Commons:Obras derivadas

Shortcuts: COM:DW • COM:DERIV

Direito autoral

• Copyright rules by subject matter
• Copyright rules by territory
• Marcadores de dereitos de copia
• Cheque
• Commissioned works
• Currency
• De minimis
• Obras derivadas
• Freedom of panorama
• Government works
• Stamps
• Threshold of originality
• Unprotected works
• When to use the PD-signature tag

Árbore de decisións para comprobar se unha obra derivada pode permanecer en Wikimedia Commons

Many creative works are derivative works of something else, entitled to their own copyright. A derivative work is one which is not only based on a previous work, but which also contains sufficient new, creative content to entitle it to its own copyright. However, if the underlying work is still copyright protected, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse. In other words, a derivative work is not merely a work that is "based on" another work, a derivative work is considered a new work because of some significant amount of additional creativity that went into its production— all subsequent works based on another, previous work but lacking substantial new creative content are merely considered copies of that work and are entitled to no new copyright protection as a result and should not be referred to as "derivative works", as this has a very specific meaning in copyright law.

In either case, unless the underlying work is in the public domain or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons.

In summary: you cannot trace someone else's copyrighted creative drawing and upload that tracing to Commons under a new, free license because a tracing is a copy without new creative content; likewise, you cannot make a movie version of a book you just read without the permission of the author, even if you added substantial creative new material to the storyline, because the movie requires the original book author's permission— if such permission were obtained, however, the movie would likely then be considered a derivative work entitled to its own novel copyright protection. "Derivative", in this sense, does not simply mean "derived from", it means, "derived from and including new creative content which is entitled to a new copyright."

Que é unha obra derivada?

Esta fotografía da Venus de Milo é unha obra derivada. O artista que a creou morreu hai máis de 2000 anos, o que quere dicir que a estatua está no dominio público - con isto non hai problemas de copyright! Se vostede crea unha réplica da estatua, non pode rexistrar o copyright como propio.

Obra derivada, de acordo coa US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101 defínese do seguinte xeito:

"Unha 'obra derivada' é unha obra baseada nunha ou máis obras pre-existentes, como unha tradución, arranxo musical, dramatización, ficionalización, versión de película, rexistro sonoro, reprodución artística, compendio, resumo, ou calqueira outra forma na cal unha obra poida ser refeita, transformada, ou adaptada. Unha obra que consista en revisións editoriais, anotacións, re-elaboracións, ou outras modificacións, as cales en conxunto, representen unha obra orixinal, é unha 'obra derivada'".

Brevemente, todas as transformacións dunha obra de creación suxeita ao copyright nun novo medio considérase unha obra derivada. Tamén todas aquelas modificacións que dan como resultado unha obra nova orixinal. Quen pode crear unha obra derivada? Vexa US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 106:

"(...) O propietario do copyright baixo esta prerrogativa ten os dereitos exclusivos para facer e para autorizar calqueira das accións seguintes: (...) (2) realizar obras derivadas baseadas na obra con copyright".

Ao contrario ca unha copia exacta dunha obra, que non xera por si mesma un novo copyright, unha obra derivada si dá lugar a novos dereitos. En todo caso, os dereitos de autor da obra orixinal permanecen. A persoa propietaria dos dereitos, poñamos por caso, un boneco animado de Darth Vader ou unha estatua de Picasso, ten o dereito exclusivo para crear obras derivadas. Iso inclúe fotografías da obra, posto que (como as decisións xudiciais refrendan) ese é un aspecto do seu traballo que o autor(a) pode desexar explotar comercialmente.

Likewise, the corporation that holds the copyright to Darth Vader (i.e., Walt Disney) has the exclusive right to create or authorize any derivative works of that character, including photographs or drawings of him which portray him in novel and creative ways, since (as court decisions put it) that is one aspect of the copyright holder's work that they might want to exploit commercially. In the same manner, anyone can make a movie based on The Bible, and may make their own movie called "The Ten Commandments" based on the Biblical chapter Exodus, but may not make a new version of the 1956 film, "The Ten Commandments", even with substantial new creative input, without getting permission of Paramount Pictures (the copyright holder).

Se tomo unha fotografía dun obxecto coa miña propia cámara, reteño os dereitos sobre esa imaxe. Podo licenciala coa licenza que eu queira? Por que teño que considerar os outros propietarios do copyright?

