Commons:Threshold of originality
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎Türkçe • ‎català • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎polski • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎ગુજરાતી • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어
Shortcuts: COM:TO • COM:TOO
Copyright rules
Copyright rules by subject matterCopyright rules by territoryCopyright tags​Cheque​Commissioned worksCurrencyDe minimisDerivative worksFreedom of panorama​Stamps​Threshold of originalityWhen to use the PD-signature tag

The logo of Chicago Union Station is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. However, this logo is still protected by trademark laws.
The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work, or a portion of it, can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection).
The remainder of this page discusses images judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. It's usually unable to determine whether a specific image is within the threshold of originality without a judicial decision. However, per precautionary principle, the image should be deleted if there's significant doubt that the image is not copyrighted.
For further information, see Threshold of originality on Wikipedia.
United States
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States
United States of America
These images are
OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.
Despite repeated requests, the U.S. Copyright Office found the Vodafone speechmark (shaded version) ineligible for copyright protection. It can however not 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.
VA0001789579 (and CC-BY 3.0)
Civil law countries
Civil law countries require a relatively high minimum level of intellectual creativity which will exclude typical signatures and simple logos from copyright protection.
If you are aware of specific case law or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add a "Threshold of originality" section to the appropriate Commons:Copyright rules by territory country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Afghanistan
Afghanistan
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
These logos are
 Not OK:
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil
Brazil
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.[7]
Examples:
Some examples help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:
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
Czech Republic
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
The phrase "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33", a message from the Copiapó miners (penned by Jose Ojeda), was copyrighted.[16]
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 example is
OK:
"Matchstick man" (image) with a black sphere as a head, black lines as torso, limbs and feet is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Beijing Municipal High People's Court (source).
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 following examples are
 Not OK:
Calligraphy works, such as:
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;")
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
Denmark
StatusExampleNotes
OK
Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.
OK
Sketches of windows and doors not eligible for copyright protection (The Maritime and Commercial Court 8 August 2003.)[17][18]
 Not OK
The GLOBAL knife design is copyright protected in Denmark.[19]
 Not OK
A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp).[20]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Finland
Finland
For works of visual art, the threshold of originality is relatively low.[21]
Simple logos, however, are generally below the threshold of originality.[22] In particular, the threshold is high when only basic colors and shapes (such as triangles, squares and circles or capital letters) are used.[23][21]
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)
 Not OK
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)
 Not OK
Save the Children Fund logoThe 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)
 Not OK
"Silmu" logoAlthough 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
France
Unlike the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in the UK, French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". 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").[24]
France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".[25]
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.[26] 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
Germany
Works of fine art (including works of applied art and architectural works)
"Works of fine art", as defined in s 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.[27] For many decades, courts imposed a higher threshold of originality on works of applied art than on works of fine art ("two-tier theory").[28] 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".[29]
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.[30] Only those features of a utilitarian article that are not entirely dictated by the technical function can justify copyright protection.[31] A feature is considered "dictated by the technical function" if the article could not function without it.[32] 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.[33]
Examples from court cases on applied art:[34]
Protection denied:
Protection accorded:
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.[42] A few more recent examples:
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greece
Greece
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.[46]
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.[47]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary
Hungary
OK
stylized text with a common stylized globe icon (does not show the actual image).[48]
 Not OK
Sulinet Expressz logo[49]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran
Iran
 Not OK 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 Ireland
Ireland
 Unknown
Despite uncertainty on the required level of originality needed to qualify for copyright protection, images that have been retained on Commons include:
ImageDescriptionDiscussion
ISPCA official logoCommons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Italy
Italy
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."[50]
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.[51] Another Parma logo has been deleted but then restored.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan
Japan
Logos in the gallery below are
OK to upload.
Article 2 of Japanese copyright law defines that a work is eligible for copyright when it is a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain.[52]
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.[53]
(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.[54]
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.[55]
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.[56]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya
Libya
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
Luxembourg
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.[57]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Netherlands
Netherlands
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:[58]
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':[59]
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:[60]
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
Norway
Not protected
Two-minute theatre play.[61]
Protected
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru
Peru
Indecopi established parameters to qualify the originality of graphic and photographic compositions. Designs below the originality threshold, automatic works and old photographs without demonstrating their individuality can be uploaded to Commons.
Simple photographs
Old published photographs have a copyright term of 20 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the disclosing of the photograph before 1976. The notes shown are based on the rescinded 1961 law:
Recent published photographs have a copyright term of 70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the taking of the photograph. Fortunately, this term usually flexible in the cases and facts shown below:
Photography within an advertisement not considered "literary work". Image protection expired in 1988. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See UR.
