Commons:Reglas de copyright por territorio/Lista consolidada Europa Occidental

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Western Europe and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Western Europe and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Other languages:
English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar
VTE Normas de derechos de autor por el territorio
Subregiones geográficas de la ONU
Subregiones geográficas de la ONU
África
América
Asia
Europa
Oceanía
Otros

Esta página ofrece descripciones generales de las reglas de derecho de autor en territorios o países de Europa Occidental, cuando definido en el Geoesquema de las Naciones Unidas para América. Se "transcluye" de páginas individuales sobre las reglas de cada país o territorio. La lista puede ser utilizada para comparación o mantenimiento.

Contents

Texto transcluido de
COM:Germany

Alemania

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Germany relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Germany must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Germany and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Germany, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Germany has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[2]

As of 2019, the main copyright law of Germany is the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG). In general, the current (consolidated) text of the law is provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and can be found here. An unofficial English translation is also available courtesy of the Ministry—see here—, but often does not reflect the most recent amendments, so you may wish to review the "Version information" at the top.

Summary of copyright terms

Standard term for works

As of 2019, the standard copyright term for works is life + 70 years.[3]

Anonymous and pseudonymous works

The treatment of anonymous and pseudonymous works in copyright law changed in 1995. Since then, for all anonymous or pseudonymous works created prior to 1 July 1995 the term of copyright must be calculated as follows: Calculate the point of expiry under the old law (the "old method"), then calculate the point of expiry under the new law (the "current method"). Copyright expires on whichever date comes last.[4]

The old method

Unpublished works: The term of copyright is life + 70 years (the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works did not apply to unpublished works).[5]

Published works: It was controversial whether the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works applied to all published works or only to so-called released works (verbreitete Werke).[6] ("Released" is a special case of "published".[7]A work is deemed to have been released "when copies of the work have been offered, with the rightholder's consent, to the public or brought to the market after their production in sufficient quantity", s 6(2) UrhG. By way of example, when a new film is shown on television, that makes it a "published" work, but not yet a "released" one.[8] Once DVDs of the film are distributed to stores, it would also be considered "released".)

That aside, the general rules were as follows:[9] If and only if the following three conditions are met:

  1. The work is not a work of fine art and
  2. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified in the usual manner on a released/published copy of the work, and
  3. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work

then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless

  1. the work was published (again) within that period of time and this time the author was designated with their real name or their known pseudonym in the usual manner on a published copy or
  2. the author has become known in some other way within that period of time, or
  3. an application was filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
  4. the work has never been published during the lifetime of the author.

If any of these four conditions is met, then the term of copyright was life + 70 years.[10]

The current method

Unpublished works: If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires.[11]

Published works: The copyright term for anonymous and pseudonymous works is 70 years after publication unless

  1. the author reveals their identity within that period of time, or
  2. an application is filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
  3. the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity.

If any of these three cases applies, the term of copyright is life + 70 years instead.[12]

Two miscellaneous comments on these provisions are in order: First, it should be noted that the prevailing view is that the term "work of fine art" in (A) also applies to works of applied art and architectural works;[13] it does not extend to photographic works.[14] This implies that the copyright term of works like oil paintings, sculptures, or buildings created before July 1 1995 is, effectively, always life + 70 years, irrespective of whether they would otherwise qualify as anonymous/pseudonymous. Second, as a practical matter, condition (2) is particularly problematic. It is very much unclear how one would ascertain whether the author "has become known in some other way" during the 70 years following the work's (first) publication. Courts have so far not provided meaningful guidance on the issue. Academic commentators seem to advocate a rather low bar. In the view of Paul Katzenberger, "it was sufficient if a not completely insignificant part of the relevant public became aware of the author's identity[;] by no means was it necessary that [the identity] became general knowledge".[15]

Related rights

  • Publication right: 25 years from first publication or first public performance if copyright has expired before such publication or performance, or if the work has never been protected in Germany and the author died more than 70 years before the first publication.[UrhG/2017 § 71]

Official works

Section 5(1) works

Under s 5(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), acts, statutory instruments, official decrees and official notices, decisions, and official headnotes of decisions do not enjoy copyright protection.

The fuzziest element within this enumeration is perhaps the fourth, "official notices" (amtliche Bekanntmachungen). According to the Federal Court of Justice, such notices need to have "regulatory substance"—the provision is not intended to render unprotected "merely informatory expressions by an administrative body".[16] More broadly, the Court held that s 5(1) as a whole applies only to works that contain a "normative or individual legal stipulation" (normative oder einzelfallbezogene rechtliche Regelung) for only in this case there is a "sufficient public interest in the distribution to justify the exception from copyright with no strings attached".[17] "Decisions" are decisions by federal or state courts or administrative authorities that, as judgements, court orders, official ordinances, etc, contain legally binding stipulations.[18]

An important question for this project is whether s 5(1) is capable of applying to all types of works. A 2012 decision by the Berlin Regional Court (which has garnered some attention by users of this project as the lawsuit was brought against the Wikimedia Foundation) followed some academic and non-judicial commentators in holding that s 5(1) applies exclusively to literary works (Sprachwerke).[19] This view has been criticised by others who have pointed out that official decrees, decisions, etc may very well contain other types of works and that it would defeat the purpose of s 5(1) if these all had to be removed prior to publication.[20]

The prevailing view is that s 5(1) does not apply to currency (notes and coins),[21], postage stamps,[22] or official coats of arms (although the latter thus far have not nearly received as much academic—let alone judicial—attention).[23] Those who deem s 5(1) applicable to non-literary works mostly agree that the provision applies to land-use plans (Bebauungspläne) pursuant to s 8(1) of the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch), which contain legally-binding designations for urban development,[24] as well as to official road signs.[25] Most maps and plans originating in government, however, do not qualify for sub-s 1 but either for sub-2 (see below) or are not considered "official works" at all. According to the Federal Court of Justice, for instance, topographic maps issued by the state offices for survey are not official works under copyright law.[26]

Section 5(2) works

Section 5(2) broadens the scope of application of the German official works provision, stating that "official works published in the official interest for general information purposes" also do not enjoy copyright protection.[27] However, these works—unlike the s 5(1) works described above—may not be modified (prohibition of alteration, s 62) and when using them the source must be acknowledged (s 63). Due to these requirements, there has been some discussion on this project whether official works pursuant to s 5(2) should be accepted.[28] As of 2019, the prevailing view seems to be that we may not rely on s 5(2): The {{PD-GermanGov}} template refers exclusively to s 5(1) as a possible justification.[29] We will therefore forego a more thorough analysis of s 5(2) on this page.

Marcas de derechos de autor

  • {{PD-GermanGov}} - Imágenes de dominio público de estatutos alemanes u otras normas.
  • {{PD-Coa-Germany}} - Imágenes de escudos de armas de organismos alemanes regidos por el derecho público que están en el dominio público, de acuerdo con el derecho alemán por ser obras oficiales (§ 5 Abs. 1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Meyers}} - Imágenes de la 4ª edición del Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885-90).
  • {{GFDL-OpenGeoDB}} - Imágenes procedentes de http://opengeodb.de/
  • {{PD-Flag-Germany}} – for German flags of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Seal-Germany}} – for German seals of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-VzKat}} – for road signs published as statutes or other regulations.
  • {{PD-German stamps}} – for current German stamps.
  • {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Bundespost.
  • {{PD-GDR stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Post der DDR.
  • {{PD-Meyers}} – for images from the 4th edition of Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885–90).
  • {{PD-Germany-§134}} – for literary works, works of music and scientific or technical images published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.
  • {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} – for photographs and works of art published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.

Currency

X mark.svg   except for Deutsche Mark bank notes.

  • At present many Commons images of German coins and banknotes use {{PD-GermanGov}}, but this template relies on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, which has recently been declared by a low German court (Landgericht) to apply only to text, not images. See discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#German_currency.
  • Deutsche Bundesbank has confirmed public domain for German DM-banknotes 1949-2001, which is, however, a permission for simple usage only and not solely sufficient) towards Wikipedia.[30]
  • According to the coinciding German copyright literature, works like bank notes, coins and stamps are not to be considered works by the government and are not free.[31] This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimis

Under s 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."

The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by s 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.[32] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[33] To qualify under s 57, it is insufficient if the work "fades into the background" (im Hintergrund steht) relative to the primary subject matter.[34] Rather, it needs to be "immaterial", which is the case

  1. if the work could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
  2. if, in light of the circumstances of the case, the work bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but is instead without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[35]

It is insufficient if the work is of subordinate significance relative to the primary subject matter: It must not even attain marginal or minor significance (selbst eine geringe oder nebensächliche Bedeutung nicht erreicht). This is "regularly" impossible as soon as# the work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);

  1. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
  2. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or# the work is characteristic in any other way.[36]

Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.[37]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[38]

There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around s 57.[39] In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on s 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to s 57.

In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[40]

Freedom of panorama

Symbol OK.svg  {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

General

Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".[41]

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography.[42] The German freedom of panorama limitation is thus capable of applying to photographs of works of artistic art (such as paintings, fountains, sculptures, or photographic works) as well as to pictures of poems and song lyrics inscribed on commemorative plaques.[43]

For the exception to arise, two principal conditions must be met: The work must be located in a place that is "public" and the work needs to be located there "permanently". The two conditions are discussed in more detail below.

