Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:De minimis and the translation is 56% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Esta fotografia é aceitável já que as imagens são de minimis. Porém cortar a foto focando uma imagem só será ferida o princípio de minimis infringindo assim os direitos autorais.

De minimis é uma expressão latina que significa "sobre coisas mínimas", normalmente na locução de minimis non curat lex ("A lei não se preocupa com ninharias"). O uso "De minimis" de uma obra protegida por direitos de autor é de uso tão trivial que não é necessário o consentimento do proprietário dos direitos autorais.

Em alguns casos, arquivos Commons com conteúdo protegido por direitos autorais considerados aceitáveis como de minimis podem ser identificados com o modelo {{de minimis}}. No entanto, a grande maioria desses arquivos não é identificada dessa maneira.

Contents

O que é de minimis?

O conceito legal comum conhecido como de minimis é derivado da máxima de minimis non curat lex, muitas vezes traduzido como "a lei não se importa com assuntos triviais". Considera-se que algumas violações técnicas da lei são tão triviais e sem importância que um tribunal pode decidir que elas não devem ser tratados como violações em absoluto. O conceito aplica-se a muitos ramos da lei, mas aqui consideramos a sua aplicação especificamente à lei de direitos autorais.

Se comprovado no tribunal, que o de minimis pode ser uma defesa completa a uma ação de infração dos direitos autorais. Não é simplesmente que um infrator possa escapar com algumas coisas sem muita possibilidade de ser processado devido ao alto preço do litígio; melhor isto se a cópia for de minimis o copiador não está violando a lei de fato em absoluto.

Um exemplo

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

Presuma que temos uma fotografia com um cartaz protegido por direitos autorais ao fundo. Há dois direitos autorais implicados: o do fotógrafo e aquele do desenhista do cartaz, e ambos podem existir independentemente. Ao tirar a fotografia e transferi-la ao Commons, o fotógrafo estará fazendo naturalmente uma cópia do desenho do cartaz, e sem consentimento que será geralmente uma infração e aqui não permitido. O fato que o fotógrafo criou um novo direito autoral próprio não impede os direitos autorais do cartaz de ser infringidos, e é assim mesmo se a fotografia expuser um alto nível da própria originalidade.

Contudo, se o cartaz é inteiramente acessório à matéria sujeita total da fotografia, a cópia pode ser considerada de minimis (possivelmente o cartaz toma uma parte pequena, insignificante da imagem, é inteiramente fora do foco comparado com o sujeito principal, ou é basicamente oculto ao fundo). Em outras palavras, um tribunal não seria rápido para sustentar uma reclamação de infração dos direitos autorais somente porque um fotógrafo resultou incluir acidentalmente e incidentemente um cartaz protegido por direitos autoral.

Ao determinar se a cópia foi suficientemente trivial, o tribunal considerará todas as circunstâncias. Deste modo, por exemplo, se o cartaz é uma parte essencial da composição fotográfica total, ou se a fotografia foi tomada deliberadamente para incluir o cartaz, provavelmente haverá infração de direitos autorais, e ele não é nenhuma defesa para dizer que o cartaz estava 'somente ao fundo'. Se a existência do cartaz foi a razão na qual a fotografia foi tirada desde o início, a infração dos direitos autorais não pode ser evitada por incluir adicionalmente dentro do foco da foto mais de uma colocação ou a área ao redor.

Se a existência do cartaz fizer a imagem mais atraente, mais usável, ou sujeito de causar mais do que um dano econômico insignificante ao proprietário dos direitos autorais, então uma defesa de minimis a uma ação de infração de direitos autorais falhará provavelmente.

Pode ser relevante como a imagem é descrita ou classificada: será difícil argumentar de minimis se a fotografia for descrita como ilustrando "um cartaz publicitário" e colocada dentro da categoria "cartazes publicitários".

Um teste útil pode ser perguntar se a fotografia manteria o seu valor caso o cartaz fosse removido. Se não, então é difícil argumentar que o cartaz é de fato de minimis, mesmo se o cartaz for pequeno e estiver "ao fundo".

Diretrizes

Variations in laws and in uses of works mean that firm rules are not possible. As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:

  • the file is in use to illustrate X
  • the file is categorised in relation to X
  • X is referenced in the filename
  • X is referenced in the description
  • X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  • from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.

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".

# Case can be considered de minimis Description
1  OK Yes, definitely Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable.
2  OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
3  OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
4  OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless).
5   Maybe Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.
6  Very unlikely Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
7   Definitely not Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.

Country-specific laws

Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Belgium

Bélgica

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 [...].
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Canada

Canadá

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.

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.
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Finland

Finlândia

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)]
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM France

França

 
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.
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Germany

Alemanha

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]
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Iceland

Islândia

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)]

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]

Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Israel

Israel

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]
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Japan

Japão

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]
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Morocco

Marrocos

"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]

Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Singapore

Singapura

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.

Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Slovenia

Eslovênia

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.

Texto transcluído de
COM:DM Sweden

Suécia

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)
Texto transcluído de
COM:DM United Kingdom

Reino Unido

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.

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.

Cortes do de minimis

Desde que uma imagem que é admissível sob de minimis o princípio deva incluir inevitavelmente algum material de direitos autorais, resulta que tais imagens não podem ser cortadas à vontade. Mesmo se o fotógrafo tem uma defesa contra a infração no princípio de minimis, que não nega os direitos autorais do desenhista do cartaz original. Se alguém tomar a fotografia e cortá-la para que só o cartaz permaneça, a defesa de minimis não é mais disponível, pois o desenho do cartaz passa a ser parte essencial da obra. Deste modo, a versão cortada infringe e não pode ser permitida no 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.

Exemplos

Ver também

Notas

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