Commons:Threshold of originality/Americas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page
Other languages:
Threshold of originality
Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Others

This page gives overviews of Threshold of originality rules in different countries or territories of the Americas. It is "transcluded" from individual page sections giving the rules for each territory.

Countries of the Americas[edit]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Antigua and Barbuda

Antigua and Barbuda

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Argentina

Argentina

The creations are subject to a threshold of originality that distinguishes them from others by giving their personal imprint.[1]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bahamas

The Bahamas

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Barbados

Barbados

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Belize

Belize

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bolivia

Bolivia

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Brazil

Brazil

There are some court cases related to threshold of originality in Brazil. According to one study, and the court decisions contained in it, the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States, and consequently the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States, which is the general reference in Commons.[2]

Examples:

  • OK. In the case of Boneco de Preço Miúdo (2011), puppets that were a tridimensional and humanized version of a logo were deemed by the court to lack enough originality to be protected. The court considered that there was no originality or unpublished work in the puppets because they represented an already existing symbol (the supermarket's logo), and that there were already previous 3D and humanized versions of that logo. The court did not grant any value nor legal protection to the specific 3D and humanized version of the logo in question, and called it something like a "stylization subordinate to a previous idea".[3]
  • OK. Copyright for compilations/ reorganizations of already existing elements has often been rejected on court, hinting that the threshold for what constitutes an "intellectual creation" in this respect is quite high in Brazil.[4]
  • OK. Slogans are generally acceptable. In rare occasions they may be protected, when there is such a level of creativity as to attain the level of a literary work. For example, in the Guerra das Moedas court case (2013), copyright in the expression was not recognized by the court. The verdict stated that the language is the cultural patrimony of the people, so language expressions can't be protected by law. The Rede Globo vs. Ronaldo Ciambroni case was similar.[5][6]

Some examples help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:

  • OK. The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique". The court ruled: "photographs are not considered artistic creations ... that portray in a manifestly simple way, without use of any differentiated technique, the front of a residential building and a partial view of the city, under a service contract with a real estate business with a predefined advertising purpose"[7]
  • OK. Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."[8]
  • OK. A 2000 ruling stated: "Photographs for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works. ... Neither should purely technical photographs, which reproduce a certain object without the slightest artistic concern, be protected by copyright."[9]
  •  Not OK Another 2000 decision stated: "the photos [...] have an artistic character characterized by the originality, creativity and technique of its author, elements that reveal ... a work of art. They are not, as the appellant claims, mere reproductions of images for advertising purposes, or common snapshots."[10]

Puppets who were a tridimensional and humanized version of this logo were deemed in court to lack enough originality to be protected.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Canada

Canada

Unlike other common law countries, Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for being too low of a standard, but at the same time, stated that the creativity standards for originality were too high:

A creativity standard implies that something must be novel or non-obvious — concepts more properly associated with patent law than copyright law. And for these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise."

The same case also stated:

For a work to be “original” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, it must be more than a mere copy of another work. At the same time, it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work. This exercise of skill and judgment will necessarily involve intellectual effort.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Chile

Chile

Registration in the Intellectual Property Registry generates a "presumption" of copyright in favor of the registrant. Any work may be registered for "presumed" copyright, but Law No. 17.336 clearly states the "presumed" copyright may be contested.

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Colombia

Colombia

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

The threshold of originality is subject to the personal stamp that the author puts on their work.[11]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Costa Rica

Costa Rica

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Cuba

Cuba

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Dominica

Dominica

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Ecuador

Ecuador

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO El Salvador

El Salvador

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Grenada

Grenada

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Guatemala

Guatemala

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Guyana

Guyana

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Haiti

Haiti

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Honduras

Honduras

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Jamaica

Jamaica

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Mexico

Mexico

As indicated above, the following are examples of what is and what is not protected under the 1996 copyright law:

