Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:De minimis and the translation is 62% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎français • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

Shortcut: COM:DM

Virgin America airplane interior.jpg
이 사진은 비행기 내부 모습을 보여주고 있습니다. 모니터 화면에는 저작권이 있을 수 있지만, 해당 부분은 사진 전체에 있어 사소하기 때문에, 저작권 문제 없이 사용할 수 있습니다.

De minimis 는 사소한 것이라는 라틴어 표현입니다. 일반적으로 "de minimis non curat lex"(법은 사소한 것에 관여하지 않는다)라는 문구에 자주 인용되며, 저작권 침해의 예외 경우를 일컫는 말입니다. De minimis의 적용은 저작권자의 동의가 필요하지 않은 사소한 사용과 같은 것들이 포함됩니다.

위키미디어 공용에 있는, de minimis로 인정될 만한 파일들의 경우 {{De minimis}} 틀이 부착되어 있습니다. 그러나, 대부분의 파일들은 이러한 틀이 붙여져 있지 않은 경우가 대부분입니다.

Contents

"de minimis"가 무엇인가요?

de minimis로 알려진 관습법의 개념은 "the maxim de minimis non curat lex"로 부터 나온 것입니다. 이 문구는 "법은 사소한 것에 관여하지 않는다"로 해석됩니다. 몇몇 법의 기술적인 위반은 중요하지 않거나 사소한 것으로 간주되며, 법원은 이를 위법하다고 판단하지 않을 것입니다. 이 개념은 많은 법률 분야에서 적용될 수 있으나, 이 문서에서는 저작권법에 한정하여 De minimis의 적용을 다룰 것입니다.

If proved in court, de minimis can be a complete defence to a copyright infringement action. It is not simply that an infringer can get away with some things without much chance of being sued due to the high cost of litigation; rather, that if the copying is de minimis the copier is not in fact breaking the law at all.

예시

 
A copyright-protected movie poster in the background (promoting "The Dark Knight") as part of a street-scene.

배경에 저작권법으로 보호받는 포스터가 있는 그림이 있다고 가정해 봅니다. 여기는 두 개의 저작권이 존재하는 것입니다. 사진을 찍은 사람, 포스터를 디자인한 사람의 저작권이죠. 그 두개의 저작권은 근근히 독자성을 유지하고 있을 것입니다. 사진을 찍고 위키미디어 공용에 업로드하면, 사진을 찍은 사람은 사진을 업로드하면서 포스터 디자인의 복사본을 만드는 것인데, 이는 포스터를 디자인한 사람의 동의가 없습니다. 그리고 일반적으로 저작권 침해이며, 이는 공용에서 허락되지 않은 것입니다. 사진을 찍어서 그가 저작권을 갖고 있다는 사실이 포스터의 저작권 침해를 막은 것은 아닙니다. 그리고 그 사진에서 사진을 찍은 사람이 포스터를 높은 동일성으로 나타내었다고 하더라도 저작권 침해라는 사실이 달라지지는 않습니다.

그러나, 포스터가 전적으로 사진의 주제물 전체에서 우연히 들어간 경우, 이 복제는 de minimis로 인정됩니다. 이러한 경우는 포스터가 작게 들어갔거나, 이미지의 중요한 부분이 아니거나, 전체적으로 주제물에 비해서 중심주제에서 벗어난 경우입니다. 또는 배경에 대체로 가려져 있는 경우도 포함됩니다. 다른 말로, 사진을 찍은 사람이 우연으로, 또는 불의로 저작권으로 보호되는 포스터를 포함하여 촬영하였기 때문에 법원이 저작권 침해의 원칙을 내세우지 않을 것이라는 의미입니다.

복제가 충분히 사소하게 이루어졌는지를 결정하기 위해서, 법원은 모든 상황을 고려할 것입니다. 가령, 포스터가 전체적인 사진 구성에서 필수적인 부분을 담당하고 있는 경우, 그렇지 않으면 사진이 의도적으로 포스터를 포함하는 경우라면 이 경우들은 저작권 침해로 판단될 가능성이 큽니다. 그리고 이 경우는 포스터가 '단지 배경에 불과합니다'란 방어 주장을 할 수 없습니다. 만약 포스터의 존재가 사진을 촬영한 제1의 이유라면, 저작권 침해는 주변이나 몇 가지 설정만으로는 피하기 힘듭니다.

만일 포스터의 존재가 이미지를 더 매력적이고, 유용하게 만들며, 또는 저작권자에게 사소한 경제적 손실 이상의 손실을 유발하여 보상해야 하는 경우라면 그 때는 de minimis로 저작권 침해를 방어할 수 없으며, 실패할 것입니다.

이는 어떻게 이미지가 묘사되고 구분되는지와 관련이 있습니다. 만약 사진이 "광고 포스터"로서 묘사되어 있는 경우나 광고 포스터의 범주에 속해 있는 경우라면 de minimis를 논쟁하는 데에는 어려움이 따를 수 있습니다.

가장 유용한 실험방법은 만약 포스터를 가렸을 때, 사진의 좋음과 유용성이 훼손되는지를 보면 됩니다. 만약 훼손된다면, 그 때는 포스터가 de minimis에 속하는지를 논하는 데에 어려움이 있습니다. 이 경우, 포스터가 작거나 배경에 있는 것과는 무관합니다.

지침

법의 다양성과 작품 사용의 다양성은 확정적인 규정이 존재할 수 없음을 의미합니다. 그러나 일반적인 지침과 같이, 저작권이 있는 저작물 X를 포함한 파일은 다음의 조건들을 다수로 만족할 경우 de minimis가 아닐 확률이 높아집니다.

  • 파일이 X를 묘사하기 위해 만들어진 경우
  • 파일이 X와 관련하여 분류되는 경우
  • X가 파일명으로 참고되는 경우
  • X가 설명으로 참고되는 경우
  • X가 제거되면 파일의 유용성이 떨어지는 경우
  • 다른 문맥적인 증거들 (같은 게시자가 올린 다른 파일들을 비교했을 때)

Note: de minimis consideration applies to a specific image composition. Significant cropping to focus on the copyrighted work can very easily turn a "probably OK" into a "probably not OK".

# de minimis 로 고려되는 경우 설명
1  OK 명백함. 저작권이 있는 저작물 X를 볼 수는 있으나, 식별할 수는 없음.
2  OK 매우 가능성 있음 저작권이 있는 저작물 X가 식별이 가능하지만, 원치 않게 삽입되어 쉽게 대상물을 제거할 수 없는 경우에 해당됨.
3  OK 매우 가능성 있음 저작권이 있는 저작물 X가 식별이 가능하지만, 더 큰 저작물의 작은 부분으로 어쩔 수 없이 포함해야 하는 경우에 해당됨.
4  OK 매우 가능성 있음 저작권이 있는 저작물 X가 식별이 가능하고 어쩔 수 없이 포함되는 부분이지만, 그것이 주된 요소가 아님. (그것을 검게 칠해도 사용 가능)
5   Maybe

저작권이 있는 저작물 X가 식별이 가능하고 어쩔 수 없이 포함되는 부분이며, 그것이 주된 요소임. (예: 그것을 검게 칠하면 사용 불가) 그러나 저작물은 세부 사항이 부족하고/부족하거나 흐릿하면, de minimis가 적용될 수 있음.

6  매우 가능성 낮음 저작권이 있는 저작물 X는 저작물의 주된 부분임. (예: 그것이 사진을 찍은 이유) 그것을 지우는 것은 근본적으로 전혀 다른 2차 저작물을 만들지만, 여전히 유용할 수 있음.
7   절대 안됨 저작권이 있는 저작물 X는 저작물의 중심 부분임. (예: 그것이 사진을 찍는 이유) 그것을 지우면 2차 저작물을 만들 수 없게 됨.

