Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Derivative works and the translation is 16% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Derivative works and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎slovenčina • ‎suomi • ‎русский • ‎فارسی • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

Shortcut: COM:DW· COM:DERIV

Many creative works are derivative works of something else, entitled to their own copyright. A derivative work is one which is not only based on a previous work, but which also contains sufficient new, creative content to entitle it to its own copyright. However, if the underlying work is still copyright protected, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse. In other words, a derivative work is not merely a work that is "based on" another work, a derivative work is considered a new work because of some significant amount of additional creativity that went into its production— all subsequent works based on another, previous work but lacking substantial new creative content are merely considered copies of that work and are entitled to no new copyright protection as a result and should not be referred to as "derivative works", as this has a very specific meaning in copyright law.

In either case, unless the underlying work is in the public domain or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons.

In summary: you cannot trace someone else's copyrighted creative drawing and upload that tracing to Commons under a new, free license because a tracing is a copy without new creative content; likewise, you cannot make a movie version of a book you just read without the permission of the author, even if you added substantial creative new material to the storyline, because the movie requires the original book author's permission— if such permission were obtained, however, the movie would likely then be considered a derivative work entitled to its own novel copyright protection. "Derivative", in this sense, does not simply mean "derived from", it means, "derived from and including new creative content which is entitled to a new copyright."

Contents

¿Qué es un trabajo derivado?

 
Esta foto de la Venus de Milo es un trabajo derivado. El artista murió hace 2000 años, por lo que la estatua está Commons:Licencias: en el dominio público - no hay problemas de derechos de autor!

Trabajo derivado, de acuerdo a US Act of Copyright 1976, Section 101, se define como sigue:[1]

"Un Trabajo derivado es un trabajo basado en uno o más trabajos preexistentes, como una traducción, arreglo musical, dramatización, versión en película, grabación sonora, reproducción artística, abreviación, condensación, o cualquier otra forma en la que un trabajo pueda ser modificado, transformado o adaptado. Un trabajo consistente en revisiones editoriales, anotaciones, elaboraciones u otras modificaciones que, como un todo, representen un trabajo original de autor, es una Obra derivada"

En resumen, todas las transferencias de trabajo creativo, sujeto a derechos de autor, de un medio a otro cuenta como un trabajo derivado. Y también todas las modificaciones cuyo resultado sea un nuevo y creativo trabajo original. ¿Quién tiene derecho a crear un trabajo así? De acuerdo a US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 106:

"El dueño de los derechos de autor bajo su título tiene los derechos exclusivos para hacer o autorizar cualquiera de las siguientes cosas (...) (2) Preparar trabajos derivados basados en el trabajo protegido por derechos de autor."

Al contrario que una reproducción textual de un trabajo, que no crea un nuevo derecho de autor, un trabajo derivado sí lo hace. Sin embargo, y es importante recordarlo, los derechos de autor originales continúan vigentes. Quien tenga los derechos de autor de, digamos, una película de El Señor de los Anillos, una revista de Batman o el arte de tapa de un disco de Iron Maiden, tiene el derecho exclusivo de crear o autorizar obras derivadas. Esto incluye fotografías o escaneos, ya que —como argumentarían los jurados— es una faceta del trabajo que podrían querer aprovechar de forma comercial.

Thus, for example, the creator of The Annotated Hobbit holds a copyright on all of the notes and commentary he wrote, but not on the original text of The Hobbit, which is also included in the book, the copyright to which is owned by the Tolkien Estate. The original Estate copyright still holds, and then the annotations also acquire a new and independent copyright of their own.

Likewise, the corporation that holds the copyright to Darth Vader (i.e., Walt Disney) has the exclusive right to create or authorize any derivative works of that character, including photographs or drawings of him which portray him in novel and creative ways, since (as court decisions put it) that is one aspect of the copyright holder's work that he or she might want to exploit commercially. In the same manner, anyone can make a movie based on The Bible, and may make their own movie called "The Ten Commandments" based on the Biblical chapter Exodus, but may not make a new version of the 1956 film, "The Ten Commandments", even with substantial new creative input, without getting permission of Paramount Pictures (the copyright holder).

¿Si le saco una foto a algo con mi cámara, tengo los derechos de mi foto. ¿Por qué no puedo licenciarla como me parezca?

Al tomar una foto, se crea una obra original con sus propios derechos. Pero si la foto es de un objeto cuya reproducción ya tenía derechos, estos permanecen. La foto tiene dos facetas diferentes sujetas a derechos. Al sacar una foto a un objeto así, se hace algo que sólo el dueño de los derechos está autorizado a hacer, por eso no se puede reproducir la misma a menos que se tenga autorización. Sólo se podría reproducir una foto así bajo la figura del "Fair Use", inaceptable en Commons.

It does not matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Libertad de panorama).

Locations such as theme parks usually allow photography and sometimes even encourage it even though items of copyrighted artwork will almost certainly be included in visitors' photos. Such policies, however, do not automatically mean that such photos can be distributed under a public domain dedication or a free content license; the intent of a venue allowing photography may be to facilitate photography for personal usage and/or non-commercial sharing on social networking sites, for example. (See this discussion.) Also, the legal concept of de minimis can apply in such a setting: if the subject of your theme park photograph is your daughter eating an ice cream but someone in a Mickey Mouse costume can be seen in the background, this is not considered infringement nor a derivative work so long as it is clear from the photograph that you are interested in the girl and the frozen treat rather than the oversized rodent, and you may even market that image commercially (though you must be sure that Mickey really is "de minimis" and his presence must not make that image more useful, more interesting, or more marketable than it would be without him).

¿Entonces si le saco una foto a un chico con una remera de Los Simpsons, XX Century Fox tiene los derechos de esa foto?

No, no del todo. Es importante notar y distinguir que hay dos derechos de autor involucrados: el del fotógrafo, aplicable a la foto en sí, y el de Fox, aplicable a la imagen de Los Simpsons. Sin embargo, sólo se los toma en cuenta si dicha imagen es un punto focal de la foto. Una foto de una familia de paseo por un parque sonriendo a la cámara y en la cual el niño tenga puesta una remera de Bart Simpson no afectaría los derechos de autor del dueño de los mismos (en realidad, sí, pero de una forma minúscula y despreciable); pero una en la cual el primer plano esté puesto en el diseño de su remera sí lo hará.

Be aware, though, that Disney's protection strategy both relies on author's right (artistic property) and trade mark (extended to protect a design). The actual legal analysis would be more subtle in that case. While Disney does not hold a copyright on the photo, there may be an infringement on Disney's copyright of Pooh by virtue of copying via the photograph. As virtually all photography is considered to involve at least a modicum of creativity on the part of the photographer, in fact you may have created a derivative work without permission.

¿Todo tiene derechos de autor? ¿Mi mesa? ¿Mi silla? ¿El gabinete de mi computadora?

No. No todo puede acogerse a las leyes de derechos de autor. Las leyes varían de un país a otro, pero en forma general sólo puede patentarse aquello que contiene un alto grado de trabajo creativo propio y puede reconocerse independientemente de su medio. Un ejemplo del primer punto es que una canción es un trabajo artístico y creativo propio y por lo tanto registrable, pero las notas musicales no lo son. El logo de la lengua de los Rolling Stones puede reconocerse en cualquier producto: la tapa de un disco, un póster, una remera, una taza, un imán, un pad para el mouse, lo que sea; pero un diseño de un mueble, aunque sea visualmente interesante, no puede desligarse del mueble en sí y no es registrable. En realidad, sí, pero se registran por un sistema diferente al de los derechos de autor y por tanto no son importantes para Commons.

No. There are special provisions in US copyright law to exempt utility articles to a wide degree from copyright protection:

The second part of the amendment states that

"the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

A "useful article" is defined as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." This part of the amendment is an adaptation of language added to the Copyright Office Regulations in the mid-1950's in an effort to implement the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazer case.

In adopting this amendatory language, the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copy­righted works of industrial design. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee's intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies' dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill.

The test of separability and independence from "the utilitarian aspects of the article" does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such.

From Cornell University Law School notes on US Code 17 § 102; content primarily taken from a U.S. Government work
Note that while the commentary above was apparently written while some language was an amendment which had not then been enacted, it was subsequently enacted and can be found in 17 USC 101.

Sculptures, paintings, action figures, and (in many cases) toys and models do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore in the United States (where Commons is hosted) such objects are generally considered protected as copyrighted works of art. A toy airplane, for example, is mainly intended to portray the appearance of an airplane in a manner similar to that of a painting of an airplane.[2] On the other hand, ordinary alarm clocks, dinner plates, gaming consoles— as well as actual, full-scale planes— are not generally copyrightable... though any design painted on the dinner plate would likely be subject to copyright protection, as would an alarm clock in the shape of Snoopy the dog.

It is possible for utilitarian objects to have aspects which are copyrightable, but there is no clear line in US law between works which are copyrightable and objects which are not.[3] A white paper on copyright and 3D printing mentioned several US court rulings that were each about whether a functional object had artistic elements that were "physically or conceptually" separable from the object's functional aspects and therefore copyrightable. The whitepaper suggested a consideration for determining if specific elements of a utilitarian object are copyrightable under US law: if an object has non-functional elements, then those elements are more likely to be copyrightable if the design of the elements was not influenced by utilitarian pressures.[4]

Different countries may have different definitions: German law has a term called Schöpfungshöhe, which is the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts.[5] It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland.[5][6] There is no legal definition for this threshold, so one must use common sense and existing case law].[7]

Instead of copyright protection, utilitarian objects are generally protected by design patents, which, depending on jurisdiction, may limit commercial use of depictions. However, patents and copyright are separate areas of law, and works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. Therefore, patents of this kind are not a matter of concern for Commons.

Photos of people in costumes of copyrighted characters may or may not be copyrighted.[8] See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter (Costumes and cosplay) for more information. These should be decided on a case-by-case basis using the separability test.[3]

Text

It is prohibited to copy text from non-free media like copyrighted books, articles or similar works. Information itself, however, is not copyrightable, and you are free to rewrite it in your own words. Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source.

Maps

In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. The most common cases are:

  • The map was created by the US government: The federal government is the greatest source of public domain maps in the United States. Federal agencies are creating maps all the time and works that US government employees create (as part of their jobs) are not protected by copyright.
  • The map’s copyright has expired: All maps published in the United States before 1924 are in the public domain because their copyrights have expired.
  • The map was published before 1989 without a copyright notice: Copyright notices used to be mandatory. If a work was published without a proper notice, it went into the public domain unless the copyright owner corrected the problem within a specific period of time. A valid copyright notice on a map had to consist of at least these 2 elements: the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr." and the name of the copyright owner. (Example: © Lenny Longitude). Maps published from January 1, 1978 through March 1, 1989 also had to include the publication year. (Maps published before 1978 did not need to include the date).
  • The map was not eligible for copyright in the first place: Not all maps get copyright protection in the United States. There are "originality" and "minimal creativity" requirements for copyright in the US. If the components of the map are "entirely obvious" the map will not be copyrightable. For example, an outline map of the state of Texas, or one of the US showing the state boundaries is not copyrightable. (Not creative.) Ditto maps that use standard cartographic conventions, like a survey map. (Not original.)[9]

Even for maps which are copyrighted, not all the contents are subjected to copyright. The problems arise from the tension between the principle that maps are protected and two other basic principles: namely, that copyright does not protect facts and that copyright does not protect systems. Traditional maps are pictorial representations of geographic and demographic facts organized to allow the user to readily understand and easily extract the factual information portrayed. The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. The organizing principle for presenting the information will often, if not always, be deemed an unprotected system or idea. Thus, many maps will apparently contain only unprotected elements.

The issue was the object of several court cases. The tension among traditional copyright principles as they apply to maps has been heightened by Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. The Feist decision follows standard copyright dogma to the conclusion: copyright protects only expression, not facts; the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity and not merely labor, time, or money invested; the protected elements of the resulting work are precisely those that reflect this intellectual creativity, and no more. This is the conclusion of a court of law on the issue.[10]

As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely:

  • Place names: Those are not copyrightable.
  • Colors: For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors are not copyrightable, either.
  • Symbols and map keys: Cannot be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones.
  • Geographic or topographic features: Those are facts, and facts are not copyrightable.
  • Elements copied from other maps: (say, from a public domain USGS map). Whatever new information the mapmaker added will be protected by copyright (the selection, arrangement of the info), but the elements that were copied (the elements of a USGS map used as a starting point, for example) will stay in the public domain.[9]

However, some of these maps may be protected by copyright. A map is not copyrightable if the idea it expresses could only be done in one way. The court found that there was сreativity involved in the idea here was to bring together the available information on boundaries, landmarks, and ownership, and to choose locations and an effective pictorial expression of those locations. But the protection that each map receives extends only to its original expression, and neither the facts nor the idea embodied in the maps is protected.[11]

While the above applies to the United States, it is not clear if it is applicable to other countries. In the European Union Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases has been approved. However, neither the directive, nor any of the national laws promulgated after its approval clearly specify that elements represented on maps qualify as databases.

