Commons:二次的著作物
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
| 他の言語:
Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Galego | 日本語 | Português | Română | Русский | +/− |
[edit] 概要
コモンズにおいては、二次元の作品を写した写真であろうが、三次元の作品を写した写真であろうが著作権保護期間中の美術品の写真は受け付けていません。二次元の作品を写した写真は複製と呼ばれますが、三次元の作品を写した写真は特に二次的著作物と呼ばれます。この項ではなぜコモンズに彫刻や像などの写真、つまり二次的著作物をアップロードしてはいけないのかを説明します。この決まりには例外があります（主として、被写体が屋外の公開された場所に恒常的に設置されている場合です）。詳しいことはCommons:風景の撮影における自由あるいは Commons:Freedom of panorama を参照してください。また、Commons:よくある質問#日本のユーザーためのよくある質問の「屋外に設置された美術品を撮影した写真をアップロードしてもよいでしょうか？」を参照してください。
[edit] 二次的著作物とは？
ここでは主に、アメリカにおける扱いを述べます。コモンズはアメリカにサーバーが有る為に、合衆国の法律の作用も受けます。つまり、日本法の下にあるコモンズ・ユーザーも同様の制約を受けると考えられます。
二次的著作物は1976年合衆国著作権法101条において次のように定められています。
二次的著作物とは単数あるいは複数の既存の作品を元にした作品のことで、翻訳、歌劇の脚色、ドラマ化、フィクション化、映像版、音響録音、絵画の複製、抄録、要約、あるいは、改変、変質、改作された作品のあらゆる形態である。編集上の改訂、注釈、推敲、あるいはあらゆる改変を含む作品で、全体として独自の著作物に相当するものを言う。
短く言えば、著作権が主張されうる創造的な作品を、別のメディアに変換したものはすべて、二次的著作物といえますし、改変され新たに作られた創造的な独自の作品もまたすべて二次的著作物といえます。この様な二次的著作物を作ることができる人は1976年合衆国著作権法106条によって以下のように定められています。
著作権保持者はこの権利の元、次のうちどれかにあたる行為を行使あるいは認定する排他的な権利を有する。（中略）(2)著作物に基づいて二次的著作物を準備すること。
完全なコピーや、作品のちょっとした差異（たとえば、まったく同じ内容の違う題を持つ本など）は新たな著作権を発生させませんが、そうではない二次的著作物は、新たな作品のすべての独自の要素に対して著作権を発生させる事になります。たとえば、『ホビット―ゆきてかえりし物語』はダグラス・A・アンダーソンの注釈がついており、アンダーソンに著作権が存在しますが、この本の本文である『ホビットの冒険』にはアンダーソンの著作権は存在しません（この例では日本語訳における訳者の著作権を考慮していません）。『ホビットの冒険』にはトールキンの著作権がまた別に存在します。著作権保持者は、ダース・ベーダーのアクション・フィギュアだろうが、自分の作品の二次的著作物を新たに作る排他的な権利を有しています。この権利はそういった作品の撮影にも言えることです。
なお、日本の法律に関して言えば上記と同じようなことが、著作権法27条 - 28条に当てはまると考えられます。
[edit] 自分のカメラでオブジェを撮影したので、自分に著作権があります。自分の好きなようにライセンスできないのですか？ どうして他の著作者に配慮すべきなのですか？
あなたが写真を撮ると、あなたは写真という新たな著作物を作り出します。同時に、元々の著作権者の権利はなお存在するとも言えます。その写真を公開する際には、元々の著作権保持者が認めた方法でしか公開できないのです。だれかの著作物をあなたが撮影した写真を、（フェアユースを例外として）元々の著作者が認めない限り、あなたは利用できないのはこういう理由があるからです。
[edit] つまり、プーさんのおもちゃを持ってる子供の写真は、ディズニーがプーさんのデザインに著作権を保持しているので私の著作物ではないのですね。
ちがいます。この場合、ディズニーはその写真の著作権を保持していないといえます。この場合、二つの著作権が同時に存在すると考えてください。写真には写真を撮影した人の、プーさんのおもちゃにはディズニーの著作権が存在し、まったく別のものです。そういった写真をコモンズで使う場合、以下のことを自問してください。「私の写真は『プーさん』のイラストとして使えるのではないか」、「プーさんのおもちゃの写真を使うことで、法的に問題のあるプーさんのイラストの直接利用の代用をしているのではないか」。あなたの中で答えが「イエス」であれば、認められたものではないといえます。
[edit] Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?
No. There are special provisions in 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 over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such. ([1])
There are things, like sculptures, paintings, action figures that do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore are generally copyrighted as works of fine art. There is no clear line between copyrightable and not copyrightable. Also, different legislations use different criteria. German law, for example, has a term called Schöpfungshöhe, which is defined as the threshold of originality that is needed for an object or a drawing to be copyrightable, and which is especially high for works of applied art. Of course, there is no legal definition for this threshold; you can only use your common sense and actual court decisions (a good start: [2]).