Public

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place.[44] In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public.[45] It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.[46] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately-owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of s 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place.[47] To simplify life for photographers and re-users of their pictures, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a given photograph of a work could have been made from a public place, it was in fact made from a public place.[48]

When a photographer has used special tools (such as a ladder) to create the picture or has taken the picture after removing objects that otherwise would have shielded the work from the public eye (think of a photographer brushing aside the branches of a hedge to get a better view of a sculpture), s 59(1) cannot be relied upon for the resulting view is no longer part of what the general public can visually perceive from the public place.[49] For the same reason, aerial photography does not meet the requirements of s 59(1).[50] There is some controversy in the legal literature as to whether telephoto lenses should also be treated as impermissible tools—the majority of commentators answers this in the affirmative.[51]

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of s 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.[52] Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public.[53] Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argues that publicly-accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces.[54] The status of atria and passages is controversial.[55] On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Graveyards are often cited as an example of a place that is public despite the fact that it is often closed during night hours.[56] Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under s 59(1).[57] Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for s 59(1).[58]

The location alternatives listed in s 59(1) ("streets", "ways", and "open spaces") are merely illustrative; freedom of panorama also extends, inter alia, to what can be seen from international and coastal waters, waterways, and ocean harbours.[59]

Permanent

Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798): protected work of art ("Smiling Lips") on the bow and the hull of a cruise ship
(design by Feliks Büttner; pictured here near Funchal, Madeira)
Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390): protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall
("Hommage an die junge Generation" by Thierry Noir, East Side Gallery)
Permanently located in a public place (see Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593) based on having been in place for five years: installation by Merlin Bauer (protected as a work of art) on a rooftop in Cologne, Germany, Nord-Süd-Fahrt

To meet the condition as to permanence, a work does not need to remain at its location during its entire existence. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the proper test is whether the display or the erection of the work in a public place, as perceived by an objective observer, serves the purpose of a not-merely-temporary presentation.[60] In a more recent decision, the Court clarified that a work is permanently located in a public place if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time".[61] On that basis, the Court determined that a work presented to the public for just two weeks—the so-called Wrapped Reichstag—cannot be reproduced under s 59(1). In the same vein, a regional court held that an artistic "grass sofa" installed in a freely-accessible garden for many years without any indication of an end date of the exhibition, is located there permanently.[62] These cases must be distinguished from the case of ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time.[63] The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).[64]

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under s 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display.[65] There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.[66]

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not to remain in one and the same place—its location may change.[67] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a protected work of art on the bow of a cruise ship meets the "permanence" condition because the artwork and the cruise ship "are intended to be located for a long time in (different) public places".[68] In the view of the Court, this seems to apply more broadly to "street cars, omnibuses, or even freight vehicles", which are "increasingly being used as an advertising medium and at least a non-negligible share of the designs attached to such vehicles are copyright-protected as works of applied art".[69]

Additional requirement for architectural works

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.[70] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under s 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.[71]

Prohibition of alteration

Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama.[72] The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt", pictured) and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph.[73] Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted.[74] Partial reproductions are generally allowed, even if essential parts of the work are left out and even if it would be possible to reproduce the work as whole.[75]

Acknowledgement of source

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged.[76] The "source" generally includes the name of the author, but goes beyond that, in that it shall enable a third party to identify the copy of the work that was depicted.[77]

While it is straightforward to apply the attribution requirement when the author is identified directly on/next to the particular copy of the depicted work, it is not entirely clear whether a photographer needs to undertake research (and if so, how thoroughly) when the author is not named on (in the vicinity of) the particular copy. It is widely believed that those who rely for their communication to the public on the freedom of panorama need to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author,[78] but the interpretations of that differ. Professor Dreier argues in his treatise, for instance, that when using pictures of works of architecture or applied art, less of an effort can be expected than in the case of pictures of works of fine art;[79] Dreyer J, writing extra-judicially, points out that what is reasonable depends primarily on the intensity of the use (publishers printing post cards depicting a work vs tourists giving photographs of a work to their acquaintances as gifts);[80] and Professor Götting argues that it seems unreasonable to him to make the user of a picture of an unsigned architectural work research the name of the author.[81]

Stamps

Red copyright.svg According to a decision by a German regional court (Landgericht Berlin) in a case of the heirs of German artist Loriot against the Wikimedia Foundation, announced 27 March 2012, German postage stamps are not "official works" according to § 5 I or II UrhG and are therefore not in the public domain, as previously assumed on Commons.

Stamps of other private entities are copyrighted as well. However, the usual German copyright expiration term applies - copyright expires 70 years after 1 January after death of the creator. Some individual stamps may be copyright-free for other reasons (e.g. simple graphic design). For a further discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps

Outdated license templates, to be deleted or changed

See Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.

Threshold of originality

Works of fine art (including works of applied art and architectural works)

"Works of fine art", as defined in s 2(1)(4) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), is a catch-all term for works of fine art in a stricter sense, works of applied art, and architectural works. Fine art is distinguished from applied art by its lack of a utilitarian purpose.[82] For many decades, courts imposed a higher threshold of originality on works of applied art than on works of fine art ("two-tier theory").[83] In 2013, however, the Federal Court of Justice expressly changed its jurisprudence, holding that "in general, the copyright protection of works of applied art is not subject to other requirements than the copyright protection of works of non-utilitarian fine art or of literary or musical creation. It is hence sufficient that they attain a level of creativity that allows a public open to art and relatively familiar with views on art to justifiably speak of 'artistic' creations".[84]

In assessing whether an article with a utilitarian purpose is protected by copyright, one must take into account, however, that the aesthetic effect of the article can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not dictated by the article's utilitarian purpose, but instead is based on an artistic effort.[85] Only those features of a utilitarian article that are not entirely dictated by the technical function can justify copyright protection.[86] A feature is considered "dictated by the technical function" if the article could not function without it.[87] This includes features that, for technical reasons, must necessarily be used in articles of the same kind as the article concerned, as well as features that, while being used for technical reasons, are freely selectable or interchangeable. To the extent that the design of such features is entirely dictated by their technical function, they are incapable of justifying copyright protection of the utilitarian article.[88]

Examples from court cases on applied art:[89]

Protection denied:

  • a climbing structure for playgrounds made of ropes (pictured here, p 3 bottom) because the structure consists of freely selectable or interchangeable yet technically required features and does not exhibit artistic creativity;[90]
  • a wooden toy train ("birthday train") with wagons in which candles and numbers can be inserted (pictured here, p 3) because there were similarly-looking, pre-existing toy trains.[91]
  • a logo (pictured here in black and white) consisting of the text "Match by Audiotec X" and the commonly used "fast-forward" symbol because neither the design of the text nor the design of the symbol ("widely used in the audio world") nor the combination of the two could be considered an artistic creation.[92]

Protection accorded:

  • a design element on a cruise ship ("AIDA Smiling Lips") consisting of a mouth painted on the bow, eyes painted on the lateral board walls, and wave lines ("eyebrows") extending from the latter (pictured here, p 3);[93]
  • a train-like line of wooden animal figures on wheels ("birthday caravan") (pictured here, p 3) because it was a complete redesign of pre-existing toy trains, whose locomotive and waggons were replaced with animal figures, and the overall design (shapes, colours) was not the result of technical necessities but an expression of the author's artistic creativity;[94]
  • an urn with an airbrushed deer design (pictured here, on the left);[95]
  • the design of a combined table of standings for three football leagues, which allowed fans to continuously update the tables by sticking cardboard riders with the logos of the football clubs into slits corresponding to their current positions (the case concerned the 2011/12 version of the table by the German magazine Kicker, pictured here, accessed 24 August 2019) even though most of the design features of the sheet were determined by technical considerations;[96]

In the past decades, court cases where protection as applied art was eventually accorded primarily revolved around renowned designer objects, in particular items of furniture and lamps.[97] A few more recent examples:

  • chairs and tables based on drafts by the designers Marcel Breuer ("Wassily" chair, "Laccio" table) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe ("Barcelona" chair, stool, couch, and table; "Brno" chair; "Prag" chair);[98]
  • the "Wilhelm Wagenfeld table lamp" (pictured here, accessed 24 August 2019);[99]
  • a brilliant-cut diamond ring ("Niessing-Spannring") (pictured here as "Niessing Ring© ROUND", accessed 24 August 2019).[100]