In Germany a verdict of the court in München of November 9, 2005, stated that, according to the German Copyright Law[12] topographic maps are to be considered databases, as defined in art. 87 of the law and the information is protected according to the provisions regarding databases. This also refers to the length of the protection of databases which is significantly shorter than the protection of copyright.[13] In any case, the copyright for databases according to the Directive is of fifteen years, implying that, regardless of the interpretation, the information on maps which could be interpreted as being database related expires in 15 years after the publication of the map.

¿Se pueden usar fotos de juguetes? Los juguetes no son arte.

Véase también : Category:Toys related deletion requests

Técnicamente no lo son, pero legalmente sí, y eso es lo que importa. Una figura de acción de Superman está tan sujeta a derechos de autor como la tapa de una revista suya. Ambas tienen derechos, en ambas el sacar una foto no los niega, en ambas se requiere autorización para su uso y por tanto ambas son incompatibles con las licencias libres de Commons.

Although the scope of copyright varies between countries, it is a misconception that copyright applies solely to "art". Instead, copyright typically applies to a larger variety of works; to use the United States, where WMF servers are located, as an example: copyright protection is available to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”[14] Indeed, toys generally are original (owe their origin to an author), have authors (human creators), and are fixed in a tangible medium (wood, fabric, etc.)

The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[15] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright. Other countries, such as the United States, however, do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. Accordingly, paintings, statues and toys are all works subject to copyright whose photographs would require permission of the original creator to be hosted on the Commons. Just as you cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you cannot upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokémon figures.

The legal rationale in the United States has been established in numerous cases. "Gay Toys", for example, found "a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function."[16] Additional rulings have found, for example, "it is no longer subject to dispute that statues or models of animals or dolls are entitled to copyright protection"[17] and "There is no question but that stuffed toy animals are entitled to copyright protection."[18]

Similarly, dolls' clothing has been found to be copyrightable in the US on the grounds that it does not have a utilitarian function of providing protection from the elements or preserving modesty in the manner that clothing for humans does (the latter is a "useful article.")[2] Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix have to be treated as works of art, which means they are subject to copyright, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. Artistic elements of these items could be copyrighted, but only if it's separable from the utilitarian elements.[9] Some toys are also too simple to meet the threshold of originality, for example, the Kong dog toy.[19]

In other cases, the "separability" test may be needed (see Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.). When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.[20]

¡Pero Wikimedia no es comercial! ¿Y el Fair Use?

Aunque Wikimedia no haga directamente un uso comercial, el criterio para inclusión requiere que el material sea libre para cualquier uso, incluído el comercial. El Fair Use, o Uso Legítimo, es solamente una excepción legal vigente sólo en Estados Unidos y bajo contextos específicos. No puede aplicarse a bases de datos enteras, no permite la redistribución ni el libre uso, no es vigente en cualquier contexto aplicable.

¿Pero cómo se pueden ilustrar temas como Star Wars o Las Chicas Superpoderosas sin imágenes?

Sí, es difícil. Probablemente dichos artículos tengan que permanecer sin ilustraciones. Existen algunas situaciones específicas que no violarían derechos de autor (por ejemplo, la libertad de panorama si es aplicable, obras con derechos cedidos o expirados u otras situaciones previstas en legislaciones locales), o incluso soluciones más ingeniosas (por ejemplo, utilizar una foto libre del actor de una película en lugar de una del personaje, o una foto de algún evento relacionado al tema sin mostrar directamente imágenes con derechos, etc.), pero por regla general lo más probable es que cualquier imagen proveniente del último gran éxito multimediático esté sujeta a derechos de autor. Wikimedia no considera prioritario ilustrar a los artículos sobre esos temas, lo cual no quita que se pueda escribir mucho sobre ellos.

Some Wikimedia projects allow non-free works (including derivatives of non-free works) to be uploaded locally under fair use provisions. The situations in which this is permitted are strictly limited. It is vital to consult the policies and guidelines of the project in question before attempting to invoke fair use claims.

What about images of copyrighted characters in public domain works?

Sometimes individual works featuring copyrighted characters (such as Mickey Mouse or Superman) enter the public domain. Although the works themselves are in the public domain, any portions that include the copyrighted characters are still restricted by copyright law.[21][22] This concept even extends to non-sentient "characters", such as the Batmobile.[23] Derivative representations of characters are protected by copyright law in the United States until the original work that created the character is no longer copyrighted.[24] This protection is separate from trademark protection.