The design of your alarm clock or your dinner plate is probably not copyrighted in the same way Mickey Mouse is. Please keep apart works of art (the Pokemon) and objects of daily use (gaming consoles, dinner plates), the latter of which generally are not works in the sense of copyright, or, depending on jurisdiction, do not show enough originality for the vastly increased prerequisites for copyright protection of such objects. They are generally protected by design patents, which may or may not (depending on jurisdiction again) hinder commercial use of pictures for anything but quotation-like contexts, but that's not our problem, since it's entirely independent of copyright and thus not something that we should care about.
[edit] I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!
Legally, most toys are art. It's the same thing whether you take a picture of a sculpture or a picture of Darth Vader. Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you'll need the permission of the original creator. You can't upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.
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. They can be copyrighted, perhaps, if they were given a very special form by a designer, but the ones you use at home are probably not.
[edit] But Wikimedia Commons isn't commercial! And what about fair use?
Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial project, but the project scope requires that every single picture may be used commercially via free licenses. Every image or media file must be free of third party copyrights.
Fair use is generally not allowed on Commons. "Fair use" is a difficult legal exception for pictures that are used in a certain limited context; it's not applicable on entire databases of copyrighted material.
[edit] But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokemon without pictures?
Admittedly, it's difficult. You'll probably have to refrain from illustrating such Wikipedia articles. However, there's plenty of photo opportunities for many topics that don't violate third party copyrights. This project is not going to die because we don't have pictures of Pikachu and Asterix. Also, we won't have pictures of works by Picasso or Andy Warhol for a long time, but we can still write articles about them.
And no, it doesn't matter whether Mickey Mouse is printed on a T-shirt, which you bought with your own money and which is worn by yourself while you're walking in a public place, loudly reciting the GFDL. That doesn't at all give you the right to take a picture of the T-shirt, cut out Mickey Mouse and upload it as "free" material. Nothing you'll ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material.
[edit] I've never heard about this before! Is this some kind of creative interpretation?
Actually, no. Photographs of, say, modern art statues or paintings can't be uploaded either, and people accept that. If we accept the legal standard that comic figures and action figures can be considered as art and thus are copyrighted, we're just applying the standard rule here.
[edit] Casebook
How does this policy concern the selection of images that are allowed on Wikimedia Commons?
- Comic figures and action figures: No photographs, drawings, paintings or any other copies/derivative works of these allowed (as long as the original is not in the public domain). No pictures of items which are derivatives from copyrighted figures themselves, like dolls, action figures, t-shirts, printed bags, ashtrays etc.
- Paintings with frames: Paintings that are in the public domain are generally allowed (see Commons:Licensing). You can also use scans from other web sites - they're not copyrighted, as long as they don't show the frame. Frames are 3-dimensional objects, so the photo may be copyrighted. Remove the frame (via cropping) and everything is fine. - Remember: Always provide the original creator's name, birth and death date and the time of creation, if you can! If you don't know, give as much source information as possible (source link, place of publication etc.). Other volunteers must be able to verify the copyright status, and furthermore, the moral rights of the original creator—which include the right to be named as the author—are perpetual in some countries.
- 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're looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other PD paintings on flat surfaces should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks.
- Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed (which means, it's there to stay, not to be removed after a certain time), and if you are on public ground while taking the picture. Check Commons:Freedom of panorama if your country has a liberal policy on this exception and learn more about freedom of panorama.
- Full freedom of panorama: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland
- Restricted or no freedom of panorama: Armenia*, Azerbaijan*, Belarus*, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia*, Finland**, France, Georgia*, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan*, Kyrgyzstan*, Latvia*, Lithuania*, Moldova*, Norway**, Russia*, Uzbekistan*, Ukraine, USA**
- * These countries limit their freedom of panorama to non-commercial uses of the image only. Overview images that do not feature a single coyprighted building or sculpture as their main subject are allowed.
- **These countries have freedom of panorama for buildings, but not for sculptures.
- Replica of artworks: Replica of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, are copies and not derivative works, which means they're not copyrightable by the person who creates the replica. Photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.
- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the creator or make sure the photograph is in the public domain.
- Images of characters/objects/scenes in books are subject to any copyright on the book itself. You cannot freely create and distribute a drawing of Albus Dumbledore any more than you could distribute your own Harry Potter movie. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author.
[edit] ウェブ・リンク
- ケース・スタディ：
- http://www.ivanhoffman.com/beanie.html (Citing a court case in which photographs of Beanie Babie dolls are treated as derivative works)
- http://www.benedict.com/Visual/batman/batman.aspx (Citing a court case in which Warner Bros was accused of copyright infringement for filming a statue inside a building)
- http://www.nylawline.com/articlephotog1.htm (Citing two US court cases in which photographs of copyright-free 3-D objects were considered sufficiently original for the photographer to claim copyright)
- その他の関連サイト：
