Commons:Threshold of originality/Asia
This page gives overviews of Threshold of originality rules in different countries or territories of Asia. It is "transcluded" from individual page sections giving the rules for each territory.
Countries of Asia
COM:TOO Afghanistan
Afghanistan
According to the 2008 Copyright Law, work that may be protected includes: Photography work that has been created using an innovative mode; Innovative work of handicraft or industrial art (carpet designs, rugs, felt carpet and its attachments etc.); Innovative work which has been created based on the public culture (folklore) or national cultural heritage and art.[2008 Article 6(1) items 7-9]
COM:TOO Armenia
Armenia
No information available
COM:TOO Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
No information available
COM:TOO Bahrain
Bahrain
No information available
COM:TOO Bangladesh
Bangladesh
No information available
COM:TOO Bhutan
Bhutan
No information available
COM:TOO Brunei
Brunei
No information available
COM:TOO Cambodia
Cambodia
No information available
COM:TOO 中国 / 中國
China
China has a relatively low threshold of originality standard; basic designs may be copyrightable. One of the most noticeable cases is the logo of a company named Gang Heng (listed below) ruled by China's supreme court as copyrighted (see below).
The following examples are 
OK:
- "Matchstick man" (image) with a black sphere as a head, black lines as torso, limbs and feet is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality (source).
- Five SKECHERS logos (image) are not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality in 2020 (final judgement and related news coverage).
- "BIOU" logo (image), with letter "b" and "o", and a small barcode in the upper right corner, is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality in 2018 (final judgement and related articles [1] [2]). Note that the logo was initially ruled as copyrightable by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and a lower court.
- "KON" logo (see below), with three black bars crossed together, is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court in 2019 (final judgement and news coverage).
- "Chao Qun" logo (see below), is not copyrightable for lacking originality, ruled China's Supreme People's Court in 2012 (original judgment by the Court). The court asserted that the expression does not show the existence of a unique style; there are only subtle differences when compared to the common Seal script and Clerical script, the "Chao Qun" logo does not reach a certain creative height, and does not have originality.
-
A stick figure similar to this image, where the head is represented by a circle and other parts represented by straight lines, is not copyrightable. -
The SKECHERS's S logo is not copyrightable. -
KON logo with three black bars crossed together is not copyrightable. -
Chao Qun logo is not copyrightable.
The following examples are 
Not OK:
- Calligraphy works, such as:
- the work "道" on this photo (archived from original) (see the article by Beijing Youth Daily (archived from original), and the follow-up report (archived from original).
- the character "勁" (archived from the original), with rulings made by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court, and Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality
- calligraphy for "澳門豆撈" (image), ruled by Henan Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court (source).
- are copyrighted (Copyright Law of the PR China: "Article 2 Works of Chinese citizens, legal entities or other organizations, whether published or not, shall enjoy copyright in accordance with this Law." ; "Article 3 'Works' mentioned in this Law shall include [...] in the following forms: (4) works of fine art and architecture" ; Regulations for the Implementation: "Article 4 (8) 'works of fine arts' means [...] such as paintings, works of calligraphy and sculptures;")
- Handwriting: a hand-written manuscript was deemed copyrightable as work of art, according to a decision made by Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in 2017 (sources: [3] [4], Final judgement).
- "LY" company logo (alternative link; archived from the original), although arguably relatively simple, has been ruled copyrightable by Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality.
- Typefaces of characters "笑", "喜", and "城市宝贝" in these two logos are copyrightable, ruled Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in 2012. However the character "巴" in the same logo was decided not copyrightable for lacking originality in the same decision. (source, court decision full text: Final judgement)
- Gang Heng logo: China's Supreme People's Court ruled this logo to be protected by copyright in 2014 (original judgment by the Court; related news coverage).
- Dyneema logo (in this article): China's Supreme People's Court ruled this logo to be protected by copyright in 2017 (original judgment by the Court).
- K2 Sports logo as shown in the image below is eligible for copyright protection, determined during trademark adjudication proceedings in 2010 (source).
-
The logo of K2 Sports is copyrightable in China (but not copyrightable in its country of origin, the US).
COM:TOO Cyprus
Cyprus
No information available
COM:TOO East Timor
East Timor
No information available
COM:TOO Egypt
Egypt
No information available
COM:TOO Georgia
Georgia
No information available
COM:TOO India
India
India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts, called Modicum of Creativity. Older cases may have similar thresholds of originality to the UK Courts called Sweat of the brow but this is no longer applied.
Robbin Singh has written an essay on the subject that may be useful.[1]
COM:TOO Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia's threshold of originality is reportedly low, being based on common law ("Anglo-American model") principles, with "wallpaper, wrappers, packaging designs and technical drawings" being registered by copyright authorities.[2]
COM:TOO Iran
Iran
Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in Iran seems very low.
The following are registrable for copyright protection: "(...) pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, (...) or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner "
COM:TOO Iraq
Iraq
No information available
COM:TOO Israel
Israel
Although Israel historically used a "skill and labour" test similar to that used by the UK, since the 1989 Israeli Supreme Court's ruling in Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA they have tended fairly close to a US-style requirement equating originality with human creativity.[3]
In Israel, the Supreme Court in the Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA decision adopted the Feist ruling with regards to both the interpretation of the originality requirement and the general rejection of the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine and the labour theory as a legitimate interest for establishing a copyright claim.
COM:TOO Japan
Japan
Logos in the gallery below are OK to upload.
Article 2 of Japanese copyright law defines that a work is eligible for copyright when it is a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain.[4]
Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general.
|
(DR) Tokyo High Court's ruling: letters are a means of communication, shared by all. Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do.[5] |
|
(DR) Tokyo High Court's ruling: although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters.[6] |
|
Tokyo District Court's ruling: the Court is negative towards recognizing the symbol as a copyrightable work of fine arts, because it is considered merely relatively simple graphic elements.[7] |
- Furby toy: utilitarian, so not protected by copyright as an artistic work. Not utilitarian in the United States, so photos of the toy can't be uploaded to Commons.[8]
COM:TOO Jordan
Jordan
No information available
COM:TOO Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
No information available
COM:TOO Kuwait
Kuwait
No information available
COM:TOO Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
No information available
COM:TOO Laos
Laos
No information available
COM:TOO Lebanon
Lebanon
No information available
COM:TOO Malaysia
Malaysia
The threshold of originality situation in Malaysia remains 
Unsure. Some previous discussions:
- The File:Hcc.png was deleted probably based on calligraphic Chinese words, and cited that COM:TOO UK may also applied for deletion;
- But the File:Petronas Logo.svg was nominated and decided to keep twice, despite that this may also beyond COM:TOO UK. Note that this logo is used before June 2013, and since that, the Petronas modified their logo to be more modern and fairly complex, the current Petronas logo is located at English Wikipedia for Fair use, though some users oppose that.
COM:TOO Maldives
Maldives
No information available
COM:TOO Mongolia
Mongolia
No information available
COM:TOO မြန်မာပြည်
Template:မြန်မာပြည်
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/မြန်မာပြည်
COM:TOO Nepal
Nepal
No information available
COM:TOO North Korea
North Korea
No information available
COM:TOO Oman
Oman
No information available
COM:TOO Pakistan
Pakistan
No information available
COM:TOO Philippines
Philippines
The concept of threshold of originality probably does not exist in the Philippines. It is possible that the sweat of the brow concept applies. In this concept, "a work can be eligible for copyright protection if there is a substantial amount of labor, effort, or investment involved, even if it lacks a significant level of creativity. This standard places emphasis on the effort put into creating the work rather than the level of originality or creativity." (Reference: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07#Probable low Philippines TOO)
For this reason, some logos that may be simple for the American jurisprudence may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines. Two examples are logos of Photo Sikwate (2022-00957-G) and of Geomax Solutions and Innovations (2022-01698-G), both of which were afforded copyright registration as proven by the 2022 copyright registry of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines.
