Commons:De minimis

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:De minimis and the translation is 53% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:De minimis and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎español • ‎français • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

Shortcut: COM:DM

De minimis Es un significado de expresión latino sobre cosas mínimas, normalmente en el locution de minimis no curat lex ("La ley no se se preocupa con bagatelas"). Uso de minimis de un obra protegida por derechos de autor es un uso tan trivial que el consentimiento del dueño de copyright no es requerido.

En algunos casos Commons archivos con contenido protegido por derechos de autor consideró aceptable cuando de minimis puede ser identificado con la plantilla {{De minimis}}. Aun así, la mayoría vasta de tales archivos es no identificado de este modo.

¿Qué significa "De minimis"?

La figura legal conocida como de minimis deriva de la máxima de minimis non curat lex, que podría traducirse como "la ley no se ocupa de tonterías". Algunas lagunas legales se suelen considerar tan triviales e inconsecuentes que una corte seguramente no las consideraría lagunas en absoluto. El concepto se aplica a numerosos ámbitos de la legalidad, pero aquí se considera su aplicación en lo referido a las leyes de derechos de autor.

Si se prueba en una corte, "de minimis" puede ser una defensa adecuada a una acción de infracción de derechos de autor. No se refiere a que quien hace una copia pueda violar la ley y salirse con la suya ya que sería improbable que el dueño de los derechos se molestara a litigar dicho caso, sino que si la copia es de minimis no se estaría violando la ley en lo absoluto.

Ejemplo

Un cartel de película protegido por derechos de autor en el fondo, promoviendo The Dark Knight, como parte de una escena callejera

Supongamos que sacamos una foto en la ciudad y en la misma aparece un cartel publicitario con contenido protegido por derechos de autor. Hay dos derechos de autor involucrados: el del fotógrafo, y el del cartel, y ambos subsisten en forma independiente. Sacando una foto de un cartel protegido y publicándola sin consentimiento se comete una violación de derechos de autor, sin importar que el fotógrafo cree un segundo derecho de autor propio, incluso si la foto posee un alto grado de trabajo creativo.

Sin embargo, si la presencia del cartel es circunstancial respecto del tema central de la foto, ésta puede considerarse de minimis: quizás el cartel queda fuera de foco, no se puede apreciar con nitidez o queda semioculto por otros objetos, o aparece en forma imperceptible en el fondo. Una corte no considerará que se haya cometido una violación de derechos de autor simplemente porque se haya incluido en forma accidental una imagen protegida en el fondo.

Sin embargo, al determinar si la defensa de de minimis es válida para el caso se tomaría todo en cuenta. Si el cartel forma parte de la composición de la foto, o la misma fue tomada con el objeto de que el cartel apareciera en la misma, una argumentación de minimis no es aceptable incluso aunque se intente añadir otros elementos. La descripción de la imagen al subirla también se tiene en cuenta: si se menciona en la misma la presencia del cartel, o se categoriza la imagen de acuerdo al mismo, o se utiliza a la imagen en otros proyectos referenciando al tema contenido en el cartel, entonces la defensa de de minimis no será aceptable.

Si la existencia del cartel hace la imagen más atractivo, más utilizable, o propenso de causar más de daño económico insignificante al dueño de derechos de autor, entonces un de minimis defensa a un copyright-acción de contravención probablemente fallará.

Pueda ser pertinente cómo la imagen está descrita o clasificado: sea difícil de argumentar de minimis si la fotografía está descrita cuando ilustrando "un cartel publicitario" y está colocado dentro de la categoría Anuncian carteles.

Una prueba útil puede ser para preguntar si la fotografía sería tan buena o tan útil si el cartel era para ser enmascarado fuera. Si no, entonces es difícil de argumentar que el cartel es de hecho de minimis, incluso si el cartel es pequeño y es "en el fondo".

Guidelines

Variations in laws and in uses of works mean that firm rules are not possible. As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:

  • the file is in use to illustrate X
  • the file is categorised in relation to X
  • X is referenced in the filename
  • X is referenced in the description
  • X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  • from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.

Note: de minimis consideration applies to a specific image composition. Significant cropping to focus on the copyrighted work can very easily turn a "probably OK" into a "probably not OK".

# Case can be considered de minimis Description
1 ✓OK Yes, definitely Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable.
2 ✓OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
3 ✓OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
4 ✓OK Very likely Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless).
5 Pictogram-voting-question.svg Maybe Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.
6 ✘Very unlikely Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
7 ✘ Definitely not Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.

Country-specific laws

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Germany

Alemania

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.[1] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[2] To qualify under s 57, it is insufficient if the work "fades into the background" (im Hintergrund steht) relative to the primary subject matter.[3] 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.[4]

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

  1. the work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
  2. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
  3. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or
  4. the work is characteristic in any other way.[5]

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.[6]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Belgium

Bélgica

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 [...].
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Canada

Canadá

Subsection 30.7 of the Canadian Copyright Act, 1985 states:

It is not an infringement of copyright to incidentally and not deliberately

(a) include a work or other subject-matter in another work or other subject-matter; or

(b) do any act in relation to a work or other subject-matter that is incidentally and not deliberately included in another work or other subject-matter.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Slovenia

Eslovenia

Article 52 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act:

  • "Such disclosed works that may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object, may be used freely while exploiting such object."[2007 Art.52]

Article 52 has been interpreted by the copyright expert Miha Trampuž in his book Copyright and Related Rights Act with Commentary. He has highlighted the following aspects: the work must have been disclosed, it must have been incidental with another object or work, it could be at will replaced with another work, and it is inessential in the copyright sense to the object or work.[10]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM United States

Estados Unidos

The United States courts interpret the de minimis defence in three distinct ways:

  1. Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;
  2. Where the extent of copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity (always a required element of actionable copying); and
  3. In connection with fair use (not relevant here, since Commons does not allow fair use images).

It is the first of these that is often of particular concern on Commons.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Finland

Finlandia

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

  • Works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text: 1) in a critical or scientific presentation; and 2) in a newspaper or a periodical when reporting on a current event, provided that the work has not been created in order to be reproduced in a newspaper or a periodical.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(1)]
  • When a copy of a work of art has, with the consent of the author, been sold or otherwise permanently transferred, the work of art may be incorporated into a photograph, a film, or a television programme if the reproduction is of a subordinate nature in the photograph, film or programme.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(2)]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM France

Francia

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:[11]

  • 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.[12]


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.
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Ireland

Irlanda

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000),

  • The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.[28/2000 Sec.52(1)]
  • A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.[28/2000 Sec.52(3)]

According to Pascal Kamina, the Irish legislation is similar to the legislation in the United Kingdom from 1988.[13]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Iceland

Islandia

An unofficial translation of Article 10a of the Icelandic copyright act reads:

  • Authors’ exclusive rights under Article 3 (cf. Article 2), shall not apply to the making of reproductions (copies) that are transient or incidental...[73/1972-2018 Art.10a(1)]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Israel

Israel

According to 2007 Copyright Act, section 22:

  • An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use.[2007-2011 Sec.22]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Japan

Japón

Copyright Act Article 30-2, amended in 2012, states:

  • Article 30-2: When creating a copyrighted work of photography, sound recording or video recording, other copyrighted items that are incidental subjects of the work because they are hard to be separated from the item that is a subject of the work may be copied or translated along the work being created (only if they are minor components of the work being created). However, if, considering the kinds of the incidentally included works and the manner of the copying or translation, it unfairly is prejudicial to the interest of the copyright holders of the incidentally included works, they may not.[14]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Morocco

Marruecos

"It shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes".[1-05-192/2006 Art.20]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM United Kingdom

Reino Unido

Section 31 of the UK Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, as subsequently amended in 2003, states that:

  • Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast.

"Artistic work", as defined within the act, includes photographs.

Under the Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll. as amended up to 216/2006,

  • Copyright is not infringed by anybody who uses a work incidentally, in connection with an intended primary use of another work or element.[121/2000–2006 Art.38c]
Text transcluded from
COM:DM Singapore

Singapur

Under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.) of Singapore, unless a contrary intention appears:

  • a reference to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subject-matter shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work or other subject-matter; and
  • a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work shall be read as including a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a substantial part of the work, as the case may be.

Therefore, acts done in relation to insubstantial parts of a work or other subject-matter do not breach copyright.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Sweden

Suecia

Article 20a of the copyright law as of 2017 says:

  • It is allowed for a film or television program to include copies of works of art or public performances and transfer the artwork to the public, as long as the copy is of secondary importance with respect to the film or television program content. This may be done with artwork that appears in the background of, or otherwise forms an insignificant portion of an image.[729/1960-2017 §20a]

These are X mark.svg  :

  • Thumbnail-sized photos on a screenshot - copyvio of two of the thumbnail-sized photos (NJA 2010 p. 135[1])
  • People on a scene with decorations in the background - copyvio of the background (NJA 1981 p. 313)

The Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society allows for de minimis exception in Art. 5(3)(i):[15]

  • Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: […] incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material.

Under the generic conditions of Article 5(5):

  • The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.

Crops of de minimis images

Since an image which is allowable under the de minimis principle must of necessity include some copyright material, it follows that such images cannot be cropped at will. For the case of a photograph which includes a poster, even if the photographer has a defence against infringement on the de minimis principle, that does not negate the original poster-designer's copyright. If someone takes the photograph and crops it so that only the poster remains, the de minimis defence is no longer available, as the poster design then becomes an essential part of the crop. So, the cropped version infringes and cannot be allowed on Commons.

Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.

Examples

See also

Notes

Algunas citas pueden no haber sido transcluidas

  1. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16].
  2. 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.
  3. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26].
  4. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  5. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  6. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31].
  7. Appeals court level or higher.
  8. 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).
  9. Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554.
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Trampuž1997
  11. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CC567-2005
  12. ... 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 ...
  13. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kamina2002
  14. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bunka
  15. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal L 167 10-19 (22 June 2001). Retrieved on 2019-03-20.