Wikimedia Commons

Викиказына:Минималдуу нерселер жөнүндө (De minimis)

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:De minimis and the translation is 85% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:De minimis and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:

Shortcut: COM:DM

This page is a translation of an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It may be incomplete, out of date and/or unreliable. Bear in mind that official text is only the English version.
Copyright rules
Бул сүрөттү жарыялоо кабыл алынат, анткени экрандардагы автордук укук менен корголгон сүрөттөр de minimis болуп саналат.
Бул сүрөттү жарыялоо кабыл алынат, анткени экрандардагы автордук укук менен корголгон сүрөттөр de minimis болуп саналат.

De minimis - латынча сөз айкашы, кичинекей нерселер жөнүндө дегенди билдирет. Адатта de minimis non curat lex ("Мыйзам майда нерселерге маани бербейт") фразасында колдонулат. De minimis автордук укук менен корголгон чыгарманы колдонуу ушунчалык кичинекей болгондуктан, автордук укуктун ээсинин макулдугу талап кылынбайт.

Кээ бир учурларда автордук укук менен корголгон мазмуну бар Викиказына файлдары {{De minimis}} үлгүсү менен аныкталышы мүмкүн. (Бирок мындай файлдардын басымдуу көпчүлүгү бул жол менен аныкталган эмес.)

"De minimis" деген эмне?

De minimis деп аталган жалпы укук концепциясы de minimis non curat lex афоризминен келип чыккан, ал көбүнчө "мыйзам майда нерселерге маани бербейт" деп которулат. Мыйзамдын кээ бир формалдуу мыйзам бузуулары ушунчалык майда жана анча маанилүү эмес деп эсептелгендиктен, сот аларды бузуу катары эсептебөө жөнүндө чечим чыгарышы мүмкүн. Бул концепция укуктун көптөгөн тармактарына тиешелүү, бирок бул жерде биз анын автордук укук мыйзамына карата колдонулушун карап чыгабыз.

Сот тарабынан белгиленген de minimis статусу автордук укуктун бузулушу боюнча дооматтардан жетиштүү коргоону камсыз кылат. Кеп мыйзам бузуучу доо арызынын кымбаттыгынан улам мыйзамдуу чара көрүү мүмкүнчүлүгү жок жасаган аракеттери үчүн жоопкерчиликтен кутулуп кетишинде гана эмес; тескерисинче, көчүрүү de minimis категориясына кирсе, анда ал мыйзамды таптакыр бузбайт.

Мисалы

 
Көчө пейзажынын бир бөлүгү катары фондо автордук укук менен корголгон ("The Dark Knight") тасмасынын жарнамасы.

Фондо автордук укук менен корголгон сүрөт плакаты бар дейли. Эки автордук укук бар: фотосүрөт фотографтыкы жана плакат болсо дизайнердики жана экөө тең бири-бирине көз каранды эмес. Тактап айтканда өз алдынча жашай берет. Чыгарманы сүрөткө тартып, Викиказына сайтына жүктөө менен фотограф плакаттын дизайнын көчүрүп жатканы анык, демек дизайнердин макулдугусуз бул көбүнчө автордук укуктун бузулушу катары каралат жана ошондуктан тыюу салынган. Фотографтын өзүнүн автордук укугун жаратканы, фотосүрөттүн өзү жогорку деңгээлдеги оригиналдуулукту көрсөтсө да, дизайнердин автордук укугунун бузулушун жокко чыгарбайт.

А эгерде плакат кокустан толугу менен башка темага тиешелүү болгон фотосүрөткө түшүп калса, анда көчүрүү de minimis деп эсептелиниши мүмкүн (балким, плакат сүрөттүн бир аз бөлүгүн ээлеп, такыр эле фокусунан чыгып калган же көбүнчө сүрөттүн ичинде жашырылган болушу мүмкүн). Башкача айтканда, фотосүрөтчү кокустан жана кокустан автордук укук менен корголгон плакатты тартып алгандыктан, сот автордук укуктун бузулушу боюнча дооматты канааттандыра албайт.

Материалдарды уруксатсыз сүрөткө тартып алууда, көчүрүүдө маанилик даражасын аныктоодо сот бардык жагдайларды эске алат. Мисалы: эгерде плакат жалпы фотокомпозициянын маанилүү бөлүгүн түзсө же сүрөт плакаттын ичиндегиси үчүн атайын тартылса, анда автордук укуктун бузулушу болушу мүмкүн жана плакаттын "жөн гана фондо" болгонун айтуу коргоо эмес. Эгерде сүрөт биринчи кезекте плакаттын бар экендигинен улам тартылган болсо, анда кадрга орнотуунун же тегерек-четтин кошумча деталдары кошулса да, автордук укуктун бузулушу дээрлик сөзсүз болот.

Сүрөттө плакаттын болушу сүрөттү жагымдуураак, пайдалуу кылса же автордук укуктун ээсине анча чоң эмес экономикалык зыян алып келиши мүмкүн болсо, анда автордук укуктун бузулушу боюнча дооматты коргоодо de minimis аргументин колдонуу ишке ашпай калышы мүмкүн.

Сүрөт кандайча сүрөттөлгөн же классификацияланганы актуалдуу болушу мүмкүн: эгерде сүрөт "жарнамалык плакат" катары сүрөттөлсө жана жарнамалык плакаттар категориясына жайгаштырылса, de minimis деп талашуу кыйын болот.

Пайдалуу сыноо, эгерде плакат маскасы менен жабылса, сүрөт жакшы болобу же пайдалуу болобу деген суроо болушу мүмкүн. Эгерде жок болсо, анда плакат кичинекей жана "фондо" болсо да, чындыгында de minimis деп талашуу кыйын.

Көрсөтмөлөр

 
Сүрөттө төрт "de minimis" сөлөкөтү көрсөтүлгөн

Чыгармаларды колдонуунун мыйзамдары менен практикасынын ортосунда орун алган айырмачылыктарга байланыштуу бул тармакта катуу эрежелерди орнотуу мүмкүн эмес. Бирок, жалпы көрсөтмө катары, автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасын камтыган файл канчалык көп төмөнкү критерийлерге жооп берсе, ал de minimis критерийлерине ошончолук аз жооп берет:

  • файл X сүрөттөө үчүн колдонулууда
  • файл Xге карата категорияга бөлүнөт
  • X файлдын аталышында шилтемеленген
  • X сүрөттөмөсүндө шилтеме берилген
  • X файлды жараксыз кылбастан файлдан алып салуу мүмкүн эмес
  • башка контексттик көрсөтмөлөрдөн (мисалы: ошол эле жүктөөчүнүн жүктөөлөр сериясы менен салыштырганда) X файлды түзүүнүн себеби болуп саналат.

Эскертүү: de minimis кароосу белгилүү бир сүрөт композициясына тиешелүү. Автордук укук менен корголгон чыгармага басым жасоо үчүн олуттуу кесүү статусту "балким алгылыктуу" дегенден "кыязы орунсуз " дегенге оңой эле айландырышы мүмкүн.

# Бул абал de minimis катары каралышы мүмкүн Сүрөттөмө
1   OK Ооба, албетте Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасы көрүнүп турат, бирок аны аныктоого болбойт.
  •  
    X Милад мунарасы болуп саналат
  •  
    Лотте уорлд мунарасы
2   OK

Абдан ыктымал

Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасын аныктоого болот, бирок сүрөткө кокустан жайгаштырылган жана тилекке каршы, оңой эле алып салуу мүмкүн эмес.
  •  
    - фондо жогорку оң бурчта жайгашкан билборд.
3   OK

Абдан ыктымал

Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгарманы аныктоого болот, бирок чоңураак чыгарманын кичинекей бөлүгү, андыктан чоңураак чыгарманы X көрсөтпөстөн оңой эле көрсөтүү мүмкүн эмес. X чоңураак чыгарманын бир бөлүгү жана аны кошуу сөзсүз болот.
  •  
    X Лувр пирамидасы
  •  
    X - Эшердин сүрөтү
  •  
    X команданын логотиби
4   OK