Véase también

Notes

  1. § 69 Urheberrechtsgesetz (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  2. Germany Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Section 64 UrhG.
  4. For if under the new rules the copyright term would be shorter than what it used to be under the old law, then the old term continues to apply. Section 137f(1) UrhG, 1st sentence. See generally P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 66" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; W Gass, "§ 66" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 16. Conversely, if the copyright term under the current provisions is longer than what it used to be under the old law, then the new rules apply. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12.
  5. P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) para 25; T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 13; O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) s 66, para 2.
  6. See P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) paras 25ff. for a thorough review of the literature and the underlying arguments.
  7. A Nordemann, "§ 6" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 4.
  8. Bundesgerichtshof 6 February 2014, case I ZR 86/12 Peter Fechter, (2014) 67 NJW 1888 [34]–[36].
  9. Sections 66(1), 66(4) UrhG; see generally P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) paras 29ff.
  10. Section 66(2) UrhG [old version]
  11. Section 66(1) UrhG, 1st sentence.
  12. Sections 66(2) and 66(3) UrhG.
  13. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 16; W Gass, "§ 66" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 35; probably E Ulmer, Urheber- und Verlagsrecht (3rd edn, Springer 1980) 144. Contra O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) s 66, para 2.
  14. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 16; Oberlandesgericht München 12 June 1967, case 6 AR 24/67, (1968) 51 UFITA 377, 379.
  15. P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) para 42; in the same vein: O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) s 66, para 2.
  16. Bundesgerichtshof 20 July 2006, case I ZR 185/03 Bodenrichtwertsammlung, (2007) 109 GRUR 137 [13].
  17. Bundesgerichtshof 20 July 2006, case I ZR 185/03 Bodenrichtwertsammlung, (2007) 109 GRUR 137 [14].
  18. P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 46; C Arnold, Amtliche Werke im Urheberrecht: Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit und analogen Anwendbarkeit des § 5 UrhG (Nomos 1994) 94; MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 12.
  19. Landgericht Berlin 27 March 2012, case 15 O 377/11 Loriot-Briefmarken, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 399, 402. In the same vein: T Dreier, "§ 5" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 4 ("written works"); H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 10.
  20. JB Nordemann, "§ 5" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 10. See also P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 68 (sub-s 1 applicable to official road signs as they are part of a law). Cf C Arnold, Amtliche Werke im Urheberrecht: Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit und analogen Anwendbarkeit des § 5 UrhG (Nomos 1994) 104 (sub-s 1 limited to "texts", which also includes at least illustrations of a scientific or technical nature).
  21. On those, see COM:CUR Germany.
  22. Landgericht Berlin 27 March 2012, case 15 O 377/11 Loriot-Briefmarken, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 399, 402; H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 14; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 68; EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 19; G Dreyer, "§ 5" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20; H-P Götting and U Loewenheim, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd edn, Beck 2010) para 10; D Leuze, Urheberrechte der Beschäftigten im öffentlichen Dienst (3rd edn, Erich Schmidt 2008) 40; D Dünnwald, Der Urheber im öffentlichen Dienst (Nomos 1999) 133; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 581; H Schack, Kunst und Recht (3rd edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 276; M von Albrecht, Amtliche Werke und Schranken des Urheberrechts zu amtlichen Zwecken in fünfzehn europäischen Ländern (VVF 1992) 52; G Schricker, "Zum Urheberrechtsschutz und Geschmacksmusterschutz von Postwertzeichen – Teil II" (1991) 93 GRUR 645, 647ff; P Katzenberger, "Die Frage des urheberrechtlichen Schutzes amtlicher Werke" (1972) 74 GRUR 686, 694. Note that for those who believe that s 5(1) is incapable of applying to non-literary works to begin with (see above for references), this is a simple corollary. Contra Landgericht München 10 March 1987, case 21 S 20861/86, (1987) 89 GRUR 436, 436f (stating that "the postage stamp has lost the copyright protection it enjoyed during the drafting stage when it was included in the Official Journal of the Minister of Post and Telecommunications"); M Rehbinder and A Peukert, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (18th edn, Beck 2018) para 496 (stating that privately created works can also constitute official works, giving the example of "officially announced stamps, as opposed to commemorative stamps"); J von Ungern-Sternberg, "Werke privater Urheber als amtliche Werke" (1977) 79 GRUR 766, 768 (because "postage stamps of the Bundespost are announced with pictures some time prior to their issuance in the Official Journal of the Minister of Post and Telecommunications" and are therefore in the public domain as part of an official notice).
  23. H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 14; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 68; D Dünnwald, Der Urheber im öffentlichen Dienst (Nomos 1999) 133. J von Ungern-Sternberg ("Werke privater Urheber als amtliche Werke" (1977) 79 GRUR 766, 768) seems to consider coats of arms official works pursuant to s 5(2) rather than s 5(1). Again, for those who believe that s 5(1) is incapable of applying to non-literary works to begin with (see above for references), this is a simple corollary.
  24. JB Nordemann, "§ 5" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 15; MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 7; EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 8; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) paras 68f.
  25. MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 7; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 68; T Dreier, "§ 5" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 8. Contra EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 8 (who argues that they fall under sub-s 2).
  26. Bundesgerichtshof 2 July 1987, case I ZR 232/85 Topographische Landeskarten, (1988) 41 NJW 337, 338f.
  27. Somewhat misleadingly, in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 19 August 2019) the phrase "amtliche Werke" in s 5(2) is incorrectly translated as "official texts" rather than "official works".
  28. See, for instance, Commons talk:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review#PD-GermanGov and related (perma); Template talk:PD-GermanGov#§ 5 Abs. 2 UrhG (perma); see also de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2009/12#Amtliche Werke / §5 Abs. 2 UrhG.
  29. See also the notice at the top of Template talk:PD-GermanGov (perma).
  30. Geldscheinsammlung (in German). Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  31. Dreier/Schulze (2004) § 5 Rn. 11: „Nicht § 5 II UrhG unterfallen nach Ansicht zumindest des überwiegenden Teils der Literatur […] Banknoten, Münzen und Briefmarken (Wandtke/Bullinger/Marquardt § 5 Rn. 19; Häde ZUM 1991, 356; Schricker GRUR 1991, 645, 657ff.; vgl. jedoch die insoweit abweichende Entscheidung des LG München I GRUR 1987, 436 – Briefmarke)“. Die letztgenannte Entscheidung des LG München ist mittlerweile hinfällig. (in German)
  32. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16].
  33. M Vogel, "§ 57" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; T Dreier, "§ 57" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 1.
  34. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26].
  35. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  36. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  37. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31].
  38. Appeals court level or higher.
  39. R Jacobs, "Was ist "beiläufig"? Ein Beitrag zu § 57 UrhG" in W Büscher and others (eds), Rechtsdurchsetzung: Rechtsverwirklichung durch materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Ahrens zum 70. Geburtstag (Heymanns 2016), 225; FL Stang, "Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13" (117) 2015 GRUR 670 (note).
  40. Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554.
  41. Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), s 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).
  42. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.
  43. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 13.
  44. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].
  45. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 18.
  46. See Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  47. Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  48. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].
  49. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; see also CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 140ff.
  50. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 567; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17.
  51. See C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  52. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [23]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. See also Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577 (holding that a freely accessible park owned by a charitable foundation is public).
  53. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. But see Bundesgerichtshof 17 December 2010, case V ZR 45/10 Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, (2011) 64 NJW 749, 751 (affirming the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at anspany time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.
  54. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 137; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 476. Contra S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.
  55. In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 135f. Opposed: C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  56. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 3; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. See also Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33] ("The fact that the ship may at times not be located in publicly accessible places [...] does not preclude the application of s 59(1)").
  57. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6 ("private property that has constant public exposure but is not freely accessible due to fencing and entry controls"); S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 3 ("private property that is not freely accessible due to fences and controls"); EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3 ("fencing, access control, and similar"); M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16 ("private property with access control").
  58. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 14 ("universal view"); CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 133. See also the official motives accompanying the draft bill proposing the UrhG, Bundestag Printed Paper IV/270 of 23 March 1962, p 76 (stating that "the artwork permanently exhibited in public museums" shall not be privileged for it is "not to the same degree dedicated to the public as the works erected in public squares"). Cf Oberlandesgericht Köln 5 May 2000, case 6 U 21/00 Gies-Adler, (2000) [53] NJW 2212, 2213 (denying freedom of panorama for photographs of a work of art inside the former house of parliament on the grounds that it is not located in a public street, way, or public open space).
  59. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].
  60. Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.
  61. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32]. It is readily apparent that the actual duration of the presentation does not matter: If, say, a fountain is inadvertedly destroyed two days following its construction, this does not affect the applicability of s 59(1) in respect of the pictures created during the two days of its existence. See M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 25; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.
  62. Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.
  63. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 8; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 568. Contra T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 205. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  64. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.
  65. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 18; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 24; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.
  66. In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  67. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].
  68. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].
  69. Not entirely clear from Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [29] on account of the discussion taking place in relation to the "public" requirement, but see the various notes on the judgement, eg T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in H-J Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 204; M Stieper, "Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes im Urheber- und Designrecht – Anmerkung zu BGH ZUM 2017, 766 – AIDA-Kussmund" (2017) 61 ZUM 770 [771]; D Ettig (2017) 63 WRP 955 (note) para 13.
  70. Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.
  71. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 31.
  72. Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.
  73. Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.
  74. Section 62(3) so provides for artistic works and photographic works. In the literature, this is extended to architectural works. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 29; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.
  75. Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 [41], [43]. But see M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 12 (arguing that in certain cases the partial reproduction may not comply with the three-step test pursuant to art 5(5) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), art 10(2) of the WCT, and art 13 of the TRIPS Agreement).
  76. Section 63.
  77. W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) paras 11f; A Dustmann, "§ 63" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6. Cf Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 15 October 1996, case 6 U 177/96 Stimme Brecht, (1997) 50 NJW 1162, 1163 (in the context of the quotation limitation, which is also subject to s 63).
  78. See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 30; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.
  79. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12.
  80. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.
  81. H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd edn, Beck 2010) para 245.
  82. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  83. 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.
  84. Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  85. Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  86. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  87. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  88. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  89. Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  90. Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  91. Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  92. Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  93. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  94. 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.
  95. Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  96. Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg 20 May 2014, case 3 U 1874/13 Kicker-Stecktabelle, (2014) 116 GRUR 1199, 1201.
  97. 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).
  98. 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].
  99. 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].
  100. Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Austria

Austria

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Austria relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Austria must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Austria and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Austria, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Austria has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 October 1920, the WIPO treaty since 14 March 2010 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights (Copyright Law 1936, as amended up to Federal Law published in the Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2018 (BGBI.I No. 63/2018)) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Austria.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2]

Durations

Under the 'Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

  • Copyright in individual work of literature, music and the visual arts ends 70 years after the author's death.[1936-2018 Art.60]
  • If the work is jointly created, copyright ends 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.[1936-2018 Art.60]
  • Copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works end 70 years after creation or publication if published within 70 years.[1936-2018 Art 61]
  • Copyright in cinematographic works lasts 70 years after death of the last survivor of the principal director, the scriptwriter and the composer of music especially for the work.[1936-2018 Art.62]

Calculation of durations does not count the calendar year of the event used to calculate the duration.[1936-2018 Art.64]

Photographs

In Austria pursuant to the provisions of Article 74(6) of Federal Law BGBI No. 111 of 1936 in the Version of 2003-07-01:

  • A simple photograph ("Lichtbild"), such as simple passport photos from Photo booths, photos from satellites, pictures from radiography, is no longer protected if it was either published more than 50 years ago or it was taken more than 50 years ago and never published within 50 years of its creation.
  • Photographs that involve artistic interpretations, such as studio shots and those that involve lighting and poses, qualify as photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke") or "works of literature, music and art".[1936-2018 Art.60][3] With these, protection lasts for 70 years after the author's death. (see this discussion).

In order to be acceptable on Commons, works must be in the public domain in the United States as well as in their source country. Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996). However, some works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright resulting from the long-standing copyright relations between Austria and the United States.

  • For unpublished simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if it was created more than 50 years ago and was never published within 50 years of creation. Copyright has expired in the United States if created prior to 1946 and never published within 50 years of creation.
  • For published simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if published more than 50 years ago. Copyright has expired in the United States if published prior to 1946.
  • For all other photographs and artworks, copyright has expired in Austria if the author died more than 70 years ago and it was published. Copyright has expired in the United States if it was published prior to 1926.

Official works

Under the 'Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

  • Laws, regulations, official decrees, official notices and decisions and official works as defined in §2Z itesm 1 or 3, solely or mainly produced for official use. shall not enjoy copyright protection.[1936-2018 Art.7(1)]

Marcas de derechos de autor

  • {{PD-AustrianGov}} – Para partes de leyes, ordenanzas o decretos oficiales publicados por las autoridades federales o estatales austriacas y por obras de dichas autoridades destinadas predominantemente a uso oficial.
  • {{PD-Austria-1932}} – for photographic works published before 1932, or created before 1932 and not published for 20 years thereafter.
  • {{PD-StVZVO}} – for road signs published in ordinances or other regulations.

Currency

X mark.svg  

  • It is the (apparently unanimous) view in treatises and law review articles on Austrian copyright law that bank notes and coins do not constitute official works under s 7 of the Austrian Copyright Act and are therefore not freely usable.[4]

Freedom of panorama

Generally ✓OK, use tag {{FoP-Austria}}

Article 54 of Austrian copyright law says it is allowed to reproduce, distribute, and publish architectural works of an actual building or other works of visual arts which were created to permanently remain at a public place.[1936-2018 Art.54(5)]

Architectural works may generally be reproduced, including all permanent buildings and other structures as a whole, building parts such as walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs, a complete view of the interior design. This includes photographs taken in streets and public places, private grounds and the interior of buildings. However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced.

For other types of work, uploading a photograph to Wikimedia Commons is only covered by Austrian Freedom of Panorama if the picture meets the law's criteria regarding type of depicted work, place of photograph and permanence. The rules are:

Type of work
  • ✓ two-dimensional works of visual arts (paintings, frescos, sgraffiti…)
  • ✓ three-dimensional works of visual arts (sculptures)
  • ✘ works of literature (texts)
  • ✘ acoustic works (music, speech, bells, signal sounds…)
Place of photograph
  • ✓ streets and public places
  • ✘ private ground
  • ✘ interiors of buildings, including churches, museums, and theatres
permanence
  • ✓ works created to remain permanently at a public place, for example memorials
  • ✘ works placed at a public place only temporarily
  • ✘ stage designs of open air theaters
  • ✘ advertisements including election posters

Even if criteria for Freedom of Panorama are not met, it might be possible to upload a picture of the work to Commons, for example if the work does not meet threshold of originality, or if the copyright has expired. In such a case, the matching public domain tag is used instead of {{FoP-Austria}}.

Stamps

Red copyright.svg The Austrian postal service (Österreichische Post) has limited copyright for all stamps and the displayed images. The stamps can be used for sale, manufacture and advertising. For all other imaging requests (such as printing works, books or encyclopedias) the respective postage stamp designer needs to be contacted, since it is not advertising. This eliminates a general license as template for the German stamps. For each stamp a release must be obtained individually. The contact addresses of the designers are subject to data privacy. See de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken#.C3.96sterreichische_Post.

Threshold of originality

These logos are X mark.svg  :

See also

Citations

  1. a b Austria Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  2. Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights (Copyright Law 1936, as amended up to Federal Law published in the Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2018 (BGBI.I No. 63/2018)). Austria (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Eurobike: OGH, Beschluss vom 12.9.2001, 4 Ob 179/01d.
  4. See MM Walter, "Anmerkung zu OGH 22.11.1994, 4 Ob 1105/94 – 'Bundeshymne'" (1995) 13 Medien und Recht international 186 ("Es kann mE aber nicht fraglich sein, daß ein Werk durch eine solche Veröffentlichung oder Aufnahme in ein amtliches Werk nicht seinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz verliert […] Dies gilt insbesondere für Briefmarken, Münzen oder Banknoten; sie werden durch die Veröffentlichung in Amtsblättern (Bundesgesetzblatt, Verordnungsblatt etc), in denen ihre Herausgabe (mit Verordnung) angeordnet wird, nicht zu amtlichen Werken."); MM Walter, Österreichisches Urheberrecht (Medien und Recht 2008) 311 ("Was schließlich die (grafische) Gestaltung von Münzen und Banknoten anlangt, können diese urheberrechtlich geschützt sein. Auch sie sind schon deshalb keine amtlichen Werke, weil sie nicht ausschließlich oder vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch bestimmt sind. Davon abgesehen handelt es sich auch nicht um Sprachwerke und in der Regel auch nicht um Werke wissenschaftlicher oder belehrender Art im Sinn des § 2 Z 3 UrhG."); M Ciresa, "§ 7" in M Ciresa (ed), Österreichisches Urheberrecht (Orac R 19 2017) para 8 ("Lehr- und Prüfungsmaterialien von Universitäten und Hochschulen sind ebenfalls keine amtlichen Werke […] Dies gilt auch für die grafische Gestaltung von Münzen und Banknoten"); M Röttinger, "Das Urheberrecht an den Euro-Münzen und Euro-Banknoten" (2000) 11 ecolex 654, 655 ("Aufgrund der klaren und engen Formulierung von § 7 öUrhG stellt sich gar nicht ernsthaft die Frage, ob es sich bei Münzen bzw Münzbildern um freie Werke ('amtliche Werke') handelt.").
  5. Bauer logo.
  6. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  7. Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  8. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Belgium

Bélgica

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Belgium relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Belgium must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Belgium and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Belgium, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Belgium has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the WIPO treaty since 30 August 2006 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Code de droit économique (Code of Economic Law) (updated on September 10, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Belgium.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. Book XI. of this law covers intellectual property and business secrets.[2] The website www.ejustice.just.fgov.be holds the Dutch and French text of this law.[3][4]

General rules

According to the law as of 2018 (Art. XI.166.):

  • Copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Rights to works created by employees or under contract may be transferred to the employer or contractee.
  • With collaborative works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after death of the last surviving author. For audiovisual works, this includes various people with defined roles in production of the work, including the director, scenarist and authors of text and music.
  • For anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after publication unless there is no doubt about the author's identity or they reveal their identity, in which case copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
  • The above durations all end on 1 January of the year following the last year of protection.
  • A portrait may not be reproduced without the permission of the person represented or their heirs for 20 years after their death.

Copyright tags

Currency

Banknotes

X mark.svg   Banknotes denominated in Belgian francs issued by the National Bank of Belgium can still be exchanged for an undetermined period of time. The Bank still owns copyrights with regard to the design of the banknotes it has issued, in accordance with the legislation on intellectual property rights. Therefore, these banknotes may not be reproduced without the Bank's permission, subject to the observance of the conditions the Bank has laid down. The same kind of restrictions apply to reproductions of Belgium banknotes as to Euro banknotes.[5]

Coins

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Unknown

De minimis

Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:

  • Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...].

Freedom of panorama

Symbol OK.svg : {{FoP-Belgium}}

Since 1 January 2015, Belgian copyright law is defined by Title 5 of Book XI (intellectual property) of the Code on Economic Law. It replaced the Copyright Act of 30 June 1994. On 16 June 2016 the Belgian Parliament introduced freedom of panorama by adding the following to article XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law (translated here to English):

"Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author."[2018 Art.XI.190]

The Act was signed into law on 27 June, published on 5 July, and took effect on 15 July 2016.

Notes:

  • An explanation that was attached to a draft version of the freedom of panorama provision stated that the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.[6][7] According to the explanation, if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work.
  • Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also this discussion from 2009.
  • Another exception to copyright, de minimis, is stated in article XI.190 (previously article 22 in the 1994 act) of the law: "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]". These conditions need not be met any more if the conditions of freedom of panorama as stated above are met.

Stamps

Red copyright.svg In Belgium an image of a stamp is copyright free when the following conditions are fulfilled: 70 years after La Poste / De Post have issued the stamp AND 70 years after the designer of the image on the stamp has died.

The works of the following artists are in public domain because the artist died before 31 December 1945.

The work of the following artists will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death

See also

Citations

  1. a b Belgium Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  2. Code of Economic Law (updated on September 10, 2018). Belgium (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Wetboek van economisch recht (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-3-24.
  4. Code de droit économique (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  5. Reproduction of Belgian franc banknotes. National Bank of Belgium. Retrieved on 2019-03-24..
  6. Belgium to adopt bill on the freedom of panorama. News Media Coalition (2016-05-12). Retrieved on 2016-07-17.
  7. Proposition de loi modifiant le Code de droit économique en vue de l’introduction de la liberté de panorama. Chamber of Representatives (Belgium) (2015-11-26). Retrieved on 2019-11-29.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:France

Francia

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of France relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in France must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both France and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from France, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

France has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1]

The relevant laws are in the first book of the Code of Intellectual Property.[2][3] The code includes dispositions transposed from the 1993 European directive on Copyright].[4]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of France.[1]WIPO Lex database.[5]

General

  • Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years, (except posthumous works, musical works, and works whose author "died for France", which are protected for an additional 30 years)
  • Wartime copyright extensions may apply to musical works: + 6 years 152 days for musical work published through 1920 (Art. L123-8); + 8 years and 120 days for musical work published through 1947 (Art. L123-9); these extensions are cumulative with each other and with the "died for France" extension:
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed)
  • Posthumous works: 25 years from publication
  • Government works: not free except for video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr site (Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}})

The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of death of the author (or the death of the last author for multiple authors); if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation (see Article L123-3).

Images from public web sites

Note that French government services often use professional photographers who are not government employees to make official photographs. These photographers then typically sell usage rights of the photograph to the government. In such circumstances, the government does not own the copyright to the photograph, and thus could not give us a license to use it even if it wanted to.

The rules for protection of works by the government are somewhat fuzzy, and one should assume by default that anything from a government entity is copyrighted. One should refer to the Law of 17 July 1978 and Decree of 30 December 2005.[6][7]

Laws, decrees, court decisions and other similar government texts (but not the translations or commentaries thereof), possibly found on the Légifrance, website are in the public domain. This seems acknowledged by Légifrance's copyright terms.

Video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr website are licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0 FR). Be careful, since this does not apply to photographs. However, it is possible to import images taken from videos. Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}} Unless you really know what you're doing, please abstain from copying photos from French government web sites to Commons. Thanks.

Wartime copyright extensions

On February 27, 2007, the Court of Cassation, supreme jurisdiction, first civil chamber, ruled in the Hazan case (arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007) that articles L123-8 and L123-9, extending the duration of protection to compensate for wartimes, were not applicable to works for which an extended protection period (beyond 70 years) had not started to elapse on July 1, 1995.[8][9] The judgment regarding Giovanni Boldini's work was broke too, by the same court.[10]

In practice, only subsist extensions for authors "Mort pour la France", but even this is subject to debate.

Previously, French law granted extensions to copyright because of the World Wars.[5] The extensions were:

  • 6 years and 152 days for World War I
  • 8 years and 120 days for World War II
  • 30 years for people who died for France ; this includes, for instance, Alain-Fournier (1 January 1915 +50+30+6+8 years +152+120 days = 30 September 2009), Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Jehan Alain.

Several extensions were added together.

It was previously assumed that the European directive on copyright did not necessarily suppress these extensions:

  • Article 10 - Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

According to the French Ministry of Culture, the legal status of these extensions, adopted when copyright was 50 years after death, was unclear in the context of the new 70-year law; the Ministry called for erring on the side of caution and assuming they are valid.[11]

It was also assumed that copyright holders do try to enforce these extensions. In 2005, right holders demanded payment for a movie where a character whistled The Internationale, whose author died in 1932. (See also Template:PD-Internationale for further information.) On the other hand, the Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004. However, on 12 October 2005, another section of the same court applied the extension so that the works of the painter Giovanni Boldini who died in 1931 will not enter the public domain before late 2016.

Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces

The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. For instance, the architect of the pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre Museum may claim copyright over images of the pyramid. This, for instance, extends to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night.

However, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaŭx plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

The court draws a distinction between depictions of a work of art, and depictions of whole settings of which the work of art is a mere part, and denies the right of the artist over such images.

While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was:[12]

The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her."

In this decision, the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel: merely demonstrating that the costs supported did not demonstrate that the publishing of images was an abnormal disturbance.

The Court already ruled on [ June 5, 2003], that the right of property comprised absolutely no right to the image of this property.[13] However, they also upheld the right to privacy of the homeowners: in this case, not only a photograph of a house was published, but also its exact location and the name of the owners. Earlier rulings similarly rejected requests based on ownership without a justification of an abnormal disturbance.[14]

Marcas de derechos de autor

  • {{PD-France}} – Public domain because the author(s) died more than 70 years ago and did not benefit from any copyright extension, or it is an anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work and more than 70 years have passed since its publication, or it is the recording of an audiovisual or musical work already in the public domain, and more than 50 years have passed since the performance or the recording.
  • {{PD-Archivesnormandie}} – for pictures from the site Archives Normandie 1939-45. Pictures credited to the National Archives USA or the National Archives Canada and tagged "libres de droits" are in the public domain.
  • {{PD-BnFMandragorePic}} – for digitized version of old images from the Mandragore database at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.[15]
  • {{PD-GallicaScan}} – for digitized version of old books from the gallica.bnf.fr library at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France
  • {{PD-JORF}} – Para textos legales oficiales franceses publicados en el Journal officiel de la République Française (o reproducidos en Légifrance. Aviso: no todos los textos de Légifrance están en el dominio público: muchos tienen una licencia libre o incluso alguna no libre).
  • {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}} – Con NOR (número de identificación) e índice de texto actualizado.

Currency

Symbol OK.svg  Regarding former French currency (francs), case law states that copyright exists, but is paralysed by the ‘allocation to the general interest and character of public service’ of currency. See, for instance, Cour de Cassation 5 February 2002.[16]

Please use {{Money-FR}}.

De minimis

This photograph is not a copyright violation since it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid.
The white triangle in this derivative work covers the copyright protected region of the top image.

French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:[17]

  • Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.[18]


French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

  • It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting.

Freedom of panorama

X mark.svg   {{NoFoP-France}}

Please tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

On 7 October 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations.[19][20]

  • Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on public roads, carried out by natural persons, to the exclusion of any commercial use.[L.122 5]}}

A court recently (TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren & a. c/ Tassin & a. emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" («  »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:[21]

  • "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not.[22]
  • a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
  • an “esthetic preoccupation ”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
  • a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
  • Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical.[23]
  • Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).[24]
  • It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge.[22]

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

  • Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.[25]

  • Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.

If the subject of the picture is either a building or an architectural artwork, and if the picture is already used on the French-speaking Wikipedia, w:fr:Utilisateur:Le plus bot can transfer the picture from Commons to this local Wikipedia under a local exception, as voted by the community in 2006 and 2011 (see w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions).

  • This minimal exception is only for the illustration of the most directly related article in French Wikipedia (this illustration is not usable elsewhere), or outside French Wikipedia.
  • Their licencing terms must not permit their extension to derived works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and aggregators)
  • The copyrighted protection must be stated explicitly in their description page, with relevant licencing templates tracking usage of these images in French Wikipedia.
  • The image description page will also display the full list of local pages (most often only one) embedding for their illustration a very limited number of such medias (images in galleries showing all artistic and creative aspect of the same copyrighted subject should not be integrated in these French Wikipedia articles: generally a single illustration is enough). These images should not be integrated in templates reusable in an unbound number of pages.
  • Most free images currently hosted on French Wikipedia should be transferred to Commons, so that French Wikipedia will only host non-free copyrighted materials subject to these restrictions: this will allow remote proxies or Wikipedia contents aggregators, or other linguistic editions of Wikipedia to block these images, even if they display the rest of articles embedding these non-free illustration images, only by looking at the prefix of their URL on the image servers (instead of displaying these images, they can display only their textual description with a direct link to the French Wikipedia article showing these images covered by this exception).
  • Do not transfer these non-free images currently hosted by French Wikipedia (including corporate logos unless they are accessory to the rest of the image and unavoidable) to any other editions of Wikipedia or to other Wikimedia sites (including Commons, as stated by licencing templates shown in their description pages in French Wikipedia).
  • Even if these non-free images are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists.

Stamps

Red copyright.svg According to La Poste, French stamps have the same legal status as any other work of art. Stamps by designers deceased more than 70 years ago (plus years of war) are public domain.[26] The names of the artists are generally printed at the bottom of the stamps or its main picture. Check the individual artists death dates in the frwiki category: Dessinateur de timbres/Stamp designers and also the French Phil-ouest website that lists many more than have wiki articles.[27]

On 1st January 2015, it appears that all postage stamps of France issued until 1922 are in the public domain (doubts about the 1919 stamp known as "The Two Orphans" - cause: no information found on the date of death of Surand and Jarraud).

The following list of artists whose works are in public domain because they died before 31 December 1949 is non-exhaustive:

Works by the following artists will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death:

  • Cortot, Henri (1892-1950)[28] @2022
  • Ouvré, Achille (1872-1951) @2022
  • Hourriez, Georges (1878-c1952)[29] @c2023
  • Dulac, Edmond (1882-1953) @2024
  • Nézière, Raymond de la (1865-1953) @2024
  • Feltesse, Émile Henri (1881-1955) @2026
  • Barlangue, Gabriel Antoine (1874-1956) @2027
  • Dufresne, Charles Paul (1885-1956) @2027
  • Lemasson, Henri (1870-1956) @2027
  • Cheffer, Henry (1880-1957) @2028
  • Rigal, Louis Pierre (1888-1959) @2030
  • Munier, Pierre (1889-1962) @2033
  • Cocteau, Jean (1889-1963) @2034
  • Mazelin, Charles (1882-1964) @2035
  • Louis, Robert (1902-1965) @2036
  • Serres, Raoul (1881-1971) @2042
  • Cami, Robert (1900-1973) @2044
  • Lemagny, Paul Pierre (1905-1977) @2048
  • Spitz, André (1883-1977) @2048
  • Piel, Jules (1882-1978) @2049
  • Picart Le Doux, Jean (1902-1982) @2053
  • Monvoisin, Michel (1932-1982) @2053
  • Miró, Joan (1893-1983) @2054
  • Fernez Louis (1900-1984) @2055
  • Decaris, Albert (1901-1988) @2059
  • Delpech, Jean (1916-1988) @2059
  • Haley, Claude (1923-1988) @2059
  • Gandon, Pierre (1899-1990) @2061
  • Pheulpin, Jean (1907-1991) @2062
  • Cottet, René (1902-1992) @2063
  • Combet, Jacque (1920-1993) @2064
  • Peynet, Raymond (1908-1999) @2070
  • Hundertwasser, Friedensreich (1928-2000) @2071
  • Leguay, Marc (1910-2001) @2072
  • Durrens, Claude (1921-2002) @2073
  • Hertenberger, Claude (1912-2002) @2073
  • Bridoux, Charles (1942-2003) @2074
  • Dessirier, René (1919-2003@2074
  • Guillame, Cécile (1933-2004) @2075
  • Folon, Jean-Michel (1934-2005) @2076
  • Forget, Pierre (1923-2005) @2076
  • Lacaque, Eugène (1914-2005) @2076
  • Slania, Czeslaw (1921-2005) @2076
  • Schach-Duc, Yvonne (1933-2009) @2080
  • Saison, Huguette (1929-2011) @2082
  • Mathieu, Georges (1921-2012) @2083
  • Béquet, Pierre (1932-2012) @2083
  • Leliepvre, Eugène (190-2013) @2084
  • Wou-Ki, Zao (1920-2013) @2084
  • Markó, Serge (1926-2014) @2085
  • Taraskoff, Mark (1955-2015) @2086
  • Quillivic, René (1925-2016) @2087
  • Andréotto, Claude (1949-2017) @2088

Threshold of originality

Unlike the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in the UK, French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint").[30]

France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".[31]

