Commons:Поріг оригінальності

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality and the translation is 2% 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.

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

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


Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

These images are OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.

Despite repeated requests, the US Copyright Office found the Vodafone speechmark (shaded version) ineligible for copyright protection. It cannot, however, be uploaded to Commons because it's a UK logo.

These are  Not OK to upload to Commons (unless published under a free license by the copyright holder), because they are above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.

  • These two "no soliciting" signs, although arguably relatively simple, have been issued copyright registration numbers by the United States Copyright Office, which means that they have been reviewed and determined to be eligible for copyright protection. It should be noted that the copyright registration applies to the images as a whole, including their borders.
  • A variant of File:CarCreditCity.png with an extra border.
  • American Airlines flight symbol VA0002130520; Copyright Office initially refused copyright as being just below the threshold, but upon a higher-resolution submission of the artwork, decided that the shading plus the arrangement pushed the logo just above the threshold and granted a registration. (DR)
Paintings

 Not OK for most paintings.

Even seemingly simple paintings consisting of geometric shapes are often copyrighted due to details that may not be immediately obvious to the viewer.

  • Photographic reproductions of paintings by Mark Rothko have been granted registration by the US Copyright Office, so it is reasonable to assume that the original works are also copyrighted.
Other

Although the threshold of originality for non-graphic works (such as architecture and sound recordings) follow the same standards, such cases can be difficult to determine.

  • The five-note melody that typically accompanies Intel's logo was granted copyright protection because it "combined and blended synthesized, digital sounds" and was "refined and mastered with a special spatial enhancer." [3]
  • Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate is a relatively simple 3D sculpture that was deemed eligible for copyright (VA0001983425)
  • The replica of public domain object Statue of Liberty in New York-New York Hotel and Casino is deemed eligible for copyright, also the United States Postal Service is being sued for copyright infringement for famously (and mistakenly) using this statue instead of the real Statue of Liberty on its Forever stamps. (VAu001149387 and VA0001882070) also see (DR1) (DR2)

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 Вікісховища:Правила авторського права за територією country subpage, and add a link to it with an entry below.

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Austria

Австрія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil

Бразилія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Czech Republic

Чехія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Chile

Чилі

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO China

Китай

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Denmark

Данія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Finland

Фінляндія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO France

Франція

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Germany

Німеччина

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greece

Греція

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hungary

Угорщина

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Iran

Іран

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Italy

Італія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Japan

Японія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Libya

Лівія

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Mexico

Мексика

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Norway

Норвегія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

Перу

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Poland

Польща

No information available No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Senegal

Сенегал

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Slovenia

Словенія

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Spain

Іспанія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sweden

Швеція

No information available No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turkey

Туреччина

No information available

Common law countries

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.

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada

Канада

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Hong Kong

Гонконг

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO India

Індія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ireland

Ірландія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Israel

Ізраїль

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Malaysia

Малайзія

No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nigeria

Нігерія

No information available No information available
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Singapore

Сінгапур

No information available No information available

Logos and flags

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:

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

For more complete, working references see Вікісховища:Правила авторського права за територією and the individual countries and territories: