Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality and the translation is 44% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎polski • ‎русский • ‎ગુજરાતી

Shortcut: COM:TO· COM:TOO

El umbral de originalidad es un concepto del derecho de autor que se utiliza para evaluar si una determinada obra puede tener propiedad. Se utiliza para distinguir las obras que son lo suficientemente originales como para justificar la protección de los derechos de autor de aquellas que no lo son. En este contexto, la "originalidad" se refiere a "viniendo de alguien como el creador/autor" (en la medida en que de alguna manera refleja la personalidad del autor), en lugar de "nunca ha ocurrido o existido antes" (que equivaldría a la protección de algo nuevo, como en la protección de patentes).

El resto de esta página analiza las imágenes consideradas inelegibles para la protección de derechos de autor por un tribunal o autoridad similar.

Para más información, véase Umbral de originalidad en Wikipedia.

Estados Unidos

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

Estados Unidos

No information available

Países de ley civil

Países de ley civil requieren un relativamente alto nivel mínimo de creatividad intelectual cuál excluirá firmas típicas y logotipos sencillos de protección de copyright.

If you are aware of specific case law or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add a "Threshold of originality" section to the appropriate Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por territorio country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Afghanistan

Afganistán

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]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Austria

Austria

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil

Brasil

No information available

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Chile

Chile

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO China

China

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Denmark

Dinamarca

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Finland

Finlandia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO France

Francia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Germany

Alemania

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary

Hungría

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

Irán

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ireland

Irlanda

  Unknown

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

Image Description Discussion
  ISPCA official logo Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Italy

Italia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan

Japón

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya

Libia

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]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Luxembourg

Luxemburgo

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.[1]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Netherlands

Países Bajos

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:[2]

  • 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':[3]

  • 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:[4]

  • 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".
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Norway

Noruega

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

Perú

La definición general de un "obra" en la ley de 1996 es "Toda creación intelectual personal y original, susceptible de ser divulgada o reproducida en cualquier forma, conocida o por conocerse.[822/1996 Art.2(17)]

Quien realice una fotografía u otra fijación obtenida por un procedimiento análogo, que no tenga el carácter de obra de acuerdo a la definición contenida en esta ley, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos a los autores fotográficos. La duración de este derecho será de setenta años contados a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a la realización de la fotografía.[822/1996 Art.144]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Portugal

Portugal

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".[5] The subject is discussed in a 2017 article published by the Instituto Portugues de Fotografia.[6]
  • Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition: Ruled as without originality.[5]
  • Clothing/Fashion: Ruled as without originality.[7]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia

Rusia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Senegal

Senegal

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]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Slovenia

Eslovenia

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.[8]

In this regard, the following court cases are relevant:

Applied arts:

  • 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.

Architecture:

  • 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.

Titles:

  • VS07924 - the title "Brez zavor" (meaning "Without inhibitions") has been found to be below the threshold.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Korea

Corea del Sur

According to a machine translation of the Copyright Act as amended up to Act No. 14634 of March 21, 2017,

  • "Work" refers to a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings.[432/1957–2017 Article 2.2]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden

Suecia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Switzerland

Suiza

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Taiwan

República de China

No information available

Países de ley común

Most Common law countries use a "skill and labour" test to determine the minimum level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection, and in some countries such as the UK the required level is extremely low. Without some research into individual laws, it cannot be assumed that a text logo from a Common law country is necessarily allowed on Commons. If there is real doubt about the position a local court would take, then the image must be deleted under the precautionary principle.

If the logo is extremely simple (e.g. in a standard font), it will not be eligible for copyright even in Common law countries.

If you are aware of specific case law or legal advice on this issue in any country, please add a "Threshold of originality" section to the appropriate Commons:Copyright rules by territory country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Australia

Australia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada

Canadá

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hong Kong

Hong Kong

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO India

India

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Israel

Israel

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nigeria

Nigeria

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)]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO New Zealand

Nueva Zelanda

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.[9]
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United Kingdom

Reino Unido

No information available

Logotipos y banderas

Arquitectura

Images which have been kept because of lack of originality or de minimis:

Note that some of these decisions were controversial.

Fotografías

Photographs which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:

Gráficos

Charts which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection. See the section farther down on partial copying or cropping of uncopyrightable elements from copyrighted works. See also:

Partial copying or cropping of copyrighted works

When a file copies only part of a copyrighted work, that file's copyright status is determined only by what it has copied. If it only copied uncopyrightable elements, then the file is also uncopyrightable. In other words, we judge the copyright status of a file only by what the file itself contains, not by the status of other content the original source contained that was not copied by the file.

 OK This image of the front cover of a novel is public domain in the USA because it only copies uncopyrightable text, not copyrightable contents of the book itself or possibly-copyrightable contents of the back cover. (DR) It would probably not be PD in UK because of the UK's publisher's 25 year copyright on typography.

Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.

Véase también

Referencias

Algunas citas pueden no haber sido transcluidas

  1. Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  5. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named =VSL0069492
  9. NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.

For more complete, working references see Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por territorio and the individual countries and territories: