Commons:Threshold of originality/Asia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Other languages:
Threshold of originality
Africa Americas Asia Europe Insular Oceania Others

This page gives overviews of Threshold of originality rules in different countries or territories of Asia. It is "transcluded" from individual page sections giving the rules for each territory.

Countries of Asia[edit]

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 Armenia

Armenia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bahrain

Bahrain

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bangladesh

Bangladesh

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bhutan

Bhutan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brunei

Brunei

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Cambodia

Cambodia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO 中华人民共和国

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 OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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 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 [1] [2]). 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 2017 (final judgement and news coverage).

The following examples are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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: [3] [4], Final judgement).
  • "LY" company logo (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).
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Cyprus

Cyprus

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO East Timor

East Timor

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Egypt

Egypt

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Georgia

Georgia

No information available

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.[1]

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.[2]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

Iran

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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 Iraq

Iraq

No information available

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.[3]

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 Japan

Japan

Logos in the gallery below are OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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.[4]

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.

Asahi logo.svg (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.[5]
Cup Noodles.jpg (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.[6]
Olympic flag.svg 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.[7]
  • 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.[8]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Jordan

Jordan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Kuwait

Kuwait

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Laos

Laos

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Lebanon

Lebanon

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Malaysia

Malaysia

The threshold of originality situation in Malaysia remains Purple question mark.svg 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 me more modern and fairly complex, the current Petronas logo is located at English Wikipedia for Fair use, though some users against that situation.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Maldives

Maldives

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Mongolia

Mongolia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Myanmar

Myanmar

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nepal

Nepal

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO North Korea

North Korea

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Oman

Oman

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Pakistan

Pakistan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Philippines

Philippines

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Qatar

Qatar

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia

Russia

Automatic camera works

Public domain use {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}}

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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[9]). 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

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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

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

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Singapore

Singapore

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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.

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:[10]

  • 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.[11]

However, The Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted.[12]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Syria

Syria

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Tajikistan

Tajikistan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Thailand

Thailand

According to LawPlus Ltd. (2019),[13] "a copyright work does not need distinctiveness required for a trademark but it must be a creative expression of an original idea of its author. The required level of originality or creativity is minimal." It can be interpreted that Thailand's threshold of originality for logos is low.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turkey

Turkey

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan

No information available

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Vietnam

Vietnam

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Yemen

Yemen

No information available

Other territories[edit]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Abkhazia

Abkhazia

No information available

No information available

No information available

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hong Kong

Hong Kong

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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 Macau

Macau

No information available

No information available

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Ossetia

South Ossetia

No information available

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.[14]

The following examples are OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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:[15]
  • Simple typeface, such as the typeface of Sunshow company logo:

The following examples are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK:

  • Calligraphy works, including:
    • "燒烤飯糰" on this photo, is copyright protected ruled by a court.[16][17]
    • "風月堂" (see the last page of the PDF document for the work in question).[18]
  • The graphic part of Sunshow company's logo. The court ruled that the graphic part of the logo: two hands clasped together, one over the other, is copyrightable, but the typeface "SUNSHOW" is not.[19]
  • The Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolor pattern [5][20].

partly located in Asia[edit]

Threshold of originality
Africa Americas Asia Europe Insular Oceania Others
Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IndTOO
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  5. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  9. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  10. The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다28745
  11. Seoul High Court 2009나122304
  12. The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다76829
  13. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named lawplusLogo
  14. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TIPO1-10
  15. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JYRC
  16. 鄧玉瑩 (2007-01-05). "盜用燒烤飯糰招牌判侵權". Apple Daily.
  17. 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).
  18. 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.
  19. 智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決 (2016-02-04).
  20. 智慧財產法院108年民商上字第5號民事判決 (2020-01-16).