Commons:Threshold of originality

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Other languages:

Shortcuts: COM:TO • COM:TOO • COM:THRESHOLD

Copyright rules
The logo of Amtrak is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of simple text and shapes, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. However, this logo is still protected by trademark laws.
The logo of Amtrak is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of simple text and shapes, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. However, this logo is still protected by trademark laws.

The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work, or a portion of it, can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection).

As a rule, copyright applies to a work as a whole. If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted. One cannot upload said work to Commons by applying de minimis to the non-trivial portion.

The remainder of this page discusses images judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. It is usually impossible to determine whether a specific image is within the threshold of originality without a judicial decision. However, per precautionary principle, the image should be deleted if there is significant doubt that the image is not copyrighted.

For further information, see Threshold of originality on Wikipedia.

A descriptive infographic showing how the "Threshold of originality" varies by region.

Map

[This illustration is not explained enough. You may edit the page to make it clearer.]


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

United States of America

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States/en

Civil law countries

Civil law countries usually require a relatively high minimum level of intellectual creativity which will exclude typical signatures and simple logos from copyright protection. However, this does not apply to all such countries. For example, Austria and China are both known to have a relatively low threshold of originality, while a few simple logos from the Philippines gained copyright registrations from the country's Intellectual Property Office.

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 Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Afghanistan/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Argentina

Argentina

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Austria

Austria

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil

Brazil

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Czech Republic

Czech Republic

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czech Republic/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Chile

Chile

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Chile/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO China

China

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Denmark

Denmark

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ecuador

Ecuador

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Finland

Finland

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO France

France

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Germany

Germany

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greece

Greece

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary

Hungary

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Hungary/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Indonesia

Indonesia

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

Iran

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Italy

Italy

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan

Japan

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya

Libya

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Libya/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Luxembourg/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Mexico

Mexico

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Netherlands

Netherlands

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Norway

Norway

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

Peru

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Philippines

Philippines

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Poland

Poland

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Portugal

Portugal

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Russia

Russia

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Senegal

Senegal

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Senegal/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Slovenia

Slovenia

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Slovenia/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Korea

South Korea

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Spain

Spain

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden

Sweden

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Switzerland

Switzerland

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Taiwan

Taiwan

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turkey

Turkey

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey/en

Common law countries

See also: Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#Common law countries and #Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc..

Common law countries typically use a "skill and labour" test to determine the minimum level of originality capable of attracting copyright protection. The required level is extremely low in some countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. However, Canada and India are major two exceptions. 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

Canada

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Hong Kong/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO India

India

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ireland

Ireland

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ireland/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Israel

Israel

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Malaysia

Malaysia

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nigeria

Nigeria

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO New Zealand

New Zealand

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Singapore

Singapore

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore/en

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom/en

Logos and flags

Flags

Whether a flag is eligible for copyright protection depends on the country it was made in, and whether it was made by (or for) an official government. While some governments release their intellectual creations as public domain, this is not universally the case. Note that municipal-level governments often follow different rules from national/state governments with regard to intellectual property.

Governmental flags

Some governments, like the United States, do not claim copyright over their official flags. Note this is not universal. For example, in Canada, official flags made or commissioned by federal/provincial governments would fall under Crown copyright and enter the public domain after 50 years[123].

Note that flags created or commissioned by municipal governments do not necessarily follow the same rules as state, provincial, national, or federal governments. Continuing with Canada as an example: municipalities are not eligible for Crown copyright, and municipal flags are treated like flags made by private organizations/individuals[123]. Municipalities in the USA are able to copyright their flags.

Examples of municipal flags which have been deleted from Commons as copyright violations include:

Official flags created by Indigenous governments can also be copyrighted. Examples of official flags of tribal governments which have been deleted from Commons include:

  • The Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Their flag is a registered copyright in the USA and was speedily deleted from Commons. The stylized teepees are above Threshold of Originality in the USA.
  • The Peoria Tribe. Their emblem is a registered copyright in the USA. Their flag features this emblem, and so was speedily deleted. Drawings of feathers are above Threshold of Originality in the USA.
  • The Shawnee Nation. Their flag is registered copyright in the USA and was also speedily deleted from Commons. The oak leaves are above Threshold of Originality in the USA.
  • The Lumbee Tribe. Their seal is registered copyright in the USA, also resulting in a speedy deletion. Their flag features the seal, and was also speedily deleted. The pattern of overlapping triangles around the edge of the medicine wheel appears to be why this is above Threshold of Originality in the USA.