Automatic camera works
In the case of automated works, the media lacks individuality and related rights can only be granted to the producer of the content like performance and broadcasting,[822/1996 Art. 143] or non-broadcasting filming.[822/1996 Art. 140] However, for works from automatic cameras, which lack a human production process, they will lose this right and
enter to public domain. Resolution 371-2001/TPI-INDECOPI establishes that the main requirement to receive related rights from the producer consists of: "present in their creation process a certain degree of creativity or a degree of technical or organizational skill sufficient to justify the recognition of a similar right in their favor" (p.e. Pay-per-View events).
Security camera footage from Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Ciudadana is provided anonymously to the Peruvian National Police or Public Prosecutor's Office like state cameras in public areas, there is no knowed evidence from the producer of the material.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 18]Opinión Consultiva 60-2019-JUS/DGTAIPD indicates that these activities are disclosure if the footage is for public interest and share in open data process,[N° 007-2020-IN Art.22] the places filmed correspond to "places of public domain",[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 7] human monitoring exists but does not interfere with the surveillance camera's technical or creative ability for recording.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 2] Also it isn't artistic work since its custody cannot be altered from the original,[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 19] as a result, the footage is below the threshold of originality and don't comply with related rights of article 143 of the 1996 law.[66][67] Moral rights prevail of the person involved in this media. For these non-human works, use {{PD-PE-exempt}} and {{PD-ineligible}}.
Simple logos and designs
Simple logos and designs are
OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In words of Indecopi and Ministry of Justice and quoting Resolutions No. 1349-2001/TPI-INDECOPI (first paragraph) and 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI (second paragraph):
«According to Article 3 of Decision 351 [of the Andean Decision], in accordance with Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 822, a work is understood to be any original intellectual creation of an artistic, scientific or literary nature, susceptible of being disclosed or reproduced in any form.[...] Whatever already part of the cultural heritage -artistic, scientific or literary- will not be considered [original creation], nor will [original] the form of expression that derives from the nature of things or from mechanical-only application of the provisions of certain legal norms, nor will [original] the form of expression that is reduced to a simple technique or simple instructions that only require manual skill for this execution.»
— La originalidad como requisito de protección por derechos de autor ("requisito de la originalidad"), in: Precedentes y normativa del Indecopi en Propiedad Intelectual (2015)[65]
Note: Other logotypes above the threshold of originality and
 are not valid for upload to Commons:
Tres Olivas: a leaf with three olives with tonalities, use of brightness and sensation of movement. See RES. N°1774-2012/TPI-INDECOPI, Olivos del Sur S.A.C. vs Antonio Moncayo Cortés.[71]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Poland
Poland
Per Tomasz Targosz (Institute of Intellectual Property Law, Jagiellonian University Kraków):
Polish copyright law has quite a long tradition of setting the threshold rather low, which may encourage frivolous lawsuits forcing courts to ponder whether simple graphic designs, short lines of text or even names should or should not be protected by copyright law.
[72]
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
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia
Russia
Automatic camera works
use {{​PD-RU-exempt-autocam​}}
OK 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[76]). 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
 Not OK Simple result (consisted of simple geometric shapes and / or text) 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 is copyrightable because this painting is 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
Slovenia
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.[77]
In this regard, the following court cases are relevant:
Applied arts:
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.
Titles:
VS07924 - the title "Brez zavor" (meaning "Without inhibitions") has been found to be below the threshold.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Korea
South Korea
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:[78]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden
Sweden
"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."[79] 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.
StatusExampleNotes
OK
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
OK
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.
OK
Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court.NJA 2004 s. 149
 Not OK
https://shop.textalk.se/shop/4541/files/entombed/ENT_logo_web.pngThe 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.
 Not OK
A black-and-white version of fr:File:Dunderklumpen Logo.pngRuled 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.
 Not OK
Michelin man lampRuled 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.
 Not OK
Mini Maglite torch (Mål: T 1421-07, Högsta domstolen)
 Not OK
Porcelain [4]"Sundborn", made by Rörstrand
 Not OK
Photo illustrating a newspaper articleRH 2009:18 (removed from the website in 2004 because of copyright infringement, protected as a photographic work for 70 years after author's death)
 Not OK
Knitted tunic(NJA 1995 s. 164)
 Not OK
Technical drawings(NJA 1998 s. 563)
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Switzerland
Switzerland
Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose."[80] 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.[81] 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.[82] 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.[83] The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.[84]
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.[85] 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".[86] 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."[87] The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.[88]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Taiwan
Taiwan
The level required for copyright is low. Independently created works with "minimal creativity" are eligible, according to Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office.[89]
The following examples are
OK:
These two artworks with traditional design elements are unprotected, according to court decisions that they do not meet the originality threshold for copyright protection:[90]
Simple typeface, such as the typeface of Sunshow company logo:
The following examples are
 Not OK:
Common law countries
See also: Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#Common law countries and #Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc..