A decision from Supreme court on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality.[22] According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court does not control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

Véase también

Citations

  1. a b France Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)[1], WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization, 2018
  2. Code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  3. Code of Intellectual Property.
  4. Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. WIPO. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  5. a b Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018)[2], France, 2018
  6. Loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 portant diverses mesures d'amélioration des relations entre l'administration et le public et diverses dispositions d'ordre administratif, social et fiscal Version consolidée au 25 mars 2019 (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  7. Décret n°2005-1755 du 30 décembre 2005 relatif à la liberté d'accès aux documents administratifs et à la réutilisation des informations publiques, pris pour l'application de la loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978. Version consolidée au 25 mars 2019 (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  8. 04-12.138 Arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation - Première chambre civile. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  9. Communiqué relatif aux arrêts n°280 et n°281 rendus le 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  10. Arrêt n° 281 du 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  11. Numérisation (in French). Ministère de la Culture. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  12. N° de pourvoi: 02-10450 (in French). Cour de cassation (7 mayo 2004). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  13. N° de pourvoi: 02-12853 (in French). Cour de cassation (5 June 2003). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  14. N° de pourvoi: 99-10709 (in French). Cour de cassation chambre civile 1 (mayo 2, 2001). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  15. Mandragore, base des manuscrits enluminés de la BnF (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  16. Clotilde Alric. La Cour de cassation confirme que les billets de banque ne sont pas protégés par le code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French). LegalNews. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  17. 03-14.820 Arrêt n° 567 du 15 mars 2005 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  18. ... Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ...
  19. Manara, Cedric, La Nouvelle « Exception De Panorama ». Gros Plan Sur L’Article L. 122-5 10° Du Code Français De La Propriété Intellectuelle (The New 'Panorama Exception' in French Copyright Law) (August 20, 2016). Forthcoming, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2828355
  20. Marc Rees (30 June 2016). Loi Numérique : la liberté de panorama limitée, mais consacrée (in French). NextImpact.
  21. Résumé de la décision : TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren et a. c/ Tassin et a. (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  22. a b c Joëlle Verbrugge (28 October 2011). Originalité, bouillabaisse et contrefaçon. "l’originalité s’entend du reflet de la personnalité de l’auteur ou de la révélation d’un talent créateur ... l’originalité ne se confond pas avec la compétence professionnelle . En d’autres termes, la simple notoriété et compétence d’un photographe ne fait pas de chacune de ses créations une œuvre originale susceptible de protection. le photographe ne rapportait pas à suffisance la preuve d’une « activité créatrice révélant sa personnalité, nonobstant la position en arc de cercle des poissons et l’angle de prise de vue utilisé« , avant de considérer, sur le plan technique que « ce cliché n’est révélateur d’aucune recherche dans les éclairages adéquats, la tonalité des fonds, l’environnement mobilier et les angles de prise de vue. Il ne constitue ainsi qu’une prestation de services techniques ne traduisant qu’un savoir faire."
  23. Jacques-Franck (21 July 2008). "Les architectes face au droit d'auteur", par Agnès Tricoire, avocat. (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  24. archive copy Etendue et limites du droit d’auteur de l’architecte sur l’œuvre architecturale
  25. « s’agissant d’un élément d’un ensemble architectural qui constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux habitants d’un quartier de Paris (…), le droit à protection cesse lorsque l’œuvre en question est reproduite non pas en tant qu’œuvre d’art, mais par nécessité, au cours d’une prise de vue dans un lieu public ; sur la carte postale litigieuse, la Tour Montparnasse n’a pas été photographiée isolément mais dans son cadre naturel qui ne fait l’objet d’aucune protection. » Source: [3].
  26. REPRODUCTION DES TIMBRES-POSTE. La Poste. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  27. Les artistes graveurs ou dessinateurs et leurs timbres (in French). Phil-Ouest. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  28. Cortot, Henri (1892-1950) (in French). catawiki.fr.
  29. User talk:Stan Shebs#French stamps / Les 72 timbres, blocs-feuillets, carnets français ou timbres à date de Georges Hourriez - Page 2 (in French). Phil Ouest. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  30. Paradis. Photobucket. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  31. Mathilde Pavis (University of Exeter) (15 July 2015). Forgive my French: copyright ‘a la carte’ for photographic works. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Liechtenstein relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Liechtenstein must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Liechtenstein and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Liechtenstein, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Liechtenstein has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 July 1931, the World Trade Organization since 1 September 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 30 April 2007.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Liechtenstein.[1] WIPO holds the machine-translatable German text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The Liechtenstein Law Gazette holds the text in German.[3]

General rules

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006,

  • A work is protected by copyright from the time it is created. The protection expires 70 years after the death of the author.[1999-2006 Art.32]
  • If several people have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author.[1999-2006 Art.33.1]
  • Where the individual contributions can be separated, each is protected for 70 years after the death of the author.[1999-2006 Art.33.2]
  • The term of protection of cinematographic or other audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the main director, author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of the music made specifically for the film or audiovisual work in question.[1999-2006 Art.33.3]
  • If the author of a work is unknown, protection expires 70 years after publication. If the author becomes known during this period, protection expires 70 years after her death.[1999-2006 Art.34]
  • The term of protection lasts to 31 December of the year which it expires.[1999-2006 Art.35]

Not protected

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, the following are not protected: a) laws, regulations, international treaties and other official instruments; b) means of payment; c) decisions, records and reports of authorities and public administrations; d) patents, and published patent applications. Also not protected are official or legally required collections and translations of the above works.[1999-2006 Art.5]

Currency

Symbol OK.svg  According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in .. means of payment".[1999-2006 Art.5]

Please use {{PD-Liechtenstein-official}} for the corresponding currency images.

Freedom of panorama

Symbol OK.svg  {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, says that works may be depicted when they are permanently located at or on public ground. The depiction may be offered, sold, sent or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and not be usable for the same purpose as the original.[1999-2006 Art.29]

Stamps

Public domain? According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in ... means of payment".[1999-2006 Art.5] However, Liechtenstein generally emulates Swiss law, and Liechtenstein's Copyright Act is based on the Swiss text. The majority of Swiss copyright law commentaries does not consider stamps "means of payment".[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]It is therefore likely that Liechtenstein stamps are protected by copyright as well.

In the past, {{PD-Liechtenstein}} was used for uploads of stamps from Liechtenstein, but this should not be done in the future, unless it's possible to produce evidence for the public domain claim.

See also

Citations

  1. a b Liechtenstein Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-04.
  2. Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006). Liechtenstein (2006). Retrieved on 2018-11-04.
  3. Gesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG), LGBl. 1999 Nr. 160 (The Liechtenstein copyright act) (in German). Liechtenstein Law Gazette. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  4. Cherpillod in Müller/Oertli, Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. 2012, Art. 5 para. 3
  5. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 5
  6. von Büren/Meer in von Büren/David, SIWR II/1, 3rd ed. 2014, para. 379
  7. Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2011, para. 130
  8. Dessemontet, Le droit d'auteur, 1999, para. 413
  9. Gilliéron in Werra/Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, Art. 5 LDA para. 9
  10. von Büren, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, ZSR 1993, 193-222, 200
  11. disagreeing: Rehbinder/Viganò, URG, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 3 [included by analogy]
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Luxembourg

Luxemburgo

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Luxembourg relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Luxembourg must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Luxembourg and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Luxembourg, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Luxembourg has been a member of the Berne Convention since 20 June 1888, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1] As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Law of April 18, 2001, on Copyright and Related Rights and Databases as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Luxembourg.[1]

WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The 2001 Law was amended by the Law of April 18, 2004 (LU043), Law of May 22, 2009 (LU055) and Law of April 25, 2018 (LU053).[3][4] It was also amended by Law of February 10, 2015, transposing Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament ...[5]

General rules

Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

  • Copyright extend for 70 years after the death of the author in favor of his heirs and assigns.[4-18-2001 Art.9(1)]
  • When the work is the product of collaboration and the contributions are inseparable, copyright exists for the benefit of all interested parties until 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]
  • Protection of audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the following persons: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, dialogues and musical compositions, with or without words, specially created for use in the work, whether or not sponsors.[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]
  • Copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous works lasts 70 years from the day when the work was lawfully made available to the public.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)] If the identity of the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is established, the author or his heirs may claim protection for the duration specified in paragraph 1.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]
  • Directed works are created by several authors at the initiative and under the direction of a natural or legal person who publishes it under their name, and in which the contributions of the authors are designed to be integrated into the collection. In the absence of of any contractual provision to the contrary, the publisher has the original economic and moral rights in the work.[4-18-2001 Art.6] Copyright in directed works lasts 70 year from the year of publication.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]
  • Any person who, after the expiration of protection by copyright, publishes or lawfully communicates to the public for the first time a work not previously published, is vested with property rights equivalent to those enjoyed by the author for a period of 25 years from the time when the work was first published or communicated to the public.[4-18-2001 Art.9(4)]
  • All dates in this article are calculated from 1 January following the relevant event.[4-18-2001 Art.9(5)]

Freedom of panorama

X mark.svg   {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}} Only incidental inclusion allowed. Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

Threshold of originality

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.[6]

Véase también

Citations

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Monaco

Mónaco

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Monaco that are relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Monaco must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Monaco and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Monaco, refer to Law 491 for clarification.

