJSZT 1/2005
  54. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IndTOO
  55. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  56. ↑ Logo on external site DR
  57. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  58. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  59. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  60. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  61. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  62. ↑ Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  63. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  64. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  65. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  66. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  67. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  68. ↑ Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  69. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
  70. ↑ a b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
  71. ↑ Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  72. ↑ Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  73. ↑ Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.
  74. ↑ a b c d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
  75. ↑ Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.
  76. ↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.
  77. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
  78. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  79. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  80. ↑ a b Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.
  81. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.
  82. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  83. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  84. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  85. ↑ 167/17.9YHLSB.L2.S2, 2020 (with photos of the puppets).
  86. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  87. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VSL0069492
  88. ↑ The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다28745
  89. ↑ Seoul High Court 2009나122304
  90. ↑ The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다76829
  91. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/d42c9049784c7c02/20040821 p. 4
  92. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/a95395d6789f5037/20170509 p. 9
  93. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  94. ↑ Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, art 2(1). SR 231.1 Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. Government of Switzerland. Retrieved on 12 September 2020.
  95. ↑ Envisioned. Created. Protected. – A Concise Guide to Trade Marks, Patents & Co.. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (April 2020). Retrieved on 22 August 2021.
  96. ↑ Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  97. ↑ X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  98. ↑ Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  99. ↑ Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  100. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620. See also W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 35.
  101. ↑ Art 80(2) URG. W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 38; P Mosimann and Y Hostettler, "Zur Revision des Urheberrechtsgesetzes" (2018) 36 recht 123, 126; Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620 («In Verbindung mit Artikel 80 Absatz 1 URG führt die Erweiterung des Schutzumfangs auf Fotografien ohne individuellen Charakter dazu, dass der Urheberrechtsschutz solche Fotografien auch dann erfassen wird, wenn sie vor seinem Inkrafttreten dieser Teilrevision geschaffen wurden.»).
  102. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  103. ↑ Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  104. ↑ ECONOMIC AND MORAL RIGHTS IN TURKISH AND EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT LAW (2009).
  105. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh
  106. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  107. ↑ NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.
  108. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Borghi
  109. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Future-Edge
  110. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPO-2014/1
  111. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named THJvSheridan
  112. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Grosvenor-2023

Para referencias más completas, vea Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por territorio y los países y territorios individuales:

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Threshold_of_originality/es&oldid=864642226"