However, in the midst of controversy surrounding the most popular noontime variety show of the Philippines in mid-2023 (refer to w:en:Eat Bulaga!#Copyright infringement case for the background information), Atty. Maggie Garduque who represents the show's producer (TAPE, Inc.) claims the design of the logo of the show "is a trademark and not subject of copyright."[9]
COM:TOO Qatar
Qatar
No information available
COM:TOO Russia
Russia
- Automatic camera works
use {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}}
OK A photowork or a videowork made by automatic camera (Russian: автоматическая камера, not to be confused with automated camera: автоматизированная камера) is not the subject of copyright, because such work is made by technical tool without creative human activity. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Examples
- Any photowork or videowork made by automatic camera for administrative violation record (for example, by automatic camera for driving offense record[10]). The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
- Simple creative works
Not OK Simple result of creative work (creative human activity) is copyrightable. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Part 80 of Session Resolution No. 10 of April 23, 2019 on Application of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Examples
- Simple black square as geometric shape is uncopyrightable as itself. However Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable because this painting was the result of creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and it is in Public Domain because of copyright term expiry, not because of result simplicity.
- Logos
In doubt There is no clear precedent in Russian courts for the threshold of originality for simple logos.
COM:TOO Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
No information available
COM:TOO Singapore
Singapore
- For logos
Likely not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection is presumably very low.
Because Singapore was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1963, Singapore law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom for more details.
- For buildings
Assume all Singaporean buildings as copyrighted, regardless of design or artistry involved. Copyright Act 2021 (Act 22 of 2021) explicitly considers all buildings as artistic works: a building or a model of a building (whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not).[22/2021 Section 20(1)(a)(ii)] Please use {{FoP-Singapore}} even to plain-looking Singaporean buildings instead of {{PD-structure|SGP}}.
COM:TOO South Korea
South Korea
According to a machine translation of the Copyright Act as amended up to Act No. 14634 of March 21, 2017,
- "Work" refers to a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings.[432/1957–2017 Article 2.2]
The Supreme Court of South Korea declared that it is sufficient to be work if:[11]
- it is not just an imitation,
- it has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts, and
- it can be distinguished from existing ones.
Seoul High Court judged the seagull pattern and the figure of Ebisu of EVISU Japan is not copyrighted because they cannot be recognized for originality.[12] Also, The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that typefaces are not copyrighted. (See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea § Signatures)
However, the Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted.[13]
COM:TOO Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
No information available
COM:TOO Syria
Syria
No information available
COM:TOO Tajikistan
Tajikistan
No information available
COM:TOO Thailand
Thailand
According to LawPlus Ltd. (2019),[14] "a copyright work does not need distinctiveness required for a trademark but it must be a creative expression of an original idea of its author. The required level of originality or creativity is minimal." It can be interpreted that Thailand's threshold of originality for logos is low.
COM:TOO Türkiye
Turkey
Might be OK
The Turkish copyright laws depend on the work bearing the characteristics of its creator while deciding whether the work is original, and considered on a case-by-case basis.[15]
COM:TOO Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
No information available
COM:TOO United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates
No information available
COM:TOO Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
No information available
COM:TOO Vietnam
Vietnam
There is currently no consensus regarding the threshold of originality for Vietnam. However, some Commons precedent is available here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png.
.png){kind=link}
COM:TOO Yemen
Yemen
No information available
Limited recognition
COM:TOO Abkhazia
Abkhazia
No information available
COM:TOO 中華民國
Template:中華民國
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/中華民國
COM:TOO Northern Cyprus
Northern Cyprus
No information available
COM:TOO فلسطين / Palestine
Template:فلسطين / Palestine
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/فلسطين / Palestine
COM:TOO South Ossetia
South Ossetia
No information available
Other territories
COM:TOO Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
No information available
COM:TOO British Indian Ocean Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
No information available
COM:TOO Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection is presumably very low.
Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom for more details.
COM:TOO Macau
Macau
No information available
partly located in Asia
| Some citation text may not have been transcluded |
|---|
|