Commons:Threshold of originality/gu

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality and the translation is 8% 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.

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

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).

As a rule, copyright applies to a work as a whole. If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted. One cannot upload said work to Commons by applying de minimis to the non-trivial portion.

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.

Map

યુનાઇટેડ સ્ટેટ્સ

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

યુનાઇટેડ સ્ટેટ્સ ઓફ અમેરિકા

These images are OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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 cannot, however, be uploaded to Commons because it's a UK logo.

These are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK to upload to Commons (unless published under a free license by the copyright holder), because they are above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.
* w:File:PBS_logo.svg and w:File:PBS_(1984-2019)_logo.svg The PBS logo (VA0001310087) Also see (DR1) (DR2)
Paintings

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 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 U.S. 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)

Civil law countries

Civil law countries usually require a relatively high minimum level of intellectual creativity which will exclude typical signatures and simple logos from copyright protection. However, this does not apply to all such countries. For example, Austria and China are both known to have a relatively low threshold of originality.

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/gu country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.


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]

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

These logos are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  :

  • Bauer Logo.

[4][5]

  • Zimmermann Fitness logo.[6][7]

No information available

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

ચીલી

The phrase "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33", a message from the Copiapó miners (penned by Jose Ojeda), was copyrighted.[8]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO China

China

No information available

Status Example Notes
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  
Aalborg Broncestøberi skrifttype A, B og D.png
Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  
Jydsk Vindueskompagni - skitser af vinduer og døre.png
Sketches of windows and doors not eligible for copyright protection (The Maritime and Commercial Court 8 August 2003.)[9][10]
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg   The WWF panda logo is not protected by copyright[11]
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  
Kitchen knife by yashima.jpg
The GLOBAL knife design is copyright protected in Denmark.[12]
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  
Chair.png
A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp).[13]

For works of visual art, the threshold of originality is relatively low.[14]

Simple logos, however, are generally below the threshold of originality.[15] In particular, the threshold is high when only basic colors and shapes (such as triangles, squares and circles or capital letters) are used.[16][14]

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg
Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Uusimaa.vaakuna.svg
Differences compared to the coat of arms of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality. (TN 1998:5)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK A specific house type (Eurohouse S 2, court ruling)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Pelastakaa Lapset (Save the Children Fund) Nettivihje logo.gif
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)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Citymarketin logo.svg

and

K-Plussa logo (old).gif
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)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Kiitosimeon logo.gif
The logo is "is not original and independent in such a way that it would be protected ... by copyright". (TN 2011:7)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Soikeapallo logo.jpg
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)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   "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)

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Germany

જર્મની

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greece

ગ્રીસ

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.[17]

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.[18]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary

હંગેરી

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  

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

[19]

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  

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.[21]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

ઈરાન

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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

ઈટલી

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."[22]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan

જાપાન

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

[24]

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. [25]
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. [26]
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. [27]
  • 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.

[28]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya

લીબિયા

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] 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.[29]

As indicated above, the following are examples of what is and what is not protected under the 1996 copyright law:

These images are OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK to upload to Commons
These are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK to upload to Commons (unless published under a free license by the copyright holder), because they are above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection and are not covered by the law itself.

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Norway

નોર્વે

Not protected

Two-minute theatre play.

[30]

Protected

[31]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

પેરુ

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Poland

પોલેંડ

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.

[32]

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".[33] The subject is discussed in a 2017 article published by the Instituto Portugues de Fotografia.

[34]

  • Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition: Ruled as without originality.[33]
  • Clothing/Fashion: Ruled as without originality.

[35]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia

રશિયા


Automatic camera works

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg   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[36]). 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   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 Senegal

સેનેગલ

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] 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.[37]

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.

Titles:

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

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:[38]

  • 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.[39]

However, The Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted.[40]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Spain

સ્પેન

STS 4443/2004 notes that a work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection.[41]

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".[42]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden

સ્વિડન

"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."[43] 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
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  
IXXI logo.jpg
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
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  
A6 logo.png
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.

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  
Upphovsrätt på teknisk ritning.png
Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court.NJA 2004 s. 149
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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.

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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.
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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.
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  
4xcolor mini maglite 20050614.jpg
Mini Maglite torch (Mål: T 1421-07, Högsta domstolen)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   Porcelain [૩] "Sundborn", made by Rörstrand
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   Knitted tunic (NJA 1995 s. 164)
OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   Technical drawings (NJA 1998 s. 563)

Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose".[44] 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."[45] 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.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.[49]
  • 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.[50] 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".[51] 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."[52] The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.[53]

The level required for copyright is low. Independently created works with "minimal creativity" are eligible, according to Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office.[54]

The following examples are OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  :

  • These two artworks with traditional design elements are unprotected, according to court decisions that they do not meet the originality threshold for copyright protection:[55]
  • Simple typeface, such as the typeface of Sunshow company logo:

The following examples are OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg  :

Common law countries

Common law countries typically use a "skill and labour" test to determine the minimum level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection. The required level is extremely low in some countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. However, Canada and India are major two exceptions. 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.

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in Australia is very low. Images showing the en:Australian Aboriginal Flag were consistently deleted from Commons as an Australian court has ruled that the flag is copyrighted.

[61] See the discussions in Category:Australian Aboriginal flag related deletion requests.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada

કેનેડા

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg  

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.

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg   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

ભારત

No information available Pictogram-voting-question.svg 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.png ISPCA official logo Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Israel

ઈઝરાયલ

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.[62]

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.


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.

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)]

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.

[63]

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.

No information available

Logos and flags

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:

Maps

Maps which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:

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.

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.

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK
Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg
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.

આ પણ જુઓ

સંદર્ભો

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. ૧૮૩ Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.
  3. [૧]
  4. Bauer logo.
  5. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  6. Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  7. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  8. Message which brought hope now copyright of Chile miner. BBC (22 October 2010). Retrieved on 2019-01-21.
  9. V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  10. 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  11. Sø- og Handelsretten (The Maritime and Commercial Court) in March 1998, U 1998:946 S and NIR 69:3, p. 413-418 [2000]
  12. 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.)"
  13. Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  14. a b TN 2011:7
  15. TN 2014:13
  16. TN 2001:12
  17. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  19. Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  20. SZJSZT 1/2005
  21. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IndTOO
  22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  23. Logo on external site DR
  24. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  25. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  26. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  27. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  28. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  29. Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  30. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  31. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  32. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kluwer
  33. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  34. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  35. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  36. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  37. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named =VSL0069492
  38. The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다28745
  39. Seoul High Court 2009나122304
  40. The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다76829
  41. https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/d42c9049784c7c02/20040821 p. 4
  42. https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/a95395d6789f5037/20170509 p. 9
  43. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  44. 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.
  45. Envisioned. Created. Protected. – A Concise Guide to Trade Marks, Patents & Co.. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (April 2020). Retrieved on 22 August 2021.
  46. Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  47. X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  48. Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  49. Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.»).
  52. Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  53. Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  54. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TIPO1-10
  55. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JYRC
  56. 鄧玉瑩 (2007-01-05). "盜用燒烤飯糰招牌判侵權". Apple Daily.
  57. 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).
  58. 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.
  59. 智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決 (2016-02-04).
  60. 智慧財產法院108年民商上字第5號民事判決 (2020-01-16).
  61. Harold Joseph Thomas v David George Brown & James Morrison Vallely Tennant [1997] FCA 215. Federal Court of Australia (9 April 1997).
  62. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  63. NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.

For more complete, working references see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/gu and the individual countries and territories: