共享资源:最低限度

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 36% 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.

ShortcutCOM:DM

最低限度(拉丁語:De minimis),意思是「關於最小的事物」,通常在術語「de minimis non curat lex」(對屑事法律不以為意)中使用 。由於對版權作品的「最低限度」使用微不足道,因此不需要版權擁有者的同意。

在某些情況下,可以使用模板{{De minimis}}來標識文件中的版權內容是最低限度使用的。(但是,此類文件的絕大多數未以這種方式標識。)

什麼是「最低限度」?

最低限度是一個習慣法的概念,源於格言「de minimis non curat lex」,通常被翻譯為「對屑事法律不以為意」。某些技術上違反法律的情況被認為是瑣碎且無關緊要的,因此法院可以裁定其根本不應該將其視為違反法律。該概念適用於法律的許多分支,但是在這裡我們僅考慮其在版權法的應用。

If proved in court, de minimis can be a complete defence to a copyright infringement action. It is not simply that an infringer can get away with some things without much chance of being sued due to the high cost of litigation; rather, that if the copying is de minimis the copier is not in fact breaking the law at all.

示例

A copyright-protected movie poster in the background (promoting "The Dark Knight") as part of a street-scene.

Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. In taking the photograph and uploading it to Commons, the photographer will of course be making a copy of the poster design, and without consent that will generally be an infringement and hence not allowed. The fact that the photographer has created a new copyright of their own does not prevent the poster copyright from being infringed, and that is so even if the photograph displays a high level of originality itself.

However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster.

In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.

If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.

It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters.

A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".

指引

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 (e.g., 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 OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK Yes, definitely Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable.
2 OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK

Very likely

Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
3 OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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 OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg 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.
文本嵌入自
COM:DM United States

美國

美國法院以三種不同的方式解釋最低限度辯護:
  1. 技術違規是微不足道的,法律不會施加法律後果;
  2. 複製的程度低於實質性相似的閾值(始終是可操作複製的必需要素);
  3. 與合理使用有關(此處不相關,因為Commons不允許合理使用圖片)。

Commons通常特別關注這些問題中的第一個。

正如在Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.中發現的那樣,瓶子的照片不是其標籤的衍生作品(儘管在這種特殊情況下,標籤也恰好低於原創性閾值):

然而,我們不需要決定標籤是否受版權保護,因為Ets-Hokin的產品鏡頭是基於瓶子的整體,而不是標籤。拍攝的重點是完整地捕捉瓶子。被告沒有引用任何案例證明這種性質的瓶子可能受版權保護,我們知道沒有。事實上,Skyy的立場是,日常的、功能性的、不可版權的物體的照片需要進行分析,因為衍生作品會剝奪業餘和商業攝影師對版權保護的合法期望。因為Ets-Hokin的產品鏡頭是整個瓶子的鏡頭——一篇不受版權保護的有用文章——而不是僅僅或什至主要是其標籤的鏡頭,我們認為瓶子不符合“預先存在的作品”的條件“在版權法的含義內。因此,Ets-Hokin拍攝的瓶子照片不能是衍生作品。


特定国家法律

文本嵌入自
COM:DM Belgium

比利時

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 [...].
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Canada

加拿大

加拿大版權法,1985 第30.7小節規定:

無意和故意不構成侵犯版權

(a) 在另一作品或其他主題中包含一個作品或其他主題;

(b) 進行與作品或其他主題相關的任何行為,而這些行為是偶然且並非故意包含在另一作品或其他主題中的。

无可用信息 版權指令(歐洲議會和理事會2001年5月22日關於協調信息社會中版權和相關權某些方面的指令2001/29/EC允許第5(3)(i)條中的最低限度例外:[1]
  • 在以下情況下,成員國可對第2條和第3條規定的權利規定例外或限制:[……]將作品或其他主題偶然包含在其他材料中。在第5(5)條的一般條件下:
  • 第1、2、3和4款規定的例外和限制僅適用於某些特殊情況,不與作品或其他主題的正常利用相衝突,並且不會不合理地損害當事人的合法利益。權利人。
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Finland

芬蘭

无可用信息
文本嵌入自
COM:DM France

法國

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:

[2]
  • 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.
[3]


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.
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Germany

德國

Under § 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 § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.[4] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[5]To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.[6]

According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case

  1. if it 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, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[7]

The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:

  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
  1. the work is characteristic in any other way.[8]

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.[9]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[10]

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 § 57.[11] 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 § 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 § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.[12]

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.[13]

文本嵌入自
COM:DM Iceland

冰島

无可用信息

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.

[14]
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Israel

以色列

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]
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Japan

日本

2012年修訂的版權法第30-2條規定:
  • 第30-2條:在創作受版權保護的攝影、錄音或錄像作品時,可以復製作為作品附帶主題的其他版權項目,因為它們難以與作為作品主題的項目分開或隨著正在創作的作品進行翻譯(僅當它們是正在創作的作品的次要組成部分時)。但是,如果考慮到附帶作品的種類和復製或翻譯的方式,不公平地損害附帶作品的著作權人的利益,則可以不這樣做。[15]
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Netherlands

荷蘭

无可用信息
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Morocco

摩洛哥

"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]

文本嵌入自
COM:DM Peru

秘鲁

无可用信息
文本嵌入自
COM:DM Singapore

新加坡

根據新加坡版權法(第63章,2006年修訂版)第10(1)條,除非出現相反的意圖:
  • 對與作品或其他主題有關的行為的提及應理解為包括對與作品或其他主題的重要部分有關的行為的提及;
  • 對作品的複制、改編或複製品的引用應被理解為包括對作品主要部分的複制、改編或複製品的引用,視情況而定。

因此,與作品或其他主題的非實質性部分有關的行為不違反版權。

无可用信息
這張照片不侵犯版權,因為樂天世界塔不是這張照片的主要對象,它是附帶的。

根據版權法(由2019年11月26日第16600號法修訂), :第35-3條(附帶包含等), :在攝影、錄音、錄像(本條以下簡稱拍攝等)過程中看到或聽到的作品,偶然包含在拍攝等主要對像中的,可以被複製、分發、公開表演、展示或公開傳播。因使用作品的類型、性質、使用目的和性質等不合理損害作者經濟權利人利益的,不適用。

文本嵌入自
COM:DM Sweden

瑞典

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 OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg 不可以:

  • 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)
1988年英國版權、設計和專利法第31條(隨後於2003年修訂)規定:
  • 作品的版權不會因偶然包含在藝術作品、錄音、電影或廣播中而受到侵犯。

該法案中定義的"藝術作品"包括照片。


剪裁“最低限度”图片

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.

示例


参见

注释

Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. 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.
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CC567-2005
  3. ... 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 ...
  4. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16].
  5. 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.
  6. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26f].
  7. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  8. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  9. Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31].
  10. Appeals court level or higher.
  11. 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" (2015) 117 GRUR 670 (note).
  12. Bundesgerichtshof 10 January 2019, case I ZR 267/15 Cordoba II, (2019) 121 GRUR 813 [59].
  13. Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554.
  14. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kamina2002
  15. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bunka