Examples of official flags which Commons discussions have deemed ineligible for copyright protection include:

Flags by private individuals or organizations

Flags which are created by non-governmental entities (e.g. private individuals, advocacy organizations, corporations) can be thought of as logos in terms of copyright. Whether such flags are copyright eligible will thus follow the standards for Threshold of Originality of the country it was made in. A clear example of a widely-adopted flag that is too visually complex to be understood as "simple geometry" is The Survivors' Flag by the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (Canada).

A famous example of a copyrighted flag is the Australian Aboriginal flag created in Australia by Harold Thomas in 1971[124] The Australian government acquired the copyright to the flag in 2022, allowing for free usage (see w:Australian_Aboriginal_flag#Copyright).

Examples of flags deleted from Commons as copyright violations include:

Architecture

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

Note that some of these decisions were controversial.

Photographs

Photographs which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:

  • (DR) Photograph of a three-dimensional object (drawer pull) with bevels and cast shadows
    (DR) Photograph of a three-dimensional object (drawer pull) with bevels and cast shadows

Maps

Maps which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection:

Darden v. Peters.

Darden v. Peters: the addition of "font and color selection; visual effects such as relief, shadowing, and shading; labeling; call-outs" and anti-aliasing to a preexisting map is below the threshold of originality

Use: {{PD-map}}. See the section farther down on partial copying or cropping of uncopyrightable elements from copyrighted works. See also:

Charts

Charts which have been deemed ineligible for copyright protection. Use: {{PD-chart}}. 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, except for the fact that this typographical arrangement was published over 25 years ago.

Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.

See also

References

Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. ↑ Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.
  2. ↑ Fishman, Stephen (2014) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ Cerlalc (25 July 2007). La obra. Originalidad. Marco conceptual Existencia del derecho (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  5. ↑ Bauer logo.
  6. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  7. ↑ Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  8. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  9. ↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  10. ↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  11. ↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
  12. ↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
  13. ↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  14. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  15. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
  16. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  17. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
  18. ↑ Sentencia nº C-2470-2009, de 17º Juzgado Civil de Santiago, 28 de Octubre de 2011
  19. ↑ V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  20. ↑ 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  21. ↑ Sø- og Handelsretten (The Maritime and Commercial Court) in March 1998, U 1998:946 S and NIR 69:3, p. 413-418 [2000]
  22. ↑ Violation of the copyright of the Global Knife Series. Supreme Court (19-09-2011). Archived from the original on October 9, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-03-24. "Det var for Højesteret ubestridt, at Global-knivene er ophavsretligt beskyttet i medfør af ophavsretslovens § 1. Højesteret udtalte, at Global-knivene som brugskunst er beskyttet mod meget nærgående efterligninger. Højesteret fandt, at Royal-knivenes design ikke indebar en tilstrækkelig frigørelse fra det særegne ved Global-knivenes udformning, men måtte anses som en meget nærgående efterligning. (It was undisputed to the Supreme Court that the Global blades are protected by copyright under section 1 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court stated that the Global blades as a utility art are protected from very close imitations. The Supreme Court found that the design of the Royal blades did not sufficiently differ from the distinctive nature of the design of the Global blades, and had to be regarded as a very close imitation."
  23. ↑ Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  24. ↑ a b TN 2011:7
  25. ↑ TN 2014:13
  26. ↑ TN 2001:12
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Paradis
  28. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pavis
  29. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  30. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  31. ↑ See, in particular, Bundesgerichtshof 27 November 1956, case I ZR 57/55 Morgenpost, 22 BGHZ 209, 215ff; Bundesgerichtshof 22 June 1995, case I ZR 119/93 Silberdistel, (1995) 97 GRUR 581, 582. See further A Ohly, "Where is the Birthday Train Heading? The Copyright-Design Interface in German Law" in G Karnell and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Jan Rosén (eddy.se ab 2016) 593ff.
  32. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  33. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  34. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  35. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  36. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  37. ↑ Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  38. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  39. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  40. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  41. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  42. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [29]–[31]. Finding of copyright protection not challenged on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 16 June 2016, case I ZR 122/14 Geburtstagskarawane, (2016) 118 GRUR 1291.
  43. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  44. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 October 2021, case 5 W 40/21 Grand Step Shoes, (2022) 124 GRUR 565 [22]–[26].
  45. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 7 April 2022, case I ZR 222/20 Porsche 911, (2022) 124 GRUR 899 [26]–[32].
  46. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2023, case 5 U 84/21, (2023) 27 ZUM-RD 481.
  47. ↑ S Zentek, "Acht Jahrzehnte verkanntes Design im deutschen Urheberrecht: Die Geschichte des Schutzes von Gebrauchsgestaltungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nationalsozialismus" (doctoral thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 2015) 276. See also L Mezger, Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht (V&R unipress 2017) 60f ("hardly possible" in particular to keep track of the jurisprudence on designer furniture).
  48. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 27 April 2011, case 5 U 26/09; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 91/11 Marcel-Breuer­-Möbel II, (2016) 69 NJW 2335 [26]–[28].
  49. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2011, case 5 U 207/08; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 76/11 Wagenfeld-Leuchte II, (2016) 69 NJW 2338 [20]–[22].
  50. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  52. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  53. ↑ Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  54. ↑ SZJSZT 1/2005
  55. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IndTOO
  56. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  57. ↑ Logo on external site DR
  58. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1980
  59. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo1470
  60. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo14233
  61. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tokyo5594
  62. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sendai2009
  63. ↑ Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  64. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  65. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  66. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  67. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  68. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  69. ↑ Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  70. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
  71. ↑ a b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
  72. ↑ Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  73. ↑ Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  74. ↑ Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.
  75. ↑ a b c d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
  76. ↑ Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.
  77. ↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.
  78. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
  79. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  80. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  81. ↑ a b Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.
  82. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.
  83. ↑ Blancaflor, MJ (2023-07-13). TAPE Inc: 'Eat Bulaga' name, logo not subject to copyright. Metro News Central. Retrieved on 2023-07-21.
  84. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kluwer
  85. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  86. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  87. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  88. ↑ 167/17.9YHLSB.L2.S2, 2020 (with photos of the puppets).
  89. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  90. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VSL0069492
  91. ↑ The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다28745
  92. ↑ Seoul High Court 2009나122304
  93. ↑ The Supreme Court of South Korea 2012다76829
  94. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/d42c9049784c7c02/20040821 p. 4
  95. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/a95395d6789f5037/20170509 p. 9
  96. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  97. ↑ Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, art 2(1). SR 231.1 Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. Government of Switzerland. Retrieved on 12 September 2020.
  98. ↑ Envisioned. Created. Protected. – A Concise Guide to Trade Marks, Patents & Co.. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (April 2020). Retrieved on 22 August 2021.
  99. ↑ Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  100. ↑ X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  101. ↑ Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  102. ↑ Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  103. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620. See also W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 35.
  104. ↑ Art 80(2) URG. W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 38; P Mosimann and Y Hostettler, "Zur Revision des Urheberrechtsgesetzes" (2018) 36 recht 123, 126; Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620 («In Verbindung mit Artikel 80 Absatz 1 URG führt die Erweiterung des Schutzumfangs auf Fotografien ohne individuellen Charakter dazu, dass der Urheberrechtsschutz solche Fotografien auch dann erfassen wird, wenn sie vor seinem Inkrafttreten dieser Teilrevision geschaffen wurden.»).
  105. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  106. ↑ Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  107. ↑ 智著字第09700078680號. Intellectual Property Office.
  108. ↑ 智慧財產法院107年民著上字第3號民事判決 (in Chinese). Judicial Yuan of the Republic of China. Retrieved on 2019-09-27.
  109. ↑ 鄧玉瑩 (2007-01-05). "盜用燒烤飯糰招牌判侵權". Apple Daily.
  110. ↑ 臺灣高等法院臺中分院95年上易字第1083號刑事判決 (2006-09-27).
  111. ↑ 智慧財產法院108年民著訴字第89號民事判決 (2020-01-13). Archived from the original on 2020-06-29.
  112. ↑ 智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決 (2016-02-04).
  113. ↑ 智慧財產法院108年民商上字第5號民事判決 (2020-01-16).
  114. ↑ ECONOMIC AND MORAL RIGHTS IN TURKISH AND EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT LAW (2009).
  115. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Singh
  116. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pessach
  117. ↑ NZGOAL copyright guide. New Zealand Government (January 2015). Retrieved on 2019-03-16.
  118. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Borghi
  119. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Future-Edge
  120. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPO-2014/1
  121. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named THJvSheridan
  122. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Grosvenor-2023
  123. ↑ a b Copyright at UBC: Public Domain. 2023. University of British Columbia. https://copyright.ubc.ca/public-domain/ Accessed 2024-11-17.
  124. ↑ A tale of two flags: who owns the right to use? 2019. World Trademark Review. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d20ee995-9c08-4805-8f5a-398c3b72121d Accessed 2024-11-17.

For more complete, working references see Commons:Copyright rules by territory and the individual countries and territories:

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Threshold_of_originality&oldid=964499856"