These images are OK to upload to Commons
  • Letters, digits or isolated colors
    Letters, digits or isolated colors
  • Names and titles or isolated phrases
    Names and titles or isolated phrases
  • Simple formats or blank forms to be filled with any type of information, as well as their instructions (example picture)
    Simple formats or blank forms to be filled with any type of information, as well as their instructions (example picture)
  • Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or equivalent political division
    Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or equivalent political division
  • Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of international governmental, non-governmental organizations, or of any other officially recognized organization
    Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of international governmental, non-governmental organizations, or of any other officially recognized organization
These are  Not OK to upload to Commons (unless published under a free license by the copyright holder), because they are above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection and are not covered by the law itself.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Nicaragua

Nicaragua

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Panama

Panama

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Paraguay

Paraguay

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Peru

Peru

Indecopi established parameters to qualify the originality of graphic and photographic compositions. Because of the higher originality threshold (independent of its endeavour, novelty, inspiration and technique, the requirement is to leave some space for the development of its author's personality, not a copy or imitation, referred as "originalidad subjetiva"),[12] simple designs, non-production videographic creations and old photographs without demonstrating their individuality can be uploaded to Commons. See also Andean Community: Threshold of originality.

Simple photographs[edit]

Old published photographs have a copyright term of 20 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the disclosing of the photograph before 1976. The notes shown are based on the rescinded 1961 law:

  • For old pictures taken prior to 31 December 1975 and which were not published within an author's own work  fail to meet the general definition of a "work" under 1961 law (and Article 3.4 of Universal Copyright Convention: "The provisions […] not apply to photographic works […] shall not be less than ten years").[13] The duration of the photograph was for 20 years after performed its first copy, without the author presenting this in a literary, scientific or documentary work, from January 1 of the following year.[13714/1961 Art. 27] They were not renewed during the URAA date.[13714/1961 Art. 27 and 57] Use {{PD-Peru-photo}}.
  • The duration is reduced if the following occurs: when the author did not place the name of the label with the message "Reproduction prohibited" or that the author published in a work without a full name or under an unknown pseudonym.[13714/1961 Art. 58] The duration of anonymous works prior to 31 December 1980 was 15 years after publication and expired on 1 January 1996. They were not renewed during the URAA date. Use {{PD-Peru-anonymous}}.
  • If they were used in literary or scientific works, they were documentary works or are reproductions of artistic material "of private domain", and the author died before 1946 (of before 1966 if someone had no family heirs), the law considers the photographs as the author's work (life + 30/50 years).[13] In the case of collective works, the date is considered to be the last survivor. If they died after 1947, they are protected by the current law. Use {{PD-Peru-1961law}}.

Recent published photographs below threshold have a copyright term of 70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the taking of the photograph. Fortunately, this term usually flexible in the cases and facts shown below:

  • The general definition of a "work" in the 1996 law is "any personal and original intellectual creation capable of being disclosed or reproduced in any form that is or may yet become known".[822/1996 Art.2(17)] Simple photographs taken or disclosed since 1976 are those which  fail to meet the general definition of a "work" and only receive neighbouring rights,[822/1996 Art.144] but works above this threshold will receive standard protection (life + 70 years, see below).
  • The Court of Indecopi believes that originality in a photograph should be limited to the originality of any work, requirements to protect against plagiarism. According to article 3.c of the Regulation of Inscriptions in the Registry National Copyright Act, provides that "no may be subject to registration the photographs that are limited to simple reproductions of people, of things, or of objects already existing or showing a mere documentary character [...] photography to be a work can not constitute only a simple reproduction of already existing objects".[14]
  • Derecho PUCP journal explains examples of highly distinguishable events that surpass the threshold of originality: creative use of lights, unique moment, transmission of a message in their work and the photographer's personality. Below these and other criteria, simple photographs are legislated under Legislative Decree 1044 on unfair competition.[15]

Examples for photographs under 1961 law:

  • Photography within an advertisement not considered "literary work". Image protection expired in 1988. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See UR.
    Photography within an advertisement not considered "literary work". Image protection expired in 1988. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See UR.
  • Photography taken in 1973 for a sports magazine. Because this is a journalistic assignment for an organization, the photograph remained protected for 20 years until its expiration in 1993. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See DR.
    Photography taken in 1973 for a sports magazine. Because this is a journalistic assignment for an organization, the photograph remained protected for 20 years until its expiration in 1993. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See DR.

Examples for photographs under 1996 law:

  • In 2002 the Court considered two images of household appliances as below of threshold of originality due to the lack of creative evidence, despite they are in a catalog with individuality. See Resolution No 354-2002/TPI-INDECOPI.[16]
  • Also, in 2002 the Court ruled that a magazine photograph of Skándalo boy band in ordinary dress and solid-colored background receives related rights-only because it lacks individuality. See Resolution No 378-2002/TPI-INDECOPI, Alomi Producciones S.A.C. v Karinto S.A p.13.[14]
  • In 2007 the Court justified a photograph of gift box for a web catalog as original work because of its shade selection and during the editing process it carried meticulous details, specifically the colored shade artificially created. See Resolution No 1263-2007/TPI-INDECOPI, Enrique Capella v Grupo Americano de Comercio S.A.C. and Citybank del Perú S.A p.4.[17]
  • In 2008 the court determined that press snapshots of sporting, political or weather events lack originality for lack of prior preparation in their production. See Resolution No 2521-2008/TPI-Indecopi, Agencia Efe S.A. v Las Rosas Editorial S.A.C.
  • In 2012 the Court concluded that non-artistic techniques of photographs are not protectable (for example, scanning). See Resolution No 059-2012/TPI-Indecopi and Indecopi (2015), p.75.[18]
  • In 2013 Indecopi deduced that a promotional photograph of a model wearing clothes of a textile company does bear originality due to the framing, focus and composition to highlight her outfit. See Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI, Peruvian Connection Ltd. v SENATI p. 9 and 10.[19]
  • In 2021 the criteria for originality of photographs were simplified to three points: transmittable, framed and lighting that shows their personality. Between pages 77 and 82 of this resolution the court evident that press photographs from Hildebrandt en sus trece magazine do carry originality because they focus on the gestures of the photographed and the depth of the camera. See Resolution No 0096-2021/TPI-INDECOPI, Plutón Editores S.A.C. v DP Comunicaciones S.A.C..
Videographic process[edit]

There is threshold of originality for audiovisual creations but their protection is similar for both works and recordings (publish/create + 70 years). While cinematographic works ("obra audiovisual") are protected in their entirety, the related rights can only be granted to the producer of non-artistic filming ("grabación audiovisual"),[822/1996 Art. 140] which also include performance and broadcasting.[822/1996 Art. 143] Resolution 000111-1999-ODA-INDECOPI establishes differences between the two terms, in particular, and in a similar way to simple photographs, the fixation of the succession of images. But, Resolution 371-2001/TPI-INDECOPI establishes that the main requirement to receive related rights from the producer of non-artistic filming consists of: "present in their creation process a certain degree of creativity, technical or organizational skill sufficient to justify the recognition of a similar right in their favor" (p.e. Pay-per-View events).

Theoretically, a security camera captures in a public place could  lack of their producer (as a public asset is mainly assumed to Peruvian State) to be in the public domain. Security camera footage from Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Ciudadana is provided anonymously to the Peruvian National Police or Public Prosecutor's Office like state cameras in public areas, there is no knowed evidence from the original producer of the material.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 18] Opinión Consultiva 60-2019-JUS/DGTAIPD indicates that footage records are disclosure if these are for public interest and share in open data process (see also Works by the Peruvian Government ),[N° 007-2020-IN Art.22] the places filmed correspond to "places of public domain",[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 7] human monitoring exists but does not interfere with the surveillance camera's technical or creative ability for recording.[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 2] Also it isn't artistic work since its custody cannot be altered from the original,[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 19] as a result, the footage is below the threshold of originality and don't comply with related rights of article 143 of the 1996 law.[20][21] Moral rights prevail of the person involved in this media. For these footage in official works, use {{PD-PE-exempt}}.

Logos, designs and other works[edit]

Simple or ordinary logos and designs are OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In words of Indecopi and Ministry of Justice and quoting Resolutions No. 1349-2001/TPI-INDECOPI (first paragraph) and 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI (second paragraph):

“ According to Article 3 of Decision 351 [of the Andean Decision], in accordance with Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 822, a work is understood to be any original intellectual creation of an artistic, scientific or literary nature, susceptible of being disclosed or reproduced in any form.[...] Whatever already part of the cultural heritage -artistic, scientific or literary- will not be considered [original creation], nor will [original] the form of expression that derives from the nature of things or from mechanical-only application of the provisions of certain legal norms, nor will [original] the form of expression that is reduced to a simple technique or simple instructions that only require manual skill for this execution. ”

—Indecopi, La originalidad como requisito de protección por derechos de autor ("requisito de la originalidad"), Precedentes y normativa del Indecopi en Propiedad Intelectual (2015)[18]

In 18th paragraph in Casación Número: 1686-2011 explains the use of originality with architectural works satisfying utilitarian functions:

“ The originality of the architectural work [...] must be sought essentially in the creative features that are most distinguishable from the purposes of the model, its nature, its geographic and landscape context, and the functional requirements of the costumer, as well as the technical and urban planning standards applicable to the case; and respond rather, in a particular way or as totality, to the individuality or artistic personality of the author. [An] architectural model [...] must be subjected to analysis for the purpose of identifying whether they respond only to elements of functionality or natural characteristics of the species to which they belong or, on the contrary, contain features that correspond to the whim or personality that the author has wanted to attribute to them, beyond their functionality or technical rigor, resulting in giving individuality to the work, in relation to the rest of the constructions of its species. ”
  • Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[18]: "It's not possible to grant a monopoly on this letter in favour of a single holder".
    Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[18]: "It's not possible to grant a monopoly on this letter in favour of a single holder".
  • Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. v Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[18]: "When it is certain that a creation lacks individuality and has been copied verbatim, it does not make it a work".
    Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. v Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)[18]: "When it is certain that a creation lacks individuality and has been copied verbatim, it does not make it a work".
  • Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Although it is not a common typeface and may eventually show some differences with respect to the classic graph, this is not sufficient to consider that the work is protected by copyright".
    Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Although it is not a common typeface and may eventually show some differences with respect to the classic graph, this is not sufficient to consider that the work is protected by copyright".
  • Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "The title of the poster consists of a sentence without creativity and directly informs and announces the content of the event".
    Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "The title of the poster consists of a sentence without creativity and directly informs and announces the content of the event".
  • Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "The borders with Inca motifs and the typeface used to represent the word "CUSCO" do not meet the requirement of originality sufficient to be considered an artistic work".
    Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "The borders with Inca motifs and the typeface used to represent the word "CUSCO" do not meet the requirement of originality sufficient to be considered an artistic work".
  • Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): the court determined that the "squeaky font style" from Chicha posters for this logo is not original due to its common usage.
    Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): the court determined that the "squeaky font style" from Chicha posters for this logo is not original due to its common usage.
  • Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: In the "drawing", they bear the texts and the crown of the Statue of Liberty, which lack individuality.
    Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: In the "drawing", they bear the texts and the crown of the Statue of Liberty, which lack individuality.
  • Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "The fact that [...] the exclamation mark is written in an irregular form and that each letter or sign has a different color, [does not] determine that such characteristics endow the design applied for registration with the features of originality required by the norm to provide it with protection as a work".
    Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "The fact that [...] the exclamation mark is written in an irregular form and that each letter or sign has a different color, [does not] determine that such characteristics endow the design applied for registration with the features of originality required by the norm to provide it with protection as a work".
  • Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "The Court notes that there are no original elements, since they are figures that do not present any particularity, which have been reproduced in the usual manner, without any element having been included".
    Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "The Court notes that there are no original elements, since they are figures that do not present any particularity, which have been reproduced in the usual manner, without any element having been included".
  • Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (see Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
    Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (see Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
  • Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "These are ornamental elements that lack originality, since the same or similar ones are being used by different people and companies to identify".
    Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "These are ornamental elements that lack originality, since the same or similar ones are being used by different people and companies to identify".
  • Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "[...] although musical works comprise melody, harmony and rhythm; exclusive rights to the melody can only be acquired".[22]
    Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "[...] although musical works comprise melody, harmony and rhythm; exclusive rights to the melody can only be acquired".[22]
  • Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
    Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
  • Far from fiction, Duff is an element that individually lacks the protection of a work of art. Subsequently, Fox managed to obtain identification characteristics to be registered as beer trademark (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).[23]
    Far from fiction, Duff is an element that individually lacks the protection of a work of art. Subsequently, Fox managed to obtain identification characteristics to be registered as beer trademark (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).[23]
  • Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: While the angle of the handle to the horizontal line or the depth of the concave part of the teaspoon [is slightly different] from the standard shape [...] the object is not an original work, due to the common form of others teaspoons.[24]
    Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: While the angle of the handle to the horizontal line or the depth of the concave part of the teaspoon [is slightly different] from the standard shape [...] the object is not an original work, due to the common form of others teaspoons.[24]
  • Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: The miniature representation of Machu Picchu in plastic material cannot be granted as an original work, because its registration would prohibit people create other miniature versions of the citadel.[24]
    Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: The miniature representation of Machu Picchu in plastic material cannot be granted as an original work, because its registration would prohibit people create other miniature versions of the citadel.[24]
  • Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "The elaboration of a [portable stage] (similar to this image) may have meant an intellectual effort on the part of its creator, but it does not have enough characteristics to be considered a work of [3D] art, since it consists of a simple arrangement of removable panels in the form of a screen".
    Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "The elaboration of a [portable stage] (similar to this image) may have meant an intellectual effort on the part of its creator, but it does not have enough characteristics to be considered a work of [3D] art, since it consists of a simple arrangement of removable panels in the form of a screen".
  • Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "However, the Court considers that allowing protection to a design composed exclusively of figures or designs in the public domain, such as the Inca chakana, would mean for no other person to be able to use such designs belonging to the common cultural heritage".
    Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "However, the Court considers that allowing protection to a design composed exclusively of figures or designs in the public domain, such as the Inca chakana, would mean for no other person to be able to use such designs belonging to the common cultural heritage".
  • Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI does not consider protection to use of Tumi with common text.
    Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI does not consider protection to use of Tumi with common text.
  • A newsline that is not subject to copyright protection but the image, also not considered a work of authorship, is subject to related protection for 70 years post-creation.
    A newsline that is not subject to copyright protection but the image, also not considered a work of authorship, is subject to related protection for 70 years post-creation.
  • Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"
    Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"