Governing laws

Monaco has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 May 1889.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948 sur la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Monaco.[1]

The law came into effect on 1 January 1949.[491/1948 Art.35] It applies to all literary or artistic works that were not in the public domain when it came into force.[491/1948 Art.36] WIPO holds Law No. 491 as amended up to Law No. 1.313 of June 29, 2006 in their WIPO Lex database.[2]

Applicability

The law applies to works authored or co-authored by a citizen of Monaco, and to all works first published in Monaco.[491/1948 Art.34] Other works are protected as defined by international conventions. Applied art works are protected in Monaco to the same extent that they are protected in their country of origin.[491/1948 Art.34] Authors have rights in all literary and artistic works that they create with no requirement for any formality.[491/1948 Art.1] The rights of the author may be transferred in whole or part by gift, sale or inheritance, with some limitations on inheritance.[491/1948 Art.14]

Works protected by copyright include all literary, scientific and artistic productions, whatever their mode or form of expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and similar works; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and pantomimes whose staging is fixed in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography; photographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to photography; works of applied arts; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and plastic works relating to geography, topography, architecture or science.[491/1948 Art.2]

Durations

Under Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948,

  • The author has the sole right to publish, reproduce or otherwise disclose their work, and has the exclusive right to authorise any translation, arrangement or adaptation of their work.[491/1948 Art.3-4]
  • The author of a translation, arrangement or adaptation has rights to their work without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work.[491/1948 Art.5]
  • For individual works, copyright lasts 50 years after the author's death.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • For posthumous works, copyright lasts 50 years after publication.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • A collaborative work is the common property of the authors, but when it is not an indivisible whole each of the co-authors has the right to exploit their personal contribution separately.[491/1948 Art.7] For collaborative works, copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the last surviving author.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • The publisher of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is treated as the author. However, if the identity of the author is established, the author or their successors obtain the copyright.[491/1948 Art.13]

In the above definitions, "50 years after [event]" means "up to the end of the 50th year after the year in which [event] happened."

Government works

Laws, ordinances, orders, decisions and administrative, judicial or official publications do not benefit from copyright protection.[491/1948 Art.38]

Citations

  1. a b Monaco : Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO Lex (2018). Retrieved on 2018-10-28.
  2. Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948 sur la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques (in French). Monaco (2006). Retrieved on 2018-10-28.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Netherlands

Países Bajos

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of the Netherlands relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in the Netherlands must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both the Netherlands and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from the Netherlands, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

The Netherlands has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 November 1912, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Netherlands.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] Wikisource holds a version of the 1912 law as valid on 1 January 2005.

Official Dutch sources also provide the text pf the Copyright Act and Related Rights Act in Dutch and English.[3][4][5]

Standard terms

Under the Act of September 23, 1912 as amended up to September 1, 2017),

  • Works of individual authors enjoy copyright protection until 70 years after the 1st January following the author's death.[1912-2017 Art. 37(1)]
  • Posthumously published works before 1995 have a copyright until 50 years after publication (pre-1995 law's term), or 70 years after the death of the author (post-1995 law's term), whatever duration is the longest.[1912-2017 Art. 37, 51] This clause was used to restore the copyright on until 1984 unpublished portions of Anne Frank's diary.[6]
  • The duration of the copyright belonging jointly to two or more persons in their capacity as co-authors of a work shall be calculated from 1 January of the year following the year of the death of the last surviving co-author.[1912-2017 Art. 37(2)]
  • The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(1)]
  • This also applies to the works of a public institution, association, foundation or corporation that is regarded as the creator, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as such on or in copies of the work which are made public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(2)]
  • For works whose term of copyright is not calculated according to the provisions of Article 37, copyright expires within 70 years after creation if not lawfully disclosed in this period.[1912-2017 Art. 39]
  • Copyright in a cinematographic work expires 70 years from 1 January of the year following the year of death of the last of the following persons: the principal director, the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the author of music made for the film.[1912-2017 Art. 40]
  • If in a musical composition with words the copyrights on the music and on the words are held by different individuals, copyright expires 70 years from 1 January of the year of death of the last survivor.[1912-2017 Art. 40a]

Outside Europe

Before World War II the Netherlands colonies in the Caribbean were administered as the Netherlands Antilles, which included Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten and Saba. Copyright laws were defined by the auteursverordening 1913. In 1948 the Netherlands Antilles was given considerable autonomy, and on 15 December 1954 it became an equal partner to the Netherlands in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. On 1 January 1986 Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles and became a country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

In 2010 the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba became special municipalities of the Netherlands, while Curaçao and Sint Maarten became countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. According to Article 39 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, "civil and commercial law, the law of civil procedure, criminal law, the law of criminal procedure, copyright, industrial property, the office of notary, and provisions concerning weights and measures shall be regulated as far as possible in a similar manner in the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten".

  • The relevant law in Aruba is the 2003 Auteursverordening (Aruba).
  • For Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, the operative law is the Auteurswet BES, with a copyright duration of 50 years after the death of the author.[7] This law is based on the corresponding law of the Netherlands Antilles.
  • In Curaçao the law is similar.
  • The law in Sint Maarten is Auteursverordening.[8]

Government works

Dutch laws and legal judgments are completely free of copyright (Article 11 of Dutch copyright law of 1912).

In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) may be freely distributed (this includes modifications and derivatives) in the Netherlands unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. This is regulated in (Article 15b of Dutch copyright law of 1912). Entities like the Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation can also be regarded as public authorities (AbRS 30 November 1995, JB 1995/337) and are not automatically copyright protected.

Copyright tags

  • {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}} – for coats of arms of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
  • {{PD-NL-gemeentevlag}} – for flags of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
  • {{PD-NL-Gov}} (deprecated) – for all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government), unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public

Currency

X mark.svg  : Guilder banknotes are subject to copyright 70 years after the first publication. De Nederlandsche Bank has been contacted and they state that the introduction of the Euro does not change this.

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Guilder coins may be OK to reproduce, since they are subject to Article 15b of the Auteurswet. Works published by or on behalf of the government can be reproduced, unless copyright has been reserved explicitly by the government at the time of publication. However, even if no reservation was made, only the author has the right to have those works published in a collection.[9]

X mark.svg Not OK National sides of the Euro coins are subject to copyright as well. Although they are subject to Article 15b, an express reservation of rights has been made by the Dutch government.

Freedom of panorama

Symbol OK.svg  for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
X mark.svg   for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:[10]

  • it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included
  • [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
  • [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences.

Article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18. Photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

Public place in article 18 of the Dutch copyright law not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly is a public building is not defined in the Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria to decide whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of article 18, parliament said that the building must be freely accessible by the general public and then mentioned two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.)[11]

Parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18, but that railway stations are.[12][13] Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Johan Cruijff ArenA was deemed to not be a public place.[14] In a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground.[15]

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there, as long as they are outside.[16][17] It also includes works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, (covered) parking lots. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls.[18] It probably does not apply within the shops in such a mall. In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.[13]

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places. The literature mentions that this would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly.[13] This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained above; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18.[18] Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test. Parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed.[12]

Threshold of originality

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:[19]

  • 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':[20]

  • 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:[21]

  • 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".

Stamps

Red copyright.svg See nl:Wikipedia:Beleid voor gebruik van media/Postzegels (In Dutch).

Prior to 1 January 1989, the government-owned corporation PTT considered Dutch stamps as being created by the PTT company and as such was considered their author. In The Netherlands copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. With stamps issued prior to 1989, copyright expires 70 years after publication.

From 1 January 1989 onwards, the PTT became the private company TNT Post. The rules are sometimes different compared to the period before 01-01-1989; for example, when there is more than one author of a stamp.

Public domain As of 2019 Dutch stamps created in the period 1852-1948 are considered to be Public Domain.

Véase también

Citations

  1. a b Netherlands Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  2. Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017). Netherlands (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  3. Nederlands The Dutch copyright act
  4. English Official English version of the copyright act from rijksoverheid.nl.
  5. English Official English version of the related rights act from rijksoverheid.nl
  6. Marco Caspers (Institute for Information Law) (20 January 2016). The role of Anne Frank’s diary and academic freedom for text & data mining. Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  7. Auteurswet BES (in Dutch). Overheid.nl. Ministry of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations. Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  8. Auteursverordening (in Dutch). overheid.nl. Retrieved on 201903-28.
  9. Jacob Hendrik Spoor, D. W. F. Verkade, D. J. G. Visser (2005). Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht (in Dutch) 146. Kluwer. Retrieved on 2019-03-28. "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een door of vanwege de openbare macht openbaar gemaakt werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, waarvan de openbare macht de maker of rechtverkrijgende is, wordt niet beschouwd verdere openbaarmaking of verveelvoudiging daarvan, tenzij het auteursrecht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Ook als een zodanig voorbehoud niet is gemaakt, behoudt de maker echter het uitsluitend recht, zijn werken, die door of vanwege de openbare macht zijn openbaar gemaakt, in een bundel verenigd te doen verschijnen"
  10. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°[1], of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.
    • [1] teeken-, schilder-, bouw- en beeldhouwwerken, lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken;
    • [2] ontwerpen, schetsen en plastische werken, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde, de aardrijkskunde, de plaatsbeschrijving of andere wetenschappen;
  11. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-8, Nota n.a.v. het nadere verslag, p. 15.
  12. a b Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-5, Nota n.a.v. het verslag, pp.36-37.
  13. a b c Spoor, J.H; Verkade, D.W.F.; Visser, D.J.G.: Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht, 3. Ed., Kluwer 2004, ISBN 90-268-3637-4 Invalid ISBN; in particular p. 290.
  14. Wonende te Amsterdam v. CODEMASTERS B.V. publisher=Rechtenmedia (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  15. DE GROENE LEGUAAN v. FRIESLAND BANK N.V. (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  16. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-3, Memorie van Toelichting, p. 52
  17. De Zwaan, M.: Geen beelden geen nieuws, Cramwinkel 2003, ISBN 90-75727-844; pp. 185-188.
  18. a b Engelfriet, A.: Fotograferen van kunst op openbare plaatsen: Openbare plaatsen zijn bijvoorbeeld plaatsen langs de openbare weg, maar ook stationshallen of winkelcentra.
  19. (HR 04-01-1991, NJ 1991, 608) "Bij de beoordeling van het middel moet worden vooropgesteld dat, wil een voortbrengsel kunnen worden beschouwd als een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst als bedoeld in art. 1 in verbinding met art. 10 Aw, vereist is dat het een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt.
  20. (NJ 2008, 556): [D]at het voortbrengsel een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter moet bezitten, houdt, kort gezegd, in datde vorm niet ontleend mag zijn aan die van een ander werk (vgl. art. 13 Aw). De eis dat het voortbrengsel het persoonlijk stempel van de maker moet dragen betekent dat sprake moet zijn van een vorm die het resultaat is van scheppende menselijke arbeid en dus van creatieve keuzes, en die aldus voortbrengsel is van de menselijke geest. Daarbuiten valt in elk geval al hetgeen een vorm heeft die zo banaal of triviaal is, dat daarachter geen creatieve arbeid van welke aard ook valt te aan te wijzen.
  21. Stokke/Fikszo (in Dutch). de Rechtspraak. Retrieved on 2019-03-28. "Om voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming in aanmerking te komen, is vereist dat het desbetreffende werk een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt (vgl. HR 30 mei 2008, LJN BC2153, NJ 2008/556 (E)). Het HvJEU heeft de maatstaf aldus geformuleerd dat het moet gaan om "een eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur van het werk" (HvJEU 16 juli 2009, nr. C-5/08, LJN BJ3749, NJ 2011/288 (Infopaq I))"
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal
Texto transcluido de
COM:Switzerland

Suiza

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Switzerland relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Switzerland must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Switzerland and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Switzerland, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Switzerland has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 July 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 1 July 2008.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Federal Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (status as of January 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of Switzerland.[1] WIPO holds an unofficial English translation of the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The Bundesrat (Federal Council) holds official German, French and Italian versions.[3][4][5]

General rules

Under the Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (as of January 1, 2017),

  • In general a work is protected by copyright as soon as it is created, irrespective of whether it has been fixed on a physical medium.[1992-2017 Art.29(1)]
  • Protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the author.[1992-2017 Art.29(2)]
  • Where it is has to be assumed that the author has been dead for more than 50 or 70 years respectively, protection no longer applies.[1992-2017 Art.29(3)]
  • Where two or more persons have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the last surviving joint author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the last surviving joint author.[1992-2017 Art.30(1)]
  • Where the individual contributions may be separated, protection for each contribution expires 50 or 70 years respectively after the death of the respective author.[1992-2017 Art.30(2)]
  • In the case of films and other audio-visual works, the calculation of the term of protection is based solely on the date of the death of the director.[1992-2017 Art.30(3)]
  • Where the author of a work is unknown, protection for that work expires 70 years after it has been published or, if it has been published in instalments, 70 years after the final instalment, unless the identity of the author becomes known during this period.[1992-2017 Art.31]
  • The term of protection is calculated from 31 December of the year in which the event determining the calculation occurred.[1992-2017 Art.32]

The increase of the protection term from 50 to 70 years occurred in 1993 and was not retroactive, but since the change was more than 20 years ago, no works are in the public domain under the life+50 term that would not also be in the public domain under the current life+70 rule. However, this can be relevant with regard to URAA-restored copyrights in the US, as the protection of many works was already expired applying the 50 years term and protection was not restored for these works in 1993, as confirmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in its "Sternheim" decision in 1998.[6] For example, Swiss aviation pioneer and photographer Walter Mittelholzer died in 1937. His works went into the public domain in Switzerland 50 years after his death on January 1, 1988. As the 1993 extension to 70 years did not restore already expired copyrights, Mittelholzer's photographs were still in the public domain in Switzerland on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, and therefore outside the scope of URAA copyright restorations.

Not protected

Copyright does not protect acts, ordinances, international treaties and other official enactments; means of payment; decisions, minutes and reports issued by authorities and public administrations; patent specifications and published patent applications. Copyright also does not protect official or legally required collections and translations of the works referred to in paragraph 1.[1992-2017 Art.5]

To be eligible for copyright in the first place, works must be literary or artistic intellectual creations with an individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose.[1992-2017 Art.2] Many photographs may therefore not be protected (see {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} for details).

Marcas de derechos de autor

  • {{PD-Switzerland-official}} – Documentos oficiales, monedas y patentes suizos. Véase la plantilla para más detalles.
    • {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} – for coat of arms of a Swiss Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law).
  • {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} – Fotografías publicadas por primera vez en Suiza que no tienen el carácter individual exigido por ley para la protección de los derechos de autor. Véase la plantilla para más detalles, pero úsese sólo en casos obvios, ya que puede haber discrepancias sobre el carácter individual de la imagen.

In Switzerland copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the author with the exception of computer programs, the protection of which ends 50 years after the death of the author.

Currency

Symbol OK.svg : Currency is not covered by copyright in Switzerland. Article 5(1)(b) of the Swiss copyright law from 1993 on works not subject to copyright explicitly excludes monetary items from copyright.

Reproduction of banknotes that may be confused with genuine bills is prohibited by article 243 of the Swiss Penal Code.[7] The Swiss National Bank has issued guidelines on how to reproduce banknotes in a way they believe are permissible.[8] Printing "Specimen" across the image and not reproducing the bills at their true size or in their true colors are recommendations.

{{PD-Switzerland-official}} can be used to tag images of Swiss currency.

Freedom of panorama

Symbol OK.svg  {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Under Article 27 of the Copyright Act, a work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted and the depiction offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and it must not serve the same purpose as the original.

Accessible to the public

  • The place must be accessible to the public on a de facto basis. The legal ownership status of the place is irrelevant to the applicability of the provision.[9]
  • The depicted work itself does not have to be accessible to the public. Freedom of panorama also applies to a work on private (not publicly accessible) grounds provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.[10]
  • The place does not need to be accessible to the public all the time. If a park is closed during night hours, it may still be “accessible to the public” within the meaning of Article 27 provided the other criteria are met.[11]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, if the place is only accessible to certain categories of persons, such as pupils and high school staff, it is no longer “accessible to the public”.[12] Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.[13]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[14] Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.[15] It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. Part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces from interior courtyards, with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Article 27.[16] However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators.[17] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[18]

Permanently situated

  • A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).[19]
  • It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one widespread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to indefinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place.[20] A minority view holds that freedom of panorama can also apply to a work such as a sculpture otherwise located inside a museum that is accessible to the public as part of a temporary exhibition.[21] Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial.[22] Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.[23]
  • Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.[24]

General

  • Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.[25]
  • Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG). Article 11 prohibits the distortion of the work. However, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted.[26]

Stamps

Red copyright.svg According to Article 5 of the Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, Copyright does not protect .. means of payment. However, stamps are not considered means of payment and do not fall under any other exemption clause. They therefore enjoy copyright protection.[27]

Threshold of originality

See also

Citations

  1. a b Switzerland Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  2. Federal Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (status as of January 1, 2017). Switzerland (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  3. Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG) vom 9. Oktober 1992 (Stand am 1. Januar 2017) (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  4. Loi fédérale sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins (Loi sur le droit d'auteur, LDA)*12 du 9 octobre 1992 (Etat le 1er janvier 2017) (in French). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  5. Legge federale sul diritto d'autore e sui diritti di protezione affini (Legge sul diritto d'autore, LDA) del 9 ottobre 1992 (Stato 1° gennaio 2017) (in Italian). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  6. BGE 124 III 266
  7. Reproduction of banknotes. Swiss National Bank. Retrieved on 2019-03-29.
  8. Instruction sheet on the reproduction of banknotes. Swiss National Bank (30 August 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-29.
  9. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209.
  10. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (5); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (11).
  11. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  12. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Rolf H. Weber, Roland Unternährer and Rena Zulauf: Schweizerisches Filmrecht. Schulthess, Zürich 2003, p. 147.
  13. In favor: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300. No limitation to a particular category of persons but merely a general restriction that applies to anyone: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17.
  14. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2, 4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Daniel Csoport: Rechtsschutz für Kunstschaffende im schweizerischen und internationalen Urheberrecht. Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, 2008, Internet http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/wwwDisplayIdentifier/3498, accessed on 1 February 2014, p. 25. Dissenting: Wittweiler: Zu den Schrankenbestimmungen im neuen Urheberrechtsgesetz. In: AJP. Nr. 5, 1993, pp. 588 et seq., p. 591; Auf der Maur: Multimedia: Neue Herausforderungen für das Urheberrecht. In: AJP. Nr. 4, 1995, pp. 435 et seq., p. 439.
  15. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  16. Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  17. Against applicability to station halls: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2). In favor: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6) (also to “park pavilions, shopping arcades and malls”); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18 (also to shopping arcades for both “do not constitute an interior space in the current language”).
  18. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  19. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9); Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (6); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund»).
  20. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) («Werke, die sich für unbestimmte Zeit an dem für sie bestimmten Ort befinden [...] Massgeblich ist die zeitliche und örtliche Bestimmung [...] aufgrund der objektiv erkennbaren Widmung durch den Rechtsinhaber»); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («[...] erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund befindet»); similar though apparently based on subjective intent: Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 («A notre sens, le critère décisif est l’intention de laisser l’oeuvre en question durablement sur la voie publique»); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 («unbestimmte Dauer»).
  21. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); possibly Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18.
  22. In favor: Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because they are temporary in nature as the creators intentionally limited the duration of their public presentation to a level below their ordinary life expectancy); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18. Ineligible: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 (because the artist’s intent is the temporary display); Mosimann in Mosimann/Renold/Raschér, Kultur. Kunst. Recht, 2009, p. 596.
  23. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because it is well-known that they are replaced/removed on a regular basis); Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 (posters presented for one or two weeks); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 299.
  24. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5) (snow and ice sculptures); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (chalk paintings on streets or the sculpture ‚A WAY‘ by Simone Zaugg that was made of sugar); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209 (chalk paintings).
  25. Uncontested, see e.g. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2).
  26. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (13a); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue permissible, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (6); more restrictive: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300 (depiction must not modify the original work).
  27. Denis Barrelet; Willi Egloff () (in German) Das neue Urheberrecht (3rd ed.), Bern: Stämpfli, p. 33 ISBN: 978-3-7272-9563-8. "Hingegen geniessen Briefmarken Urheberrechtsschutz, da sie keine Zahlungsmittel sind und auch sonst unter keine Ausnahmebestimmung fallen"
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. Véase también : Commons:Aviso legal