Абдан ыктымал

Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасын аныктоого болот жана сүрөттүн ажырагыс, бирок анча маанилүү эмес бөлүгү болуп саналат (аны маскировкалоо файлды жараксыз кылбайт)
  •  
    X - бул учак отургучтарындагы экрандар
  •  
    X ортодогу оң жактагы эки символ
5   Maybe

Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасы идентификациялануучу жана бүтүндөй чыгарманын да, композициянын да ажырагыс бөлүгү болуп саналат (ошондуктан X маскасы сүрөттү пайдасыз кылат), бирок эгерде X жетишсиз детал же айкындык менен сүрөттөлсө, де минимис ыкмасы да мүмкүн.

  •  
    X - шыпта илинип турган баннерлер (жок кылуу өтүнүчү)
  •  
    X - музейде илинип турган сүрөттөр (DR)
  •  
    X – Чыңгыз хандын атчан айкели (DR)
6   Өтө күмөн Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасы теманын негизги бөлүгү болуп саналат (мисалы: бул сүрөткө тартуунун себеби). Эгер ал алынып салынса, иш түп-тамырынан бери өзгөрмөк, бирок дагы эле пайдалуу болмок.
7   Албетте, жок Автордук укук менен корголгон X чыгармасы теманын борбордук бөлүгү болуп саналат (мисалы: сүрөткө тартуунун себеби). Аны алып салуу туунду жумушту жараксыз кылат.
Text transcluded from
COM:DM United States

АКШ

The United States courts interpret the de minimis defense in three distinct ways:
  1. Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;
  2. Where the extent of copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity (always a required element of actionable copying); and
  3. In connection with fair use (not relevant here, since Commons does not allow fair use images).

It is the first of these that is often of particular concern on Commons.

As found in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of its label (though in this particular case, the label also happened to be below the threshold of originality):

“ We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. ”


Регионалдык мыйзамдар

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Belgium

Бельгия

Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:
  • Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...].
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Canada

Канада

Subsection 30.7 of the Canadian Copyright Act, 1985 states:

It is not an infringement of copyright to incidentally and not deliberately

(a) include a work or other subject-matter in another work or other subject-matter; or

(b) do any act in relation to a work or other subject-matter that is incidentally and not deliberately included in another work or other subject-matter.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Czech Republic

Чехия

Under the Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll. as amended up to 216/2006,
  • Copyright is not infringed by anybody who uses a work incidentally, in connection with an intended primary use of another work or element.[121/2000–2006 Art.38c]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM European Union

Европа бирлиги

The Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society allows for de minimis exception in Art. 5(3)(i):[1]
  • Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: […] incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material.

Under the generic conditions of Article 5(5):

  • The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Finland

Финляндия

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,
  • Works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text: 1) in a critical or scientific presentation; and 2) in a newspaper or a periodical when reporting on a current event, provided that the work has not been created in order to be reproduced in a newspaper or a periodical.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(1)]
  • When a copy of a work of art has, with the consent of the author, been sold or otherwise permanently transferred, the work of art may be incorporated into a photograph, a film, or a television programme if the reproduction is of a subordinate nature in the photograph, film or programme.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(2)]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM France

Франция

 
This photograph is not a copyright violation since it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid.
 
The white triangle in this derivative work covers the copyright protected region of the top image.

French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:[2]

  • Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.[3]


French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

  • It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting.
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Germany

Германия

Under § 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."

The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.[4] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[5]To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.[6]

According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case

  1. if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
  2. if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[7]

The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:

  1. The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
  2. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
  3. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or
  4. the work is characteristic in any other way.[8]

Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.[9]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[10]

There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around § 57.[11] In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on § 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.[12]

In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[13]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Iceland

Исландия

An unofficial translation of Article 10a of the Icelandic copyright act reads:
  • Authors’ exclusive rights under Article 3 (cf. Article 2), shall not apply to the making of reproductions (copies) that are transient or incidental...[73/1972-2018 Art.10a(1)]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Ireland

Ирландия

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000),
  • The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.[28/2000 Sec.52(1)]
  • A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.[28/2000 Sec.52(3)]

According to Pascal Kamina, the Irish legislation is similar to the legislation in the United Kingdom from 1988.[14]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Israel

Израиль

According to 2007 Copyright Act, section 22:
  • An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use.[2007-2011 Sec.22]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Japan

Жапония

Copyright Act Article 30-2, amended in 2012, states:
  • Article 30-2: When creating a copyrighted work of photography, sound recording or video recording, other copyrighted items that are incidental subjects of the work because they are hard to be separated from the item that is a subject of the work may be copied or translated along the work being created (only if they are minor components of the work being created). However, if, considering the kinds of the incidentally included works and the manner of the copying or translation, it unfairly is prejudicial to the interest of the copyright holders of the incidentally included works, they may not.[15]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Netherlands

Нидерландтар

The law of the Netherlands includes an article devoted to a situation where the copyright is not or barely relevant. This is called de minimus or bagatel. Based on this article, it is allowed to include work of other persons in an own work, but only if it is incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or less by chance. Of minor significance means the copyrighted work is a small part of the work.

Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:

The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.
Sources
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Morocco

Марокко

"It shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes".[1-05-192/2006 Art.20]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Peru

Перу

There is subtle mention of "de minimis" in determinate cases:
  • Media for private use, non-profit educative events or extracts of musical works in official events.[822/1996 Art.41(a, b and c)] In other words, the sentence is equivalent to Fair use and is unacceptable to upload in Commons.
  • Broadcasting of well-known quotations and current events in any media.[16] "The exception provided [...] shall be interpreted restrictively, and may not be applied to cases that are contrary to proper practice".[822/1996 Art. 44-45, 50 and Decision 351 Art. 22]
  • Don't be an object of intelligent plagiarism ("plagio inteligente", also referred in Article 217c of the Penal Code, 2007):
    • Parodies: Allowed within the legal basis.[822/1996 Art. 49] Resolution No. 0864-2007/TPI-INDECOPI (also No. 4372-2013/TPI-INDECOPI) pointed out that the work is a infringement if the design adopts similarities or derivations from another without the parody intention (ordinary or substantial plagiarism). Best example is the 2008 TV series Magnolia Merino, which complies with the concept of parody when deals with a subject of public interest from other artistic point of view with excerpts based on the scenario, impersonation and musicalization of Magaly TeVe (see Resolution No. 3251–2010/SC1-INDECOPI).[17]
    • Incidental: In APSAV v. Arkinka S.A. (Anuario Andino 19 August 2004, based on Resolution No. 243-2001/ODA-INDECOPI) the limitation of the use of third parties works has been applied when "the appearance within the work should be incidental". Freedom of panorama is also mentioned and justified in both Decision 351 and DL 822 with the term "public places" such as "public museums".[18]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Saint Kitts and Nevis

Сент-Китс жана Невис

  • Copyright in a work shall not be infringed (a) by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording film, broadcast or cable programme; or (b) by the issue to the public of copies of the playing, showing, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of anything whose making was not an infringement of copyright by virtue of paragraph (a) of this section.[18.08/2000 Section 55]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Singapore

Сингапур, мамлекет

Under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.) of Singapore, unless a contrary intention appears:
  • a reference to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subject-matter shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work or other subject-matter; and
  • a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work shall be read as including a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a substantial part of the work, as the case may be.

Therefore, acts done in relation to insubstantial parts of a work or other subject-matter do not breach copyright.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Slovenia

Словения

Article 52 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act:
  • "Such disclosed works that may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object, may be used freely while exploiting such object."[2007 Art.52]

Article 52 has been interpreted by the copyright expert Miha Trampuž in his book Copyright and Related Rights Act with Commentary. He has highlighted the following aspects: the work must have been disclosed, it must have been incidental with another object or work, it could be at will replaced with another work, and it is inessential in the copyright sense to the object or work.[19]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM South Korea

Корея Республикасы

 
This photo is not copyright infringement because Lotte World Tower is not main object in this image, it's incidentally included.