Note: Some creations are above the threshold of originality and  are not valid for upload to Commons:

  • Logo of Tres Olivas: a leaf with three olives with tonalities, use of brightness and sensation of movement. See Resolution No 1774-2012/TPI-INDECOPI, Olivos del Sur S.A.C. vs Antonio Moncayo Cortés.[25]
  • Emblema La Primera. See Resolution No 2361-2016/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • A fictional character in Superman: Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite. See Resolution No 1164-2014/TPI-INDECOPI.
  • A logo with a people with torch to the letter E, above the letter T. Triunfo Empresarial. See Resolution No 0319-2018/TPI-INDECOPI.
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Kitts and Nevis

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint Lucia

Saint Lucia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Suriname

Suriname

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States

United States of America

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

  • Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)
    Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)
  • NFL abandoned its copyright claims on the fleur-de-lis (news report)
    NFL abandoned its copyright claims on the fleur-de-lis (news report)
  • Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
    Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  • DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
    DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  • Nikken USA Inc. (authority)
    Nikken USA Inc. (authority)
  • Bruce Lee core symbol (authority)
    Bruce Lee core symbol (authority)
  • New York Arrows logo (case report)
    New York Arrows logo (case report)
  • Car Credit City logo: Copyright office ruled this logo too simple to be protected, but a slightly more complicated version (shown in the linked letter) was accepted for registration (authority)
    Car Credit City logo: Copyright office ruled this logo too simple to be protected, but a slightly more complicated version (shown in the linked letter) was accepted for registration (authority)
  • Symbols for "Myst" (authority)
    Symbols for "Myst" (authority)
  • Letter S (authority)
    Letter S (authority)
  • (authority)
    (authority)
  • Registration was cancelled (authority)
    Registration was cancelled (authority)
  • Registration refused (authority)
    Registration refused (authority)
  • Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: Photo is eligible for copyright protection, but not the bottle
    Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: Photo is eligible for copyright protection, but not the bottle
  • A plastic version lacked originality (L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)
    A plastic version lacked originality (L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)
  • Koosh balls; "inseparable", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)
    Koosh balls; "inseparable", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)
  • Map of Arkansas: Addition of shading, colors, labels to a free black and white outline map (case report)
    Map of Arkansas: Addition of shading, colors, labels to a free black and white outline map (case report)
  • Avenue of the Saints logo; registration refused despite compilation copyright claim for arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements (authority)
    Avenue of the Saints logo; registration refused despite compilation copyright claim for arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements (authority)
  • Geek Squad logo (authority)
    Geek Squad logo (authority)
  • Subway logo (authority)
    Subway logo (authority)
  • Discover It logo: the Copyright Office found that the elements, including the shading effect, were insufficiently creative to be copyright-eligible (authority)
    Discover It logo: the Copyright Office found that the elements, including the shading effect, were insufficiently creative to be copyright-eligible (authority)
  • Cyberpunk 2077 logo (authority)
    Cyberpunk 2077 logo (authority)
  • Los Angeles FC logo (authority)
    Los Angeles FC logo (authority)
  • Nikon logo (authority)
    Nikon logo (authority)
  • San Francisco Shock logo (authority)
    San Francisco Shock logo (authority)
  • Commvault Systems hexagon logo (authority)
    Commvault Systems hexagon logo (authority)
  • American Made Logo (authority)
    American Made Logo (authority)
  • Jamba Juice logo (authority)
    Jamba Juice logo (authority)

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

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

Paintings

 Not OK for most paintings.

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

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

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

  • The five-note melody that typically accompanies Intel's logo was granted copyright protection because it "combined and blended synthesized, digital sounds" and was "refined and mastered with a special spatial enhancer." [28]
  • Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate is a relatively simple 3D sculpture that was deemed eligible for copyright (VA0001983425)
  • The replica of public domain object Statue of Liberty in New York-New York Hotel and Casino is deemed eligible for copyright, also the United States Postal Service is being sued for copyright infringement for famously (and mistakenly) using this statue instead of the real Statue of Liberty on its Forever stamps. (VAu001149387 and VA0001882070) also see (DR1) (DR2)
Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Uruguay

Uruguay

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Venezuela

Venezuela

No information available

Other areas[edit]

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Anguilla

Anguilla

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Aruba

Aruba

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Bermuda

Bermuda

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO British Virgin Islands

British Virgin Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Curaçao

Curaçao

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Dutch Caribbean

Dutch Caribbean

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO French Guiana

French Guiana

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Greenland

Greenland

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Guadeloupe

Guadeloupe

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Martinique

Martinique

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Montserrat

Montserrat

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint Barthélemy

Saint Barthélemy

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint-Martin (France)

Saint-Martin

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Saint-Pierre and Miquelon

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Sint Maarten

Sint Maarten

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO Turks and Caicos Islands

Turks and Caicos Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:TOO United States Virgin Islands

United States Virgin Islands

No information available

Threshold of originality
Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Others
Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. ↑ Cerlalc (25 July 2007). La obra. Originalidad. Marco conceptual Existencia del derecho (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  2. ↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  3. ↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  4. ↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
  5. ↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
  6. ↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
  7. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
  8. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
  9. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
  10. ↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
  11. ↑ ¿En Colombia los tweets están protegidos por el Derecho de Autor?. Derecho de Autor Colombia (2016). Retrieved on 2021-09-23.
  12. ↑ Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  13. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
  14. ↑ a b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
  15. ↑ Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
  16. ↑ Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
  17. ↑ Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.
  18. ↑ a b c d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
  19. ↑ Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.
  20. ↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.
  21. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
  22. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  23. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
  24. ↑ a b Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.
  25. ↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.
  26. ↑ Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.
  27. ↑ Fishman, Stephen (2014) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.
  28. ↑ [1]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Threshold_of_originality/Americas&oldid=598858878"