Cando realiza unha fotografía, vostede adquire os dereitos da súa propia obra (a fotografía). Ao mesmo tempo, os dereitos do orixinal seguen existindo e non desaparecen. Se publica a fotografía está facendo algo que só o propietario do copyright orixinal pode facer. Iso é porque non pode utilizar a propia fotografía dun traballo con copyright (excepto como fair use/uso lexítimo) a non ser que o creador do orixinal outorgue o seu permiso para facelo.

It does not matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Freedom of panorama).

Locations such as theme parks usually allow photography and sometimes even encourage it even though items of copyrighted artwork will almost certainly be included in visitors' photos. Such policies, however, do not automatically mean that such photos can be distributed under a public domain dedication or a free content license; the intent of a venue allowing photography may be to facilitate photography for personal usage and/or non-commercial sharing on social networking sites, for example. (See this discussion.) Also, the legal concept of de minimis can apply in such a setting: if the subject of your theme park photograph is your daughter eating an ice cream but someone in a Mickey Mouse costume can be seen in the background, this is not considered infringement nor a derivative work so long as it is clear from the photograph that you are interested in the girl and the frozen treat rather than the oversized rodent, and you may even market that image commercially (though you must be sure that Mickey really is "de minimis" and his presence must not make that image more useful, more interesting, or more marketable than it would be without him).

Está dicindo que se fago unha fotografía dun neno que sosteña un boneco de peluche que representa a Winnie the Pooh, Disney ten os dereitos da foto por extensión da propiedade do copyright do deseño de Winnie the Pooh?

Non. Disney non é a propietaria do copyright da foto. Hai dous tipos de copyrights diferentes a ter en conta, o do fotógrafo (en relación coa foto) e o de Disney (o xoguete). Deben considerarse os dous por separado. Pregúntese: Pode usarse a foto como unha ilustración de "Winnie the Pooh"? Estou intentando saltar as restricións das fotografías de Pooh usando unha foto do xoguete? Se é así non está permitido usar a nosa foto.

Be aware, though, that Disney's protection strategy both relies on author's right (artistic property) and trade mark (extended to protect a design). The actual legal analysis would be more subtle in that case. While Disney does not hold a copyright on the photo, there may be an infringement on Disney's copyright of Pooh by virtue of copying via the photograph. As virtually all photography is considered to involve at least a modicum of creativity on the part of the photographer, in fact you may have created a derivative work without permission.

O copyright de calqueira produto pertence a alguén? Que ocorre cos coches? Ou as cadeiras de cociña? E a caixa do meu ordenador?

Shortcut

• COM:UA

Non. Moitos coches usan un deseño común que non é obxecto de copyright, porque carece de orixinalidade e creatividade. Outros elementos como esculturas, pinturas, bonecos animados que son creacións orixinais, por regra xeral, si xeran dereitos. Non hai unha liña clara entre o que se pode rexistar e o que non de cara a obter o copyright. Ocorre tamén que as diferentes lexislacións usan distintos conceptos sobre o que é orixinal. A lei alemana, por exemplo, ten un termo chamado Schöpfungshöhe, onde se define o nivel de orixinalidade que debe ter un obxecto ou debuxo para poder ter copyright. Por suposto, non hai unha definición legal para este concepto; vostede pode servirse do sentido común e da xurisprudencia (un bo punto de partida: [2]).

O deseño do seu reloxio espertador ou do prato que usa para cear porbablemente non teñan o copyright como poida telo Mickey Mouse. Por favor distinga entre producións artísticas (pokemon) e obxectos de uso diario (consolas de xogos, pratos); estes últimos non son obras no sentido do copyright, ou, dependendo da xurisdición, non dispoñen da suficiente orixinalidade para cumprir os requisitos para a protección baixo o copyright de ditos obxectos. Están protexidos, por regra xeral, polas patentes do deseño, as cales poden ou non poden (dependendo da xurisdición outra vez) permitir o uso comercial de imaxes para todo menos certos contextos determinados. Iso en principio non nos concerne, posto que é algo independente por completo do copyright e iso non é algo do que debamos preocuparnos.

No. There are special provisions in US copyright law to exempt utility articles to a wide degree from copyright protection:

The second part of the amendment states that

"the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

A "useful article" is defined as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." This part of the amendment is an adaptation of language added to the Copyright Office Regulations in the mid-1950's in an effort to implement the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazer case.

In adopting this amendatory language, the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copyrighted works of industrial design. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee's intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies' dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill.

The test of separability and independence from "the utilitarian aspects of the article" does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such.

From Cornell University Law School notes on US Code 17 § 102; content primarily taken from a U.S. Government work

Note that while the commentary above was apparently written while some language was an amendment which had not then been enacted, it was subsequently enacted and can be found in 17 USC 101.

Sculptures, paintings, action figures, and (in many cases) toys and models do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore in the United States (where Commons is hosted) such objects are generally considered protected as copyrighted works of art. A toy airplane, for example, is mainly intended to portray the appearance of an airplane in a manner similar to that of a painting of an airplane. On the other hand, ordinary alarm clocks, dinner plates, gaming consoles— as well as actual, full-scale planes— are not generally copyrightable... though any design painted on the dinner plate would likely be subject to copyright protection, as would an alarm clock in the shape of Snoopy the dog.

It is possible for utilitarian objects to have aspects which are copyrightable, but there is no clear line in US law between works which are copyrightable and objects which are not. A white paper on copyright and 3D printing mentioned several US court rulings that were each about whether a functional object had artistic elements that were "physically or conceptually" separable from the object's functional aspects and therefore copyrightable. The whitepaper suggested a consideration for determining if specific elements of a utilitarian object are copyrightable under US law: if an object has non-functional elements, then those elements are more likely to be copyrightable if the design of the elements was not influenced by utilitarian pressures.

Different countries may have different definitions: German law has a term called Schöpfungshöhe, which is the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts. It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland. There is no legal definition for this threshold, so one must use common sense and existing case law.

Instead of copyright protection, utilitarian objects are generally protected by design patents, which, depending on jurisdiction, may limit commercial use of depictions. However, patents and copyright are separate areas of law, and works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. Therefore, patents of this kind are not a matter of concern for Commons.

Photos of people in costumes of copyrighted characters may or may not be copyrighted. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay for more information. These should be decided on a case-by-case basis using the separability test.[3]

Text

It is prohibited to copy text from non-free media like copyrighted books, articles or similar works. Information itself, however, is not copyrightable, and you are free to rewrite it in your own words. Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source.

Sei que non podo cargar imaxes de arte con copyright (como pinturas ou estatuas), pero que ocorre cos xoguetes? Os xoguetes non son arte!

Shortcuts

• COM:TOYS
• COM:TOY

Vexa tamén: Category:Toys related deletion requests

Legalmente, moitos dos xoguetes son arte. É o mesmo caso se realiza unha foto dunha escultura ou dunha figura de Darth Vader. Ambas as dúas están protexidas polo copyright; en ambos as dous casos, o copyright da fotografía non anula o copyright orixinal, e en ambos os dous casos necesita o permiso do creador orixinal para publicar a imaxe. Non pode cargar imaxes dunha escultura de Picasso, non pode cargar fotografías de Mickey Mouse ou de figuras de Pokemon.

En numerosos demandas xudiciais tense demostrado que Mickey Mouse ou Asterix deben ser tratados como obras de arte. Iso significa que son suxeito do copyright, mentres unha culler de uso común ou unha mesa non son obras de arte. Estas últimas poden xerar dereitos no caso de que teñan un forma verdadeiramente especial froito do traballo do deseñador, pero as que vostede usa na cociña probablemente non.

Although the scope of copyright varies between countries, it is a misconception that copyright applies solely to "art". Instead, copyright typically applies to a larger variety of works; to use the United States, where WMF servers are located, as an example: copyright protection is available to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression” Indeed, toys generally are original (owe their origin to an author), have authors (human creators), and are fixed in a tangible medium (wood, fabric, etc.)

The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan, generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright. Other countries, such as the United States, however, do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. Accordingly, paintings, statues and toys are all works subject to copyright whose photographs would require permission of the original creator to be hosted on the Commons. Just as you cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you cannot upload photographs of post-1928 Mickey Mouse or Pokémon figures.

The legal rationale in the United States has been established in numerous cases. "Gay Toys, Inc. versus Buddy L Corporation", for example, found "a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function." Additional rulings have found, for example, "it is no longer subject to dispute that statues or models of animals or dolls are entitled to copyright protection" and "There is no question but that stuffed toy animals are entitled to copyright protection."

Similarly, dolls' clothing has been found to be copyrightable in the US on the grounds that it does not have a utilitarian function of providing protection from the elements or preserving modesty in the manner that clothing for humans does (the latter is a "useful article.") Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix have to be treated as works of art, which means they are subject to copyright, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. Artistic elements of these items could be copyrighted, but only if it's separable from the utilitarian elements. Some toys are also too simple to meet the threshold of originality, for example, the Kong dog toy. "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.

In other cases, the "separability" test may be needed (see Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.). Consensus on Commons has found that sex dolls are copyrightable, as their design elements are separable from their utilitarian function.

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

Se Wikimedia Commons é un sitio non comercial! Que ocorre co fair use/uso lexítimo?

Wikimedia Commons é un proxecto non comercial, pero os principios do proxecto obrigan a que cada imaxe individual poida usarse de xeito comercial vía licenzas libres. Cada imaxe ou ficheiro multimedia debe estar libre de dereitos de terceiras partes.

O Fair use/uso lexítimo por regra xeral non está permitido en Commons. "Fair use" é unha excepción legal para imaxes que se eusan en certo contexto determinado; non é aplicable a bases de datos completas de material con copyright.

Pero como podemos ilustrar temas como Star Wars ou Pokemon sen imaxes?

Dificilmente. Probablemente teña que absterse de ilustrar eses artigos da Wikipedia. De todos os xeitos, hai un monte de oportunidades para ilustrar certos temas sen violar o copyright de terceiros. Este proxecto non se vai acabar porque non teñamos imaxes de Pikachu ou de Asterix. Tampouco temos imaxes das obras de Picasso ou Andy Warhol, pero seguimos escribindo artigos acerca deles.

E non, non importa se Mickey Mouse está impreso no debuxo dunha camiseta mercada con cartos propios que leva posta un mesmo mentres camiña por un espazo público recitando en voz alta a licenza GFDL. Iso non dá dereito a realizar unha fotografía da camiseta, recortar a imaxe de Mickey Mouse e cargala como material "libre". Nada do que poida facer, debuxar a Pikachu cos porpios lapises de cores ou facer unha escultura xigante de Sailor Moon, pode traspasar maxicamente o punto onde un material con copyright se converte en "libre".

Some Wikimedia projects allow non-free works (including derivatives of non-free works) to be uploaded locally under fair use provisions. The situations in which this is permitted are strictly limited. It is vital to consult the policies and guidelines of the project in question before attempting to invoke fair use claims.

What about images of copyrighted characters in public domain works?

Shortcuts

• COM:CHARACTER
• COM:CHAR

Sometimes individual works featuring copyrighted characters (such as Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes) enter the public domain. Only aspects of the character that appear in the public domain work may be used to create a new derivative work. Aspects of the character that appear in works under an active copyright are still protected. For instance in Warner Bros. v. AVELA a promotional poster for the movie The Wizard of Oz was never copyrighted. A t-shirt company combined the public domain images from the poster with catchphrases from the 1939 film that was still under an active copyright. The court ruled that only the images were public domain and that combining them with the copyrighted catchphrases created a new work that infringed Warner Bros. active copyright for the film.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif for additional court rulings.

Derivative representations of characters are protected by copyright law in the United States until the original work that created the character is no longer copyrighted. This protection is separate from trademark protection. See Commons:Character copyrights for information on the copyright status of specific characters.

Nunca escoitei iso antes! É algún tipo de interpretación creativa?

En realidade, non. As fotografías de esculturas de arte moderno ou pinturas non se poden cargar, e a xente acepta iso. Se aceptamos o precepto legal que determina que os personaxes de cómic e os bonecos animados poden ser considerados arte e ser obxecto de copyright, entón temos que concluir que debemos aplicar ese precepto aquí.

Casos prácticos

Vexa tamén: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter.

Como afecta o dito anteriormente á selección de imaxes que están permitidas en Wikimedia Commons?

• Personaxes de cómic e bonecos animados: Nin fotografías, debuxos, pinturas ou calquera outro tipo de copias/obras derivadas están permitidos (a non ser que o orixinal estea no dominio público). Tampouco fotografías de obxectos que traballos derivados dos orixinais, como bonecas, xoguetes, camisetas, bolsas impresas, cinceiros, etc.

• Pinturas encadradas: as pinturas que estean no dominio público xeralmente si están permitidas (vexa Commons:Licensing). Tamén pode usar escaneados doutros sitios web - non teñen copyright mentres non amosen o marco. Os marcos son obxectos tridimensionais, entón a foto pode ter copyright. Elimine o marco (vía recortar) e xa estará solucionado. Lembre: Sempre indique o nome do creador, a data de nacemento e morte, e cando foi creada, se pode! Se non o sabe, subministre canta información sexa posible da fonte (enlace de orixe, lugar de publicación, etc.). Así outros colaboradores poderán verificar o status do copyright.

• Pinturas en covas: As paredes das covas non soen ser planas, máis ben tridimensionais. O mesmo ocorre con xarróns antigos e outros tipos de superficies irregulares ou rugosas. Isto pode significar que as fotografías poidan ter copyright incluso no caso de que as pinturas estean no dominio público. (Estamos buscando casos de estudo sobre isto!) Frescos antigos e outras pinturas no dominio público en superficies lisas poden usarse libremente, xa que reproducen obras de arte de dúas dimensións.
• Fotografías de edificios e obras de arte en espazos públicos: as obras derivadas están permitidas se a obra de arte está exposta permanentemente (iso significa que está alí para permanecer e non para ser retirada despois de certo tempo). Comprobe en Commons:Licensing se a lexislación do seu país permite unha excepción do copyright chamada Panoramafreiheit (liberdade de panorama) en Alemaña.

• Réplicas de obras de arte: Réplica de obras no dominio público, como os souvenirs dos turistas coa figura da Venus de Milo, son copias e non obras derivadas, iso significa que non poden ser rexistradas pola persoa que creou a réplica. As fotografías deses elementos deben tratarse como as fotografías da obra de arte mesma.
• Fotografías de obxectos tridimensionais: teñen sempre copyright. Incluso no caso de que o obxecto fotografado estea no dominio público. Se non realizou a foto vostede mesmo, necesita permiso do creador ou asegurarse de que a fotografía está no dominio público (ou libre de dereitos).

• Images of characters/objects/scenes in books: subject to any copyright on the book itself. You cannot freely create and distribute a drawing of Albus Dumbledore any more than you could distribute your own Harry Potter movie. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author.
• Fan art: See Commons:Fan art

Tagging non-free derivative works

If you come across derivative works of non-free works on Commons, tag them with {{SD|F3}} for speedy deletion.

Derivatives of Free works

In general, derivatives of free works (such as described in Commons:Collages, but also any related work that modifies it) are usually allowed. However, there must be compatible licensing used. For Creative Commons licenses, see Compatible Licenses:

• Adapting works licensed under CC BY-SA version 2 or higher can be re-licensed under the same or higher version of CC BY-SA (e.g. a derivative of a CC BY-SA 3 work could be either 3, 4, or both).
• Adapting works licensed under CC BY-SA version 1 must be re-licensed as CC BY-SA 1.
• Adapting works licensed under CC BY licenses can either use the original version or later versions of CC BY, or included in CC BY-SA (see "Can I include a work licensed with CC BY in a Wikipedia article even though they use a CC BY-SA license?")
• If you're making a derivative of something else you yourself made, you can simplify this by Multi-licensing your earlier upload under more licenses. (So if you had a version 1 CC license, you can just go back and add a version 4 license, which simplifies things greatly.)
• Adapting public domain or CC0 material means you have full freedom in picking a license for a derivative work.

See also

• Collages are combinations of multiple images arranged into a single image
• Screenshots are a type of derivative work

References

Ligazóns externas

Casos de estudo

• http://www.ivanhoffman.com/beanie.html (Un caso no que as fotografías das bonecas Beanie Babie se tratan como obra derivada)
• http://www.benedict.com/Visual/batman/batman.aspx (Un caso no que a Warner Bros é acusada de infrinxir o copyright por filmar unha estatua no interior dun edificio)
• http://www.stmaryslawjournal.org/pdfs/gorman.pdf (Eric D. Gorman: How to determine whether appropriation art is transformative “fair use” or morely an unauthorized derivative?)

Outros sitios web útiles

• Derivative Works :: Topics :: Lumen (formerly Chilling Effects)
• L.H.O.O.Q.--Internet-Related Derivative Works
• US Copyright Office Circular 14 - Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations
• Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices - Chapter 500 (Qué é obxecto de copyright e que non?)
• Australian Copyright Council's Online Information Centre has many downloadable guides covering aspects of copyright.