¡Nunca oí hablar de esto! ¿No es alguna interpretación creativa?

No. Las fotografías de, por ejemplo, pinturas y estatuas de arte moderno no pueden subirse tampoco, y es aceptado así. Si aceptamos el criterio legal de que las historietas o las figuras de acción son creaciones artísticas, simplemente se está aplicando la regla establecida.

Casos

Véase también : Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter.

¿Cómo afecta todo esto a los criterios sobre qué imágenes son permisibles en Commons?

  • Historietas, figuras de acción: No se permiten fotos, copias, dibujos, pinturas u otros trabajos derivados, a menos que el original se encuentre en el dominio público. No se permiten tampoco imágenes de trabajos derivados, como remeras, pósters, mochilas, etc.
  • Pinturas con marco: se permiten si el original está en el dominio público. El marco debe retirarse de la imagen. Se debe recordar proveer todos los datos disponibles sobre el autor.
  • Cave paintings: Cave walls are usually not flat, but three-dimensional. The same goes for antique vases and other uneven or rough surfaces. This could mean that photographs of such media can be copyrighted, even if the cave painting is in the public domain. (We are looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other paintings on flat surfaces in the public domain should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks.
  • Fotografías de edificios y esculturas en el espacio público: Son trabajos derivados, pero pueden ser aceptables bajo la libertad de panorama si el objeto de la foto está expuesto en forma permanente y se está en espacio público al sacar la foto. Las leyes sobre libertad de panorama varían de país en país.
  • Réplicas: Una réplica de un objeto en el dominio público se considera una copia y no un trabajo derivado, y por lo tanto no reciben nuevos derechos. Si la Venus de Milo está en el dominio público, un llavero con su forma lo está también.
  • Fotos de objetos en 3 dimensiones: La foto en sí misma siempre tiene derechos correspondientes al fotógrafo, independientes de los derechos del objeto en sí. Aunque el mismo esté en el dominio público, se debe tener autorización del fotógrafo (excepto, claro, si es uno mismo quien saca la foto).
  • Imágenes de personajes/objetos/escenas de libros: tienen tantos derechos como el libro en sí mismo. Si no se dispone de un permiso, legalmente son copias no licenciadas y por lo tanto inaceptables.
Without such permission any art you create is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author.

Véase también

  • Collages are combinations of multiple images arranged into a single image
  • Screenshots are a type of derivative work

Referencias

  1. U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  2. a b Pearlman, Rachel (2012-09-17). IP Frontiers: From planes to dolls: Copyright challenges in the toy industry. NY Daily Record. Retrieved on 2014-06-21.
  3. Weinberg, Michael (January 2013). What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? 9. Public Knowledge. Retrieved on 2016-09-22.
  4. Weinberg, Michael (January 2013). What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? 13. Public Knowledge. Retrieved on 2016-09-22.
  5. a b Summary Report: The Interplay Between Design and Copyright Protection for Industrial Products 4–5. AIPPI.
  6. VSL0069492. Retrieved on 29 October 2013.
  7. Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices - Chapter 500. University of New Hampshire School of Law.
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan#Comment by Mike Godwin
  9. a b c [1] Public domain maps]. Public Domain Sherpa. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  10. Dennis S. Karjala - Copyright in electronic maps - Jurimetrics Vol. 35 (1995) pp.305-415
  11. Mason v Montgomery Data et al. The Federal Reporter Volume 967 2d Edition (1992). Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  12. Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz).
  13. [2] Landgericht München I - Datenbankschutz für topografische Landkarten
  14. 17 U.S. Code § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  15. "Farby" doll is judged not to be a work of art. Sendai High Court (9 July 2002). Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  16. (Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corporation, 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983)
  17. Blazon, Inc. v. DeLuxe Game Corp., 268 F. Supp. 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  18. R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co., Inc., 444 F. Supp. 1080, 1083-84 (E.D.N.Y. 1978)
  19. Kong Design (20 September 213). Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  20. HASBRO BRADLEY, INC. v. SPARKLE TOYS, INC., 780 F.2d 189 (2nd Cir. 1985).
  21. Siegel v. Warner Bros (2009)
  22. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995)
  23. DC Comics v. Mark Towle (2013)
  24. Warner Bros. v. AVELA (2011)

Enlaces externos

Case studies
Other useful sites