Most Common law countries use a "skill and labour" test to determine the minimum level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection, and in some countries such as the UK the required level is extremely low. Without some research into individual laws, it cannot be assumed that a text logo from a Common law country is necessarily allowed on Commons. If there is real doubt about the position a local court would take, then the image must be deleted under the precautionary principle.
If the logo is extremely simple (e.g. in a standard font), it will not be eligible for copyright even in Common law countries.
If you are aware of specific case law or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add a "Threshold of originality" section to the appropriate Commons:Copyright rules by territory country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Australia
Australia
 Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in Australia is very low. Images showing the en:Australian Aboriginal Flag have been consistently deleted from Commons, since an Australian court has ruled that the flag is copyrighted.[96] E.g.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada
Canada
OK for images that are not creative in the sense of being a product of non-trivial "skill and judgment" as discussed below.
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
 Not OK 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.[97]
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.[98]
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 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
New Zealand
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.[99]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United Kingdom
United Kingdom
OK Lego bricks (see w:Interlego v Tyco Industries)
 Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low.
These images are eligible for copyright protection:
en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg (uploaded as free in the US only on en.wikipedia.org): British courts have ruled it eligible for copyright protection.[100][101]
Digital copies of images
In 2014 (updated 2015) the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued an advice notice, which said, in part:[102]
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.
Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts.
Logos and flags
File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png originally "background isn't elaborate or eligible for any type of copyright" (decided here in 2010), deleted in 2012 as "shows artistry beyond the TOO".
Architecture
Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis:
Note that some of these decisions were controversial.
Photographs
Photographs which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:
(DR) Photograph of a three-dimensional object (drawer pull) with bevels and cast shadows
Maps
Maps which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection. Use: {{PD-map}}. See the section farther down on partial copying or cropping of uncopyrightable elements from copyrighted works. See also:
Charts
Charts which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection. Use: {{PD-chart}}. See the section farther down on partial copying or cropping of uncopyrightable elements from copyrighted works. See also:
Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works
When a file copies only part of a copyrighted work, that file's copyright status is determined only by what it has copied. If it only copied uncopyrightable elements, then the file is also uncopyrightable. In other words, we judge the copyright status of a file only by what the file itself contains, not by the status of other content the original source contained that was not copied by the file.
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.
Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.
See also
References
Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  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. Bauer logo.
  4. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  5. Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  6. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. Guerra das Moedas court case.
  11. Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  12. 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"
  13. 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"
  14. 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."
  15. 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"
  16. Message which brought hope now copyright of Chile miner. BBC (22 October 2010). Retrieved on 2019-01-21.
  17. V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  18. 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  19. 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.)"
  20. Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  21. a b TN 2011:7
  22. TN 2014:13
  23. TN 2001:12
  24. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Paradis
  25. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pavis
  26. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  27. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  28. 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.
  29. Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  30. Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  31. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  32. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  33. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  34. Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  35. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  36. Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  37. Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  38. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  39. 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.
  40. Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  41. Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg 20 May 2014, case 3 U 1874/13 Kicker-Stecktabelle, (2014) 116 GRUR 1199, 1201.
  42. 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).
  43. 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].
  44. 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].
  45. Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
  46. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  47. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  48. Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  49. SZJSZT 1/2005
  50. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  51. Logo on external site DR
  52. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  53. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  54. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  55. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  56. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  57. Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  58. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  59. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  60. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  61. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  62. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  63. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
  64. a b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
  65. a b c d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
  66. 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.
  67. Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
  68. 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. ISSN1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kluwer
  73. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  74. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  75. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  76. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  77. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named =VSL0069492
  78. Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다28745
  79. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  80. 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.
  81. Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  82. X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  83. Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  84. Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  85. 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.
  86. 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.»).
  87. Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  88. Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  89. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TIPO1-10
  90. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JYRC
  91. 鄧玉瑩 (2007-01-05). "​盜用燒烤飯糰招牌判侵權​". Apple Daily.
  92. 臺灣高等法院臺中分院95年上易字第1083號刑事判決 (2006-09-27).
  93. 智慧財產法院108年民著訴字第89號民事判決 (2020-01-13). Archived from the original on 2020-06-29.
  94. 智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決 (2016-02-04).
  95. 智慧財產法院108年民商上字第5號民事判決 (2020-01-16).
  96. Harold Joseph Thomas v David George Brown & James Morrison Vallely Tennant [1997] FCA 215. Federal Court of Australia (9 April 1997).
  97. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh
  98. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  99. NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.
  100. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Borghi
  101. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Uture-Edge
  102. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPO-2014/1
For more complete, working references see Commons:Copyright rules by territory and the individual countries and territories:
Last edited on 11 June 2021, at 03:13
Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. All structured data from the file and property namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; all unstructured text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout Wikimedia CommonsDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit