共享资源:原创门槛

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 98% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Threshold of originality and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:

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

著作权
美國國鐵的標誌不被視為"作者的作品"，因為它僅由簡單的文本和形狀所組成的，所以就美国法律而言，它不是版权的对象。然而，這個標誌仍然受商標法的保護。
美國國鐵的標誌不被視為"作者的作品"，因為它僅由簡單的文本和形狀所組成的，所以就美国法律而言，它不是版权的对象。然而，這個標誌仍然受商標法的保護。

原創性門檻是版權法中的一個概念，用於評估特定作品或其中的一部分是否可以受版權保護。它用於區分具有足夠原創性以保證版權保護的作品與不具有版權保護的作品。在這種情況下，原創性是指“來自作為發起者/作者的某人（只要它以某種方式反映了作者的個性），而不是“以前從未發生或存在過（即 將相當於保護新事物，如專利保護）。

通常，版權適用於整個作品。如果作品包含足夠複雜的部分以受到版權保護，則整個作品被視為受版權保護。不能通過將最低限度應用於不可忽略的部分將所述作品上傳到共享资源。

本頁的其餘部分討論被法院或類似機構判定為不符合版權保護條件的圖像。如果沒有司法裁決，通常無法確定特定圖像是否在原創性的門檻內。但是，根據預防原則，如果對圖像不受版權保護有重大懷疑，則應刪除該圖像。

如需更多信息，請參閱維基百科上的原創門檻。

这张信息图展示了"原创性门槛"根据所处地区而有所不同。

地图

[这个插图解释得不够清楚。您可以编辑页面，使其更加清晰。]


文本嵌入自
COM:TOO United States

美國

這些圖像 OK可以上傳到Commons。因為它們低於版權保護所需的原創性門檻。

  • Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)
    Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)
  • 國家美式足球聯盟放棄紐奧良聖徒標章之著作權請求（新聞報導）
    國家美式足球聯盟放棄紐奧良聖徒標章之著作權請求（新聞報導）
  • Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
    Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  • DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
    DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  • 日建美國公司 (authority)
    日建美國公司 (authority)
  • 李小龍核心符號 (authority)
    李小龍核心符號 (authority)
  • 紐約箭頭標誌 (案例報告)
    紐約箭頭標誌 (案例報告)
  • 車貸城標誌：版權局裁定該標誌過於簡單無法保護，但接受了稍微複雜的版本（如鍊接信中所示）進行註冊(authority)
    車貸城標誌：版權局裁定該標誌過於簡單無法保護，但接受了稍微複雜的版本（如鍊接信中所示）進行註冊(authority)
  • “神秘”的象徵(authority)
    “神秘”的象徵(authority)
  • 字母S(authority)
    字母S(authority)
  • (authority)
    (authority)
  • 註冊被取消(authority)
    註冊被取消(authority)
  • 註冊被拒絕(authority)
    註冊被拒絕(authority)
  • Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: 照片有資格獲得版權保護，但瓶子不是
    Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: 照片有資格獲得版權保護，但瓶子不是
  • 塑料版本缺乏獨創性(L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)
    塑料版本缺乏獨創性(L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)
  • Koosh balls; "不可分割的", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)
    Koosh balls; "不可分割的", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)
  • 阿肯色州地圖：在免費的黑白輪廓地圖中添加陰影、顏色、標籤（案例報告）
    阿肯色州地圖：在免費的黑白輪廓地圖中添加陰影、顏色、標籤（案例報告）
  • 聖徒大道標誌；註冊被拒絕，儘管編譯版權要求安排其他不受保護的元素(authority)
    聖徒大道標誌；註冊被拒絕，儘管編譯版權要求安排其他不受保護的元素(authority)
  • 極客小隊標誌(authority)
    極客小隊標誌(authority)
  • 賽百味標誌 (authority)
    賽百味標誌 (authority)
  • Discover It標誌：版權局發現包括陰影效果在內的元素創意不足，不符合版權條件(authority)
    Discover It標誌：版權局發現包括陰影效果在內的元素創意不足，不符合版權條件(authority)
  • “賽博朋克2077”標誌(authority)
    “賽博朋克2077”標誌(authority)
  • 洛杉磯FC標誌 (authority)
    洛杉磯FC標誌 (authority)
  • 尼康標誌 (authority)
    尼康標誌 (authority)
  • 舊金山震動隊標誌 (authority)
    舊金山震動隊標誌 (authority)
  • 公用保險庫系統六邊形徽標 (authority)
    公用保險庫系統六邊形徽標 (authority)

儘管一再要求，美國版權局還是發現了Vodafone語音標記（陰影版）/vodafone-speechmark.pdf 不符合版權保護。但是，它不能上傳到Commons，因為它是英國的標誌。

這些是 Not OK上傳到Commons（除非在版權所有者的免費許可下發布），因為它們高於版權保護所需的原創性門檻。
  • 這兩個“禁止招攬”標誌雖然可以說相對簡單，但已經由版權局頒發了版權登記號美國版權局，這意味著它們已經過審查並確定有資格獲得版權保護。需要注意的是，版權登記適用於整個圖像，包括其邊界。
  • File:CarCreditCity.png 帶有額外的邊框。
  • 美國航空公司航班符號 VA0002130520；版權局最初拒絕版權，因為版權剛好低於閾值，但在提交更高分辨率後的藝術品，決定陰影加上排列將徽標推到閾值上方並授予註冊。 (DR)
畫作

 Not OK對於大多數繪畫。

即使由幾何形狀組成的看似簡單的繪畫也經常受到版權保護，因為細節對觀眾來說可能不是立即顯而易見的。

其他

儘管非圖形作品（如建築和錄音）的原創性門檻遵循相同的標準，但此類情況可能難以確定。

  • 通常伴隨英特爾徽標出现的五音符旋律已獲得版權保護，因為它“合并、混合了合成數字音频”並且“使用特殊的空間增強器進行了改进和重制”。 [3]
  • Anish Kapoor 的Cloud Gate是一個被认为有资格获得版权的相對簡單的3D雕塑 (VA0001983425)
  • 位于New York-New York Hotel and Casino（纽约-纽约酒店）的公有领域物件Statue of Liberty（自由女神像）的复制品被认为有资格获得版权。另外，United States Postal Service（美国邮政总局）因其在永久邮票（Forever stamps）上对该雕像（而不是实际的自由女神像）的一次有名且错误的使用而被卷入一场版权侵权诉讼中（VAu001149387、VA0001882070）。另参见DR1及DR2。

民法法系(大陸法系)国家

大陸法系國家通常要求相對較高的最低智力創造力水平，這會將典型簽名和簡單標識排除在版權保護之外。然而，這並不適用於所有這些國家。例如，眾所周知，奧地利和中國有相對較低的原創性門檻，然而菲律宾的一些简单标识则获得了该国知识产权局的版权注册。。

如果您知道在任何國家有關此問題的具體判例法或法律建議，請在相應的共享资源:各地著作权法规的國家子頁面中添加"原創性門檻"部分，然後在下面添加一個链接。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Afghanistan

阿富汗

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]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Austria

奧地利

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

These logos are  不可以:

  • Bauer Logo.

[4][5]

  • Zimmermann Fitness logo.[6][7]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Brazil

巴西

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

[8]

Examples:

  • 可以. In the case of Boneco de Preço Miúdo (2011), puppets that were a tridimensional and humanized version of a logo were deemed by the court to lack enough originality to be protected. The court considered that there was no originality or unpublished work in the puppets because they represented an already existing symbol (the supermarket's logo), and that there were already previous 3D and humanized versions of that logo. The court did not grant any value nor legal protection to the specific 3D and humanized version of the logo in question, and called it something like a "stylization subordinate to a previous idea".

[9]

  • 可以. Copyright for compilations/ reorganizations of already existing elements has often been rejected on court, hinting that the threshold for what constitutes an "intellectual creation" in this respect is quite high in Brazil.

[10]

  • 可以. Slogans are generally acceptable. In rare occasions they may be protected, when there is such a level of creativity as to attain the level of a literary work. For example, in the Guerra das Moedas court case (2013), copyright in the expression was not recognized by the court. The verdict stated that the language is the cultural patrimony of the people, so language expressions can't be protected by law. The Rede Globo vs. Ronaldo Ciambroni case was similar.

[11][12]

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

  • 可以. The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique". The court ruled: "photographs are not considered artistic creations ... that portray in a manifestly simple way, without use of any differentiated technique, the front of a residential building and a partial view of the city, under a service contract with a real estate business with a predefined advertising purpose"

[13]

  • 可以. Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."

[14]

  • 可以. A 2000 ruling stated: "Photographs for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works. ... Neither should purely technical photographs, which reproduce a certain object without the slightest artistic concern, be protected by copyright."

[15]

  •  不可以 Another 2000 decision stated: "the photos [...] have an artistic character characterized by the originality, creativity and technique of its author, elements that reveal ... a work of art. They are not, as the appellant claims, mere reproductions of images for advertising purposes, or common snapshots."

[16]

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Czech Republic

捷克

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)]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Chile

智利

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO China

中國

中国大陆有相当低的原创门槛标准；简单的设计亦可能受到版权保护。最明显的例子是港亨公司的标志（下方列出），这被最高人民法院裁定受版权保护（参见下方）。

以下例子 可以：

  • “火柴人”（图片），头部是一个黑球，以黑色线描绘躯干，四只和脚缺乏创意从而不符合版权保护要求，这是由北京市高级人民法院裁定的（来源）。
  • 北京市高级人民法院于2020年裁定，五个SKECHERS徽标（图片）因缺乏原创性而不受版权保护（[3]和相关新闻报道）。
  • 北京市高级人民法院于2018年裁定，“BIOU”标志（图像），带有字母“b”和“o”，右上角有一个小条码，因缺乏原创性而不受版权保护（最终判决 和相关文章[4][5]）。请注意，商标审查和裁决委员会和下级法院最初裁定该徽标具有版权。
  • “KON”标志（见下方），三个黑条交叉在一起，因缺乏原创性而不受版权保护，北京东城区人民法院于2019年作出裁决（终审判决和新闻报道）。
  • 中国最高人民法院于2012年裁定，“超群”标识（见下方）因缺乏原创性而不受版权保护（判决原文）。法院认为，其表现形式并未显示存在独特的风格；与普通篆体及隶书相比仅存在细微的差别，“超群”标识没有达到一定的创作高度，不具有原创性。
  • 类似此图的站立人，圆形代表头部，而直线则代表其他肢体，因此不受版权保护。
    类似此图的站立人，圆形代表头部，而直线则代表其他肢体，因此不受版权保护。
  • SKECHERS的S标志不受版权保护。
    SKECHERS的S标志不受版权保护。
  • 三个黑色横条交叉在一起的KON标志不受版权保护。
    三个黑色横条交叉在一起的KON标志不受版权保护。
  • 超群标志被认定不受版权保护。
    超群标志被认定不受版权保护。

以下例子 Not OK：

都受到版权保护（中华人民共和国著作权法：“第二条　中国公民、法人或者其他组织的作品，不论是否发表，依照本法享有著作权。”及“本法所称的作品，包括以下列形式创作的文学、艺术和自然科学、社会科学、工程技术等作品：…（四）美术、建筑作品；”。另外根据实施条例：“第四条　著作权法和本条例中下列作品的含义：…（八）美术作品，是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品；”）
  • 手写字：根据南京市中级人民法院于2017年的裁决（来源：[6]、[7]、判决书），手写原稿可被视作版权保护的艺术作品。
  • “LY”公司标志（存档来源），虽然看起来相对简单，但仍由国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、北京知识产权法院和北京市高级人民法院裁决认定受版权保护。
  • 根据南京市中级人民法院于2012年的有关判决，在这些标志中，“笑”、“喜”和“城市宝贝”文字使用的字体受版权保护。然而同一标志中的“巴”字则在同一判决中被认为缺乏原创性而不受版权保护。（来源，法院判决全文：Final judgement）
  • 港亨公司标志：最高人民法院于2014年裁定该标志受版权保护（法院原始判决、相关新闻稿）。
  • 迪尼玛标志（见[8]）：中国最高人民法院于2017年裁定该标志受版权保护（原审判决）。
  • 下图所示的K2 Sports标志符合版权保护条件，在2010年商标裁决程序中确定（source）。
  • K2 Sports的标志在中国受版权保护（但在其原产国美国不受版权保护）。
    K2 Sports的标志在中国受版权保护（但在其原产国美国不受版权保护）。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Denmark

丹麥

Status Example Notes
可以
Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.
可以
Sketches of windows and doors not eligible for copyright protection (The Maritime and Commercial Court 8 August 2003.)[18][19]
可以
The WWF panda logo is not protected by copyright[20]
 不可以
The GLOBAL knife design is copyright protected in Denmark.[21]
 不可以
A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp).[22]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Finland

芬蘭

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

[25][23]

OK
Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)
OK
Differences compared to the coat of arms of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality. (TN 1998:5)
 不可以 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)
 不可以 Save the Children Fund logo The logo is above the threshold of originality, because its "visual manifestation is the creative work of its author, whereby the ideological basis of the fund has been successfully conformed with in an independent and original manner... [N]o one else undertaking a comparable task could have reached a similar outcome". (TN 2010:3)
OK

and

The logos are "in their literary and visual manifestation simple and ordinary to the degree that they are not to be regarded as original works in their own regard." (TN 2009:2)
OK
The logo is "is not original and independent in such a way that it would be protected ... by copyright". (TN 2011:7)
OK
The logo is below the threshold of originality because "its central elements and the way in which they have been combined are commonly used in logos and are thus ordinary". (TN 2000:1)
 不可以 "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)


文本嵌入自
COM:TOO France

法國

French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint").

[26]

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

[27]

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

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Germany

德國

美術作品（包括應用藝術作品和建築作品）

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

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

Examples from court cases on applied art:[36]

保护拒绝：

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

保护根据：

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

In the past decades, court cases where protection as applied art was eventually accorded primarily revolved around renowned designer objects, in particular items of furniture and lamps.[46] 更多的最近示例：

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Greece

希腊

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

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Hungary

匈牙利

可以

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

[52]

 不可以

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Indonesia

印度尼西亚

據報導，印度尼西亞的原創性門檻很低，基於普通法（“英美模式”）原則，“壁紙、包裝紙、包裝設計和技術圖紙”已由版權當局註冊。[54]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Iran

伊朗

 不可以對於大多數徽標。伊朗版權保護所需的原創性水平似乎很低。

以下內容可註冊copyright protection：(...)圖片、繪畫、設計、裝飾性文字，(...)或任何裝飾性和富有想像力的作品以任何簡單或複雜的方式

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Italy

意大利

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

[55]

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

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

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Japan

日本

下面圖庫中的徽標是 可以上傳。

日本版權法第2條規定，如果作品是以創造性的方式表達思想或情感，並且屬於文學、科學、藝術或音樂領域，則該作品有資格獲得版權。[57]

日本法院裁定，文字標誌要具有版權，必須具有值得藝術欣賞的藝術外觀。僅由幾何形狀和文本組成的徽標一般也不受版權保護。

Asahi Breweries "Asahi" logo (DR) 東京高等法院判決：字母是一種溝通方式，人人共享。 字體的版權保護僅限於那些能像藝術作品一樣喚起藝術欣賞力的字體。[58]
Cup Noodles (DR) 東京高等法院的裁決：雖然形狀是程式化的，但文字排列正常，並保持其作為字母序列閱讀的功能。[59]
Olympic flag 東京地方法院的裁決：法院對承認該符號為受版權保護的美術作品持否定態度，因為它被認為只是相對簡單的圖形元素。[60]
  • Furby玩具：utilitarian，因此作為藝術作品不受版權保護。在美國不實用，所以玩具的照片不能上傳到Commons。[61]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Libya

利比亞

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]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Luxembourg

卢森堡

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

[62]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Mexico

墨西哥

如上所述，以下是1996年版權法受保護和不受保護的示例：

這些圖片 OK可以上傳到Commons
  • 字母、數字或孤立的顏色
    字母、數字或孤立的顏色
  • 名稱和標題或孤立的短語
    名稱和標題或孤立的短語
  • 可填寫任何類型信息及其說明的簡單格式或空白表格（示例圖片）
    可填寫任何類型信息及其說明的簡單格式或空白表格（示例圖片）
  • 未經授權複製或模仿任何國家、州、市或同等政治部門的盾牌、旗幟或標誌
    未經授權複製或模仿任何國家、州、市或同等政治部門的盾牌、旗幟或標誌
  • 未經授權，對國際政府、非政府組織或任何其他官方認可的組織進行複製或模仿
    未經授權，對國際政府、非政府組織或任何其他官方認可的組織進行複製或模仿
這些是 Not OK上傳到Commons（除非在版權所有者的免費許可下發布），因為它們高於版權保護所需的原創性門檻，不受法律本身的保護。
  • 私人實體的標誌，例如足球隊或公司。“政府/非政府組織/官方認可的組織”一詞並不是指每個現有的 organization，而是指在特定目的下創建的組織。簡單來說，如果公司在他們的網站上使用“.com”，他們就不會被視為一個組織。如果他們使用“.org”，則他們作為一個組織運作。
  • 在墨西哥運營的國際政府組織的標誌，其標誌首先在另一個國家發布。雖然大赦國際是一個在墨西哥運作的國際非政府組織，但他們的標誌最早在英國出版，擁有墨西哥法律無法撤銷的獨立版權.
  • 假設，如果圍標不是由墨西哥政府創作的，它將受到保護，因為其字母符合條件“除非它們的風格使它們成為原始圖紙”。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Netherlands

荷蘭

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

  • In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker.

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgment ''Endstra-tapes':[64]

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

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

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Norway

挪威

Not protected

Two-minute theatre play.

[66]

Protected

[67]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Peru

秘鲁

Indecopi established parameters to qualify the originality of graphic and photographic compositions. Because of the higher originality threshold (independent of its endeavour, novelty, inspiration and technique, the requirement is to leave some space for the development of its author's personality, not a copy or imitation, referred as "originalidad subjetiva"),[68] simple designs, non-production videographic creations and old photographs without demonstrating their individuality can be uploaded to Commons. See also Andean Community: Threshold of originality.

簡單的照片

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:

  • For old pictures taken prior to 31 December 1975 and which were not published within an author's own work  fail to meet the general definition of a "work" under 1961 law (and Article 3.4 of Universal Copyright Convention: "The provisions […] not apply to photographic works […] shall not be less than ten years").[69] The duration of the photograph was for 20 years after performed its first copy, without the author presenting this in a literary, scientific or documentary work, from January 1 of the following year.[13714/1961 Art. 27] They were not renewed during the URAA date.[13714/1961 Art. 27 and 57] Use {{PD-Peru-photo}}.
  • The duration is reduced if the following occurs: when the author did not place the name of the label with the message "Reproduction prohibited" or that the author published in a work without a full name or under an unknown pseudonym.[13714/1961 Art. 58] The duration of anonymous works prior to 31 December 1980 was 15 years after publication and expired on 1 January 1996. They were not renewed during the URAA date. Use {{PD-Peru-anonymous}}.
  • If they were used in literary or scientific works, they were documentary works or are reproductions of artistic material "of private domain", and the author died before 1946 (of before 1966 if someone had no family heirs), the law considers the photographs as the author's work (life + 30/50 years).[69] In the case of collective works, the date is considered to be the last survivor. If they died after 1947, they are protected by the current law. Use {{PD-Peru-1961law}}.

Recent published photographs below threshold 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:

  • The general definition of a "work" in the 1996 law is "any personal and original intellectual creation capable of being disclosed or reproduced in any form that is or may yet become known".[822/1996 Art.2(17)] Simple photographs taken or disclosed since 1976 are those which  fail to meet the general definition of a "work" and only receive neighbouring rights,[822/1996 Art.144] but works above this threshold will receive standard protection (life + 70 years, see below).
  • The Court of Indecopi believes that originality in a photograph should be limited to the originality of any work, requirements to protect against plagiarism. According to article 3.c of the Regulation of Inscriptions in the Registry National Copyright Act, provides that "no may be subject to registration the photographs that are limited to simple reproductions of people, of things, or of objects already existing or showing a mere documentary character [...] photography to be a work can not constitute only a simple reproduction of already existing objects".[70]
  • Derecho PUCP journal explains examples of highly distinguishable events that surpass the threshold of originality: creative use of lights, unique moment, transmission of a message in their work and the photographer's personality. Below these and other criteria, simple photographs are legislated under Legislative Decree 1044 on unfair competition.[71]

Examples for photographs under 1961 law:

  • 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.
    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.
  • Photography taken in 1973 for a sports magazine. Because this is a journalistic assignment for an organization, the photograph remained protected for 20 years until its expiration in 1993. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See DR.
    Photography taken in 1973 for a sports magazine. Because this is a journalistic assignment for an organization, the photograph remained protected for 20 years until its expiration in 1993. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See DR.

Examples for photographs under 1996 law:

  • In 2002 the Court considered two images of household appliances as below of threshold of originality due to the lack of creative evidence, despite they are in a catalog with individuality. See Resolution No 354-2002/TPI-INDECOPI.[72]
  • Also, in 2002 the Court ruled that a magazine photograph of Skándalo boy band in ordinary dress and solid-colored background receives related rights-only because it lacks individuality. See Resolution No 378-2002/TPI-INDECOPI, Alomi Producciones S.A.C. v Karinto S.A p.13.[70]
  • In 2007 the Court justified a photograph of gift box for a web catalog as original work because of its shade selection and during the editing process it carried meticulous details, specifically the colored shade artificially created. See Resolution No 1263-2007/TPI-INDECOPI, Enrique Capella v Grupo Americano de Comercio S.A.C. and Citybank del Perú S.A p.4.[73]
  • In 2008 the court determined that press snapshots of sporting, political or weather events lack originality for lack of prior preparation in their production. See Resolution No 2521-2008/TPI-Indecopi, Agencia Efe S.A. v Las Rosas Editorial S.A.C.
  • In 2012 the Court concluded that non-artistic techniques of photographs are not protectable (for example, scanning). See Resolution No 059-2012/TPI-Indecopi and Indecopi (2015), p.75.[74]
  • In 2013 Indecopi deduced that a promotional photograph of a model wearing clothes of a textile company does bear originality due to the framing, focus and composition to highlight her outfit. See Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI, Peruvian Connection Ltd. v SENATI p. 9 and 10.[75]
  • In 2021 the criteria for originality of photographs were simplified to three points: transmittable, framed and lighting that shows their personality. Between pages 77 and 82 of this resolution the court evident that press photographs from Hildebrandt en sus trece magazine do carry originality because they focus on the gestures of the photographed and the depth of the camera. See Resolution No 0096-2021/TPI-INDECOPI, Plutón Editores S.A.C. v DP Comunicaciones S.A.C..
Videographic process

There is threshold of originality for audiovisual creations but their protection is similar for both works and recordings (publish/create + 70 years). While cinematographic works ("obra audiovisual") are protected in their entirety, the related rights can only be granted to the producer of non-artistic filming ("grabación audiovisual"),[822/1996 Art. 140] which also include performance and broadcasting.[822/1996 Art. 143] Resolution 000111-1999-ODA-INDECOPI establishes differences between the two terms, in particular, and in a similar way to simple photographs, the fixation of the succession of images. But, Resolution 371-2001/TPI-INDECOPI establishes that the main requirement to receive related rights from the producer of non-artistic filming consists of: "present in their creation process a certain degree of creativity, technical or organizational skill sufficient to justify the recognition of a similar right in their favor" (p.e. Pay-per-View events).

Theoretically, a security camera captures in a public place could  lack of their producer (as a public asset is mainly assumed to Peruvian State) to be in the public domain. 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 original producer of the material.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 18] Opinión Consultiva 60-2019-JUS/DGTAIPD indicates that footage records are disclosure if these are for public interest and share in open data process (see also Works by the Peruvian Government ),[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.[76][77] Moral rights prevail of the person involved in this media. For these footage in official works, use {{PD-PE-exempt}}.

標誌、設計和其他作品

Simple or ordinary 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. ”

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

In 18th paragraph in Casación Número: 1686-2011 explains the use of originality with architectural works satisfying utilitarian functions:

“ The originality of the architectural work [...] must be sought essentially in the creative features that are most distinguishable from the purposes of the model, its nature, its geographic and landscape context, and the functional requirements of the costumer, as well as the technical and urban planning standards applicable to the case; and respond rather, in a particular way or as totality, to the individuality or artistic personality of the author. [An] architectural model [...] must be subjected to analysis for the purpose of identifying whether they respond only to elements of functionality or natural characteristics of the species to which they belong or, on the contrary, contain features that correspond to the whim or personality that the author has wanted to attribute to them, beyond their functionality or technical rigor, resulting in giving individuality to the work, in relation to the rest of the constructions of its species. ”
  • Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "It's not possible to grant a monopoly on this letter in favour of a single holder".
    Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "It's not possible to grant a monopoly on this letter in favour of a single holder".
  • Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. v Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "When it is certain that a creation lacks individuality and has been copied verbatim, it does not make it a work".
    Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. v Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[74]: "When it is certain that a creation lacks individuality and has been copied verbatim, it does not make it a work".
  • Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Although it is not a common typeface and may eventually show some differences with respect to the classic graph, this is not sufficient to consider that the work is protected by copyright".
    Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Although it is not a common typeface and may eventually show some differences with respect to the classic graph, this is not sufficient to consider that the work is protected by copyright".
  • Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "The title of the poster consists of a sentence without creativity and directly informs and announces the content of the event".
    Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "The title of the poster consists of a sentence without creativity and directly informs and announces the content of the event".
  • Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "The borders with Inca motifs and the typeface used to represent the word "CUSCO" do not meet the requirement of originality sufficient to be considered an artistic work".
    Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "The borders with Inca motifs and the typeface used to represent the word "CUSCO" do not meet the requirement of originality sufficient to be considered an artistic work".
  • Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): the court determined that the "squeaky font style" from Chicha posters for this logo is not original due to its common usage.
    Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): the court determined that the "squeaky font style" from Chicha posters for this logo is not original due to its common usage.
  • Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: In the "drawing", they bear the texts and the crown of the Statue of Liberty, which lack individuality.
    Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: In the "drawing", they bear the texts and the crown of the Statue of Liberty, which lack individuality.
  • Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "The fact that [...] the exclamation mark is written in an irregular form and that each letter or sign has a different color, [does not] determine that such characteristics endow the design applied for registration with the features of originality required by the norm to provide it with protection as a work".
    Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "The fact that [...] the exclamation mark is written in an irregular form and that each letter or sign has a different color, [does not] determine that such characteristics endow the design applied for registration with the features of originality required by the norm to provide it with protection as a work".
  • Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "The Court notes that there are no original elements, since they are figures that do not present any particularity, which have been reproduced in the usual manner, without any element having been included".
    Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "The Court notes that there are no original elements, since they are figures that do not present any particularity, which have been reproduced in the usual manner, without any element having been included".
  • Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (see Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
    Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (see Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
  • Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "These are ornamental elements that lack originality, since the same or similar ones are being used by different people and companies to identify".
    Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "These are ornamental elements that lack originality, since the same or similar ones are being used by different people and companies to identify".
  • Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "[...] although musical works comprise melody, harmony and rhythm; exclusive rights to the melody can only be acquired".[78]
    Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "[...] although musical works comprise melody, harmony and rhythm; exclusive rights to the melody can only be acquired".[78]
  • Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
    Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
  • Far from fiction, Duff is an element that individually lacks the protection of a work of art. Subsequently, Fox managed to obtain identification characteristics to be registered as beer trademark (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).[79]
    Far from fiction, Duff is an element that individually lacks the protection of a work of art. Subsequently, Fox managed to obtain identification characteristics to be registered as beer trademark (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).[79]
  • Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: While the angle of the handle to the horizontal line or the depth of the concave part of the teaspoon [is slightly different] from the standard shape [...] the object is not an original work, due to the common form of others teaspoons.[80]
    Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: While the angle of the handle to the horizontal line or the depth of the concave part of the teaspoon [is slightly different] from the standard shape [...] the object is not an original work, due to the common form of others teaspoons.[80]
  • Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: The miniature representation of Machu Picchu in plastic material cannot be granted as an original work, because its registration would prohibit people create other miniature versions of the citadel.[80]
    Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: The miniature representation of Machu Picchu in plastic material cannot be granted as an original work, because its registration would prohibit people create other miniature versions of the citadel.[80]
  • Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "The elaboration of a [portable stage] (similar to this image) may have meant an intellectual effort on the part of its creator, but it does not have enough characteristics to be considered a work of [3D] art, since it consists of a simple arrangement of removable panels in the form of a screen".
    Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "The elaboration of a [portable stage] (similar to this image) may have meant an intellectual effort on the part of its creator, but it does not have enough characteristics to be considered a work of [3D] art, since it consists of a simple arrangement of removable panels in the form of a screen".
  • Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "However, the Court considers that allowing protection to a design composed exclusively of figures or designs in the public domain, such as the Inca chakana, would mean for no other person to be able to use such designs belonging to the common cultural heritage".
    Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "However, the Court considers that allowing protection to a design composed exclusively of figures or designs in the public domain, such as the Inca chakana, would mean for no other person to be able to use such designs belonging to the common cultural heritage".
  • Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI does not consider protection to use of Tumi with common text.
    Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI does not consider protection to use of Tumi with common text.
  • A newsline that is not subject to copyright protection but the image, also not considered a work of authorship, is subject to related protection for 70 years post-creation.
    A newsline that is not subject to copyright protection but the image, also not considered a work of authorship, is subject to related protection for 70 years post-creation.
  • Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"
    Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"

Note: Some creations are above the threshold of originality and  are not valid for upload to Commons:

  • Logo of Tres Olivas: a leaf with three olives with tonalities, use of brightness and sensation of movement. See Resolution No 1774-2012/TPI-INDECOPI, Olivos del Sur S.A.C. vs Antonio Moncayo Cortés.[81]
  • Emblema La Primera. See Resolution No 2361-2016/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • A fictional character in Superman: Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite. See Resolution No 1164-2014/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • A logo with a people with torch to the letter E, above the letter T. Triunfo Empresarial. See Resolution No 0319-2018/TPI-INDECOPI.

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Philippines

菲律賓

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Poland

波蘭

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.

[82]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Portugal

葡萄牙

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

[84]

  • Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition: Ruled as without originality.[83]
  • Clothing/Fashion: Ruled as without originality.

[85]

  • Puppets wearing Madeira national costumes (generally tourist souvenirs) following old and common models were considered without copyright.[86]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Russia

俄罗斯

自動相機工作

公有领域使用{{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}}

可以由自動相機（俄語：автоматическая камера，不要與自動相機混淆：автоматизированная камера）製作的攝影作品或視頻作品版權，因為這些作品是由技術工具製作的，沒有創造性的人類活動。俄羅斯聯邦最高法院，關於適用俄羅斯聯邦民法典第四部分的2019年4月23日第10號會議決議第80部分

例子

  • 任何由自動相機製作的用於行政違規記錄的照片或視頻作品（例如，由自動相機用於駕駛違規記錄[87]）。俄羅斯聯邦最高法院，關於適用俄羅斯聯邦民法典第四部分的2019年4月23日第10號會議決議第80部分
簡單的創意作品

 不可以創造性工作（創造性人類活動）的簡單結果受版權保護。俄羅斯聯邦最高法院，關於適用俄羅斯聯邦民法典第四部分的2019年4月23日第10號會議決議第80部分

例子

  • 簡單的黑色正方形作為幾何形狀本身是不受版權保護的。然而，“Kazimir Malevich”的Black Square受版權保護，因為這幅畫是公認的藝術風格的創造性作品的結果 - “至上主義”，並且它在公共領域是因為版權期限到期，而不是因為結果簡單。
標誌

 有疑問，俄羅斯法院沒有明確的先例來說明簡單標識的原創性門檻。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Senegal

塞内加尔

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]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Slovenia

斯洛文尼亞

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.

[88]

In this regard, the following court cases are relevant:

应用艺术：

  • 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.

建筑：

  • 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.

标识：

  • VSL00013281 – the logo with inscription "I Feel Slovenia" [9] was found to constitute a copyrighted work.
The court opined: "The slogan and the logo, which contains both verbal and graphic elements, do not allow them to be separated. Only the synergy of the verbal and graphic elements allows the observer to identify the overall message of the author's work."

Titles:

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO South Korea

大韩民国

根據經修訂至2017年3月21日第14634號法案的版權法案的機器翻譯，

  • 作品是指表達人類思想或情感的創作。[432/1957–2017 Article 2.2]

Supreme Court of South Korea聲明，如果：[89]

  • 它不僅僅是模仿，
  • 作為腦力勞動的產物，它有自己的特點
  • 它可以與現有的區別開來。

首爾高等法院判定EVISU Japan的海鷗圖案和惠比壽雕像不受版權保護，因為它們的原創性無法得到認可。[90]

然而，韓國最高法院判定Fox Racing的標誌受版權保護。[91]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Spain

西班牙

STS 4443/2004 notes that a work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection.[92]

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".[93]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Sweden

瑞典

"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."

[94] 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
可以
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
可以
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.

可以
Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court.NJA 2004 s. 149
 不可以 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.

 不可以 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.
 不可以 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.
 不可以
Mini Maglite torch (Mål: T 1421-07, Högsta domstolen)
 不可以 瓷器 [10] "Sundborn", made by Rörstrand
 不可以 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)
 不可以 针织衣物 (NJA 1995 s. 164)
 不可以 Technical drawings (NJA 1998 s. 563)

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Switzerland

瑞士

Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose".[95] 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."[96] This section discusses some types of subject matter.

照片：照片可以根据其个人特征作为作品受到保护（个人照片）。一些缺乏个人特征的照片也可以受到保护（非个人照片）。

  • 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.[97] 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.[98] 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.[99] The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.[100]
  • 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.[101] 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".[102] 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."[103] The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.[104]
文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Taiwan

中華民國

臺灣的著作權原創門檻比較低。根據中華民國經濟部智慧財產局，「最低程度創意」的獨立創作作品符合原創門檻的條件。[105]

下列例子 可以：

  • 下面兩件具有傳統設計元素的作品，依據法院判決不符合著作權的原創門檻，因而不受著作權保護：[106]
  • 簡單字體，如「Sunshow」標誌的字體：

下列例子 不可以：

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Turkey

土耳其

Might be OK The Turkish copyright laws depend on the work bearing the characteristics of its creator while deciding whether the work is original, and considered on a case-by-case basis.[112]

普通法系(英美法系)国家

See also: Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#Common law countries 和 #Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.。

普通法國家通常使用"技能和勞動力"測試來確定能夠吸引版權保護的最低原創性水平。在澳大利亞和英國等一些國家，要求的水平極低。但是，加拿大和印度是兩個主要的例外。如果沒有對個別法律進行一些研究，就不能假設來自普通法國家的文字標誌一定會出現在Commons上。如果對地方法院將採取的立場有真正的疑問，則必需根據預防原則刪除該圖像。

如果徽標非常簡單（例如使用標準字體），即使在英美法系國家，它也沒有資格獲得版權。

如果您知道任何國家/地區有關此問題的具體判例法或法律建議，請在相應的Commons:Copyright rules by territory的國家子頁面中添加原創性門檻部分，并用下方的入口添加它的链接。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Australia

澳大利亚

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Canada

加拿大

與其他普通法國家不同，加拿大的原創性門檻更接近美國。CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada明確拒絕“汗流浹背”的標準太低，但同時表示原創性的創意標準太高：

創造力標準意味著某些東西必須是新穎的或非顯而易見的——與專利法相關的概念比與版權法相關的更恰當。出於這些原因，我得出結論，版權法下的“原創”作品是來自作者的作品，而不是從另一部作品中復制的作品。然而，僅憑這一點還不足以發現某些東西是原創的。此外，原創作品必須是作者運用技能和判斷力的產物。製作作品所需的技能和判斷力的練習不能太瑣碎，以至於可以將其描述為純粹的機械練習。”

同案還說：

對於版權法意義上的“原創”作品，它必須不僅僅是另一件作品的複製品。同時，它不需要具有新穎性或獨特性的創造性。 在表達想法時獲得版權保護需要的是技巧和判斷力的練習。我所說的技能是指在製作作品時運用自己的知識、發展的才能或實踐能力。 我所說的判斷是指通過比較製作作品的不同可能選項來使用一個人的辨別能力或形成意見或評估的能力。這種技能和判斷力的練習必然涉及智力方面的努力。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Hong Kong

香港

大多數標誌 不可以。著作權保護的原創性要求據信非常低。

因為香港直至1997年前屬於英國領地，所以香港法律以英國法律為藍本改編，在沒有任何具體的反例判例法的情況下，可以合理地假設有關規則是相似的。參見英國專頁了解更多詳情。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO India

印度

印度似乎具有與美國法院類似的原創性門檻，稱為“創意小部分”。較舊的案件可能具有與稱為Sweat of the brow的英國法院相似的原創性門檻，但這不再適用。Robbin Singh寫了一篇關於這個主題的文章，可能有用。[113]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Ireland

愛爾蘭共和國

 未知

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

图片 描述 讨论
ISPCA官方标志 Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Israel

以色列

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.[114] 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.

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Malaysia

馬來西亞

马来西亚的原创门槛状态似乎仍 Unsure。可以参考部分以往讨论：

  1. File:Hcc.png被删除，似乎是因为存在中文书法字，并认为对于这类提删案也可以引用COM:TOO UK；
  2. 但File:Petronas Logo.svg被两度提删后，又两度决定保留，尽管事实上这也超出了COM:TOO UK。需要注意该标志是马来西亚石油公司在2013年6月以前使用的版本，此后马石油公司将它们的标志修改得更具现代化，且更复杂，现今版本的马石油标志基于合理使用规定存在于英语维基百科，尽管仍有部分用户反对这一状态。


文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Nigeria

奈及利亞

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)]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO New Zealand

新西兰

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.

[115]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Singapore

新加坡

For logos

大多數標誌 可能不行。著作權保護的原創性要求據信非常低。

因為新加坡直至1963年前屬於英國領地，所以新加坡法律以英國法律為藍本改編，在沒有任何具體的反例判例法的情況下，可以合理地假設有關規則是相似的。參見英國專頁了解更多詳情。

For buildings

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

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO United Kingdom

英国

可以由樂高積木（見w:Interlego v Tyco Industries）

 不可以用於大多數徽標。英國版權保護所需的原創性水平非常低。

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

這些圖像有資格獲得版權保護：

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

— Mrs Justice Proudman, in: Future Publishing Ltd v The Edge Interactive Media Inc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1489 (Ch) at [10][117]

图片的数字拷贝

2014年（2015年更新）英國的知識產權局發布了建議通知，其中部分內容是：[118]


......根据既定的判例法，法院说，版权只能存在于具有原创性的主题中，即它是作者自己的 "智力创造"。鉴于这一标准，仅仅是对旧作品进行修饰、数字化的图像似乎不太可能被视为 "原创"。这是因为，如果创作者的目的仅仅是忠实地复制现有的作品，那么他们行使自由和创造性选择的余地通常很小。

根据2018年放弃欧盟成员法案第6节，此决定仍对英国法院普遍有效执行。

This was restated in a November 2023 Appeal Court judgement (THJ v Sheridan, 2023) which confirmed that no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork, and that this has been the case since 2009.[119][120]

标志和旗帜

建筑

由於缺乏原創性或由於微不足道而被保留下來的圖像：

请注意，其中的一些决定是有争议的。

照片

被認為不符合版權保護條件的照片：

  • (DR)帶有斜面和投射陰影的三維物體（抽屜拉手）的照片
    (DR)帶有斜面和投射陰影的三維物體（抽屜拉手）的照片

地图

被认为不符合版权保护条件的地图：

Darden v. Peters.

Darden v. Peters：将“字体和颜色选择；浮雕、阴影和阴影等视觉效果；标签；标注”和抗锯齿添加到预先存在的地图，是在原创性的门槛之下

使用：{{PD-map}}。请参阅下面有关部分复制或裁剪受版权保护作品中不可版权元素的部分。 參見：

图表

被認為不符合版權保護條件的圖表。使用：{{PD-chart}}.請參閱下面有關部分複製或裁剪受版權保護作品中不可版權元素的部分。也可以看看：

受版权保护的作品的部分复制或剪裁

當某個文件僅複製了一部分受版權保護的作品時，該文件的版權狀態僅取決於它所複製的內容。如果它只複製了不受版權保護的元素，那麼該文件也是不受版權保護的。換句話說，我們僅根據文件本身包含的內容來判斷文件的版權狀態，而不是根據原始來源包含的其他未由文件複製的內容的狀態來判斷。

OK
這部小說封面的圖片在美國屬於公有領域，因為它只複製了不受版權保護的文本，而不是圖書本身的受版權保護的內容或封底可能受版權保護的內容。(DR) 由於英國出版商在版式设计上擁有25年的版權，因此它可能不會在英國属于公有领域，除非该版式设计已在25年前出版。

英国等国家的低门槛

參閱

參考資料

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. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ Bauer logo.
  5. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  6. ↑ Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  7. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  8. ↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  9. ↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  10. ↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
  11. ↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
  12. ↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  13. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  14. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
  15. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  16. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
  17. ↑ Sentencia nº C-2470-2009, de 17º Juzgado Civil de Santiago, 28 de Octubre de 2011
  18. ↑ V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  19. ↑ 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  20. ↑ Sø- og Handelsretten (The Maritime and Commercial Court) in March 1998, U 1998:946 S and NIR 69:3, p. 413-418 [2000]
  21. ↑ Violation of the copyright of the Global Knife Series. Supreme Court (19-09-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24. "Det var for Højesteret ubestridt, at Global-knivene er ophavsretligt beskyttet i medfør af ophavsretslovens § 1. Højesteret udtalte, at Global-knivene som brugskunst er beskyttet mod meget nærgående efterligninger. Højesteret fandt, at Royal-knivenes design ikke indebar en tilstrækkelig frigørelse fra det særegne ved Global-knivenes udformning, men måtte anses som en meget nærgående efterligning. (It was undisputed to the Supreme Court that the Global blades are protected by copyright under section 1 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court stated that the Global blades as a utility art are protected from very close imitations. The Supreme Court found that the design of the Royal blades did not sufficiently differ from the distinctive nature of the design of the Global blades, and had to be regarded as a very close imitation.)"
  22. ↑ Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  23. ↑ a b TN 2011:7
  24. ↑ TN 2014:13
  25. ↑ TN 2001:12
  26. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Paradis
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pavis
  28. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  29. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  30. ↑ See, in particular, Bundesgerichtshof 27 November 1956, case I ZR 57/55 Morgenpost, 22 BGHZ 209, 215ff; Bundesgerichtshof 22 June 1995, case I ZR 119/93 Silberdistel, (1995) 97 GRUR 581, 582. See further A Ohly, "Where is the Birthday Train Heading? The Copyright-Design Interface in German Law" in G Karnell and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Jan Rosén (eddy.se ab 2016) 593ff.
  31. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  32. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  33. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  34. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  35. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  36. ↑ Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  37. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  38. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  39. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  40. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  41. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [29]–[31]. Finding of copyright protection not challenged on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 16 June 2016, case I ZR 122/14 Geburtstagskarawane, (2016) 118 GRUR 1291.
  42. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  43. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 October 2021, case 5 W 40/21 Grand Step Shoes, (2022) 124 GRUR 565 [22]–[26].
  44. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 7 April 2022, case I ZR 222/20 Porsche 911, (2022) 124 GRUR 899 [26]–[32].
  45. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2023, case 5 U 84/21, (2023) 27 ZUM-RD 481.
  46. ↑ S Zentek, "Acht Jahrzehnte verkanntes Design im deutschen Urheberrecht: Die Geschichte des Schutzes von Gebrauchsgestaltungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nationalsozialismus" (doctoral thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 2015) 276. See also L Mezger, Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht (V&R unipress 2017) 60f ("hardly possible" in particular to keep track of the jurisprudence on designer furniture).
  47. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 27 April 2011, case 5 U 26/09; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 91/11 Marcel-Breuer­-Möbel II, (2016) 69 NJW 2335 [26]–[28].
  48. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2011, case 5 U 207/08; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 76/11 Wagenfeld-Leuchte II, (2016) 69 NJW 2338 [20]–[22].
  49. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
  50. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  52. ↑ Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  53. ↑ SZJSZT 1/2005
  54. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IndTOO
  55. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  56. ↑ Logo on external site DR
  57. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  58. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  59. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  60. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  61. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  62. ↑ Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  63. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  64. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  65. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  66. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  67. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  68. ↑ Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  69. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
  70. ↑ a b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
  71. ↑ Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  72. ↑ Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  73. ↑ Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.
  74. ↑ a b c d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
  75. ↑ Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.
  76. ↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.
  77. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
  78. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  79. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  80. ↑ a b Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.
  81. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.
  82. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kluwer
  83. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  84. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  85. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  86. ↑ 167/17.9YHLSB.L2.S2, 2020 (with photos of the puppets).
  87. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  88. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VSL0069492
  89. ↑ do?contId=2170534 韓國最高法院 2012다28745
  90. ↑ Seoul High Court 2009나122304
  91. ↑ The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다76829
  92. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/d42c9049784c7c02/20040821 p. 4
  93. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/a95395d6789f5037/20170509 p. 9
  94. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  95. ↑ 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.
  96. ↑ Envisioned. Created. Protected. – A Concise Guide to Trade Marks, Patents & Co.. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (April 2020). Retrieved on 22 August 2021.
  97. ↑ Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  98. ↑ X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  99. ↑ Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  100. ↑ Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  101. ↑ 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.
  102. ↑ 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.»).
  103. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  104. ↑ Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  105. ↑ 智著字第09700078680號. Intellectual Property Office.
  106. ↑ 智慧財產法院107年民著上字第3號民事判決 (in Chinese). Judicial Yuan of the Republic of China. Retrieved on 2019-09-27.
  107. ↑ 鄧玉瑩 (2007-01-05). "盜用燒烤飯糰招牌判侵權". Apple Daily.
  108. ↑ 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).
  109. ↑ 智慧財產法院108年民著訴字第89號民事判決 (2020-01-13).
  110. ↑ 智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決 (2016-02-04).
  111. ↑ 智慧財產法院108年民商上字第5號民事判決 (2020-01-16).
  112. ↑ ECONOMIC AND MORAL RIGHTS IN TURKISH AND EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT LAW (2009).
  113. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh
  114. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  115. ↑ NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.
  116. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Borghi
  117. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Future-Edge
  118. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPO-2014/1
  119. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named THJvSheridan
  120. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Grosvenor-2023

如需更完整的工作參考，請參閱Commons:Copyright rules by region以及各個國家和地區：

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Threshold_of_originality/zh&oldid=864642363"