국가별 상황

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Belgium

벨기에

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

캐나다

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

체코

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]

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

핀란드

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

프랑스

 
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

독일

The Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights as of 2017 says,

  • Marginal accessories: Copying, propagation, and public rendition of works is permitted if they are to be considered insignificant to the actual object of copying, propagation, or public rendition.[UrhG/2017 §57]

The central requirement for the application of §57 UrhG follows directly from the text of the provision: the presence of an “actual object” which neither has to be protected by way of copyright (Urheberrecht) nor ancillary copyright laws (Leistungsschutzrechte). For the second part see Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), §57 (6); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), §57 (1). Compared to this primary object, the element in question—according to the predominant opinion among courts and legal scholars alike—“(1) may not even have the slightest contextual relationship and (2) has to be without any importance for it due to its randomness and arbitrariness” (emphasis and numbering ours).[4] This wording is directly adopted by OLG München, 29 U 5826/07, decided on March 13, 2008.[5] Almost identical wording appears in several other cases.[6]

A more restrictive minority view notably employed by Wilhelm Nordemann helds that the presence of the work in question has to be entirely inevitable and, also, negligible to such a degree that it could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer.[7] This implies that the actual subject needs to be so dominant in comparison that the work in question can be replaced without altering its overall impression.[8] As soon as the work is integrated into a scene or a picture—irrespective of whether its appearance was accidental in first place or not—, § 57 UrhG can no longer apply.[9]

Whether a work constitutes a marginal accessory in this sense is determined from the perspective of an “objective observer”; it is hence irrelevant what e.g. a photographer or film maker intended to show; what matters is only the result as perceived from an objective stance.[10]

Examples
  • A popular example in the literature is the appearance of a painting during a movie. The example is taken from the official reasoning for § 57 UrhG where it is stated that as long as the protected painting is not the main subject of the scene, this constitutes an example of a marginal accessory. However, this notion is rejected by both case law[11] and the literature; it is held instead that oftentimes, such paintings will have an influence on the atmosphere and can thus be characteristic for the scene. In that spirit, the Munich High Court decided that the publisher of a furniture catalogue cannot invoke § 57 UrhG in order to justify that protected artwork was visible in the background to some of his pictures of interior landscapes.[11]
  • On the other hand, it was also held by the same court that a T-shirt designer could not take steps against the publication of a magazine cover photo the subject of which was wearing a T-shirt created by the designer because it was argued that the motive on the T-shirt had no relation to the person and the topic he was supposed to illustrate.[12] (A copy of the cover can be found in the decision by the previous court, see for instance, LG München I 21 O 4956/07.[13]
  • Another common example from the literature is the television coverage of a speech of an MP whose copyright-protected jewelry is visible; this is considered a classical case of a marginal accessory.[14]
  • Gunda Dreyer points out that a photographer may not invoke to § 57 UrhG with respect to copyright-protected exhibits that appear in the background of a museum director who speaks on the inauguration festivities of his museum, while arguing that the appearance of a painting in the background of a politician speaking in the parliament is regularly covered by the exception clause due to its lacking relation to the main object.[15]
  • A musical work can be unwesentliches Beiwerk in a documentary if it just accidentally can be heard through an open window; however, as soon as it is technically edited afterwards and thereby made part of the documentary, §57 UrhG cannot apply anymore.[16]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Iceland

아이슬란드

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

아일랜드

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.[17]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Israel

이스라엘

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

일본

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.[18]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Morocco

모로코

"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 Singapore

싱가포르

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

슬로베니아

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 Sweden

스웨덴

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

영국

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.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM United States

미국

The United States courts interpret the de minimis defence 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.

Crops of de minimis images

Since an image which is allowable under the de minimis principle must of necessity include some copyright material, it follows that such images cannot be cropped at will. For the case of a photograph which includes a poster, even if the photographer has a defence against infringement on the de minimis principle, that does not negate the original poster-designer's copyright. If someone takes the photograph and crops it so that only the poster remains, the de minimis defence is no longer available, as the poster design then becomes an essential part of the crop. So, the cropped version infringes and cannot be allowed on Commons.

Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.

Examples

See also

Notes

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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis05
  5. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis09
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis11
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis15
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis20
  9. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis25
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis30
  11. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis40
  12. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis45
  13. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis50
  14. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis60
  15. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis70
  16. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DeMinimis80
  17. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kamina2002
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bunka
  19. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Trampuž1997