Under the Copyright Act (as amended up to Act No. 16600 of November 26, 2019),

Article 35-3 (Incidental Inclusion, etc.),
A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply.
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Sweden

Швеция

Article 20a of the copyright law as of 2017 says:
  • It is allowed for a film or television program to include copies of works of art or public performances and transfer the artwork to the public, as long as the copy is of secondary importance with respect to the film or television program content. This may be done with artwork that appears in the background of, or otherwise forms an insignificant portion of an image.[729/1960-2017 §20a]

These are    :

  • Thumbnail-sized photos on a screenshot - copyvio of two of the thumbnail-sized photos (NJA 2010 p. 135[1])
  • People on a scene with decorations in the background - copyvio of the background (NJA 1981 p. 313)
Text transcluded from
COM:DM United Kingdom

Улуу Британия

Section 31 of the UK Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, as subsequently amended in 2003, states that:
  • Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast.

"Artistic work", as defined within the act, includes photographs.


de minimis сүрөттөрүнүн кесилиши

de minimis принциби боюнча уруксат берилген сүрөт сөзсүз түрдө кандайдыр бир автордук укукту камтышы керек болгондуктан, мындай сүрөттөрдү каалагандай кесип салууга болбойт. Плакат камтылган фотосүрөттө, фотографтын де minimis коргонуусу болсо да, бул оригиналдуу плакаттын авторунун автордук укугун жокко чыгарбайт. Эгерде кимдир-бирөө сүрөткө тартып, аны плакат гана калгыдай кылып кессе, анда "de minimis" принциби колдонулбай калат, анткени плакаттын дизайны кесилген сүрөттүн ажырагыс бөлүгү болуп калат. Ошондуктан, кесилген версия автордук укукту бузат жана Викиказына 

сайтында жайгаштырылбайт.

Көңүл буруңуз, de minimis сүрөтү укук бузуучу көчүрмөгө алып келе тургандай кылып кесилиши мүмкүн экендиги туунду чыгарма de minimis эмес дегенди билдирбейт. Кокус майда-чүйдөсүнө чейин ишенимдүү түрдө калыбына келтирилип жана чоңойтулган өтө жогорку резолюциядагы сүрөттөрдү да, "de minimis" колдонуларын карап жатканда кадимки көрүү аралыктан бүтүндөй кароо керек.

Мисалдар


Кошумча маалымат

Эскертүүлөр

Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. ↑ Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal L 167 10-19 (22 June 2001). Retrieved on 2019-03-20.
  2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CC567-2005
  3. ↑ ... Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ...
  4. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16].
  5. ↑ M Vogel, "§ 57" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; T Dreier, "§ 57" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 1.
  6. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26f].
  7. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  8. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  9. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31].
  10. ↑ Appeals court level or higher.
  11. ↑ R Jacobs, "Was ist "beiläufig"? Ein Beitrag zu § 57 UrhG" in W Büscher and others (eds), Rechtsdurchsetzung: Rechtsverwirklichung durch materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Ahrens zum 70. Geburtstag (Heymanns 2016), 225; FL Stang, "Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13" (2015) 117 GRUR 670 (note).
  12. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 10 January 2019, case I ZR 267/15 Cordoba II, (2019) 121 GRUR 813 [59].
  13. ↑ Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554.
  14. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kamina2002
  15. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bunka
  16. ↑ Schmitz Vaccaro, Christian (september 2014). Journalistic work in latin american legislations: from its creation to self-management of copyright (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-10-06.
  17. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (july 2014). "De Dumb Starbucks y Otros Demonios ¿La Parodia Justifica El Uso de Marca Ajena?". Actualidad Jurídica: 86-88. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-12-15.
  18. ↑ Caso ARKINKA (in Spanish). Anuario Andino (2004). Retrieved on 2021-08-23.
  19. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Trampuž1997
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:De_minimis/ky&oldid=869951126"