Commons:Schöpfungshöhe/Europa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality/Europe and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Threshold of originality/Europe and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Other languages:
Schöpfungshöhe
Afrika Amerika Asien Europa Ozeanien Andere

Diese Seite gibt einen Überblick über die Regeln zur Schöpfungshöhe in verschiedenen Ländern oder Territorien Europas. Es wird von einzelnen Seitenabschnitten "eingebunden" und enthält die Regeln für jedes Gebiet.

Staaten in Europa

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Albania

Albanien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Andorra

Andorra

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Armenia

Armenien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Azerbaijan

Aserbaidschan

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Belarus

Belarus

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Belgium

Belgien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnien und Herzegowina

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Bulgaria

Bulgarien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Denmark

Dänemark

Status Beispiel Anmerkungen
OK
Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.
OK
Sketches of windows and doors not eligible for copyright protection (The Maritime and Commercial Court 8 August 2003.)[1][2]
OK
The WWF panda logo is not protected by copyright[3]
 Nicht OK
The GLOBAL knife design is copyright protected in Denmark.[4]
 Nicht OK
A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp).[5]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Germany

Deutschland

Werke der bildenden Künste (einschließlich der Werke der Baukunst und der angewandten Kunst)

„Werke der bildenden Künste“ ist ein Oberbegriff für Werke der bildenden Künste im engeren Sinn, Werke der angewandten Kunst und Werke der Baukunst (§ 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 des Urheberrechtsgesetzes [UrhG]). Bildende Kunst unterscheidet sich von angewandter Kunst durch das Fehlen eines Gebrauchszwecks.[6] Über viele Jahrzehnte hinweg stellten Gerichte im Bereich der angewandten Kunst höhere Anforderungen an die Gestaltungshöhe als im Bereich der bildenden Kunst („Stufentheorie“).[7] Im Jahr 2013 gab der Bundesgerichtshof diese Rechtsprechung ausdrücklich auf und stellte fest: „An den Urheberrechtsschutz von Werken der angewandten Kunst sind grundsätzlich keine anderen Anforderungen zu stellen als an den Urheberrechtsschutz von Werken der zweckfreien bildenden Kunst oder des literarischen und musikalischen Schaffens. Es genügt daher, dass sie eine Gestaltungshöhe erreichen, die es nach Auffassung der für Kunst empfänglichen und mit Kunstanschauungen einigermaßen vertrauten Kreise rechtfertigt, von einer 'künstlerischen' Leistung zu sprechen.“[8]

Bei der Beurteilung, ob ein Erzeugnis mit einem Gebrauchszweck Urheberrechtsschutz genießt, muss allerdings berücksichtigt werden, dass die ästhetische Wirkung der Gestaltung einen Urheberrechtsschutz nur begründen kann, soweit sie nicht dem Gebrauchszweck geschuldet ist, sondern auf einer künstlerischen Leistung beruht.[9] Nur solche Merkmale eines Gebrauchsgegenstands können Urheberrechtsschutz begründen, die nicht allein technisch bedingt, sondern auch künstlerisch gestaltet sind.[10] Ein Merkmal ist „technisch bedingt“, wenn der Gegenstand ohne es nicht funktionieren könnte.[11] Dazu gehören sowohl Merkmale, die bei gleichartigen Erzeugnissen aus technischen Gründen zwingend verwendet werden müssen, als auch Merkmale, die zwar aus technischen Gründen verwendet werden, aber frei wählbar oder austauschbar sind. Soweit die Gestaltung solcher Merkmale allein auf technischen Erfordernissen beruht, können sie einem Gebrauchsgegenstand keinen Urheberrechtsschutz verleihen.[12]

Beispiele aus der Rechtsprechung zum Bereich der angewandten Kunst:[13]

Schutz verneint:

  • ein aus Seilen bestehendes Kletternetz für Kinderspielplätze (Abbildung hier, S. 3 unten), weil das Gerät allein aus zwar frei wählbaren oder austauschbaren, aber technisch bedingten Merkmalen besteht und keine künstlerische Leistung erkennen lässt;[14]
  • einen Spielzeugzug aus Holz („Geburtstagszug“), bestehend aus Waggons, auf die sich Kerzen und Zahlen aufstecken lassen (Abbildung hier, S. 3), weil die Gestaltung an ein bereits vorhandenes Vorbild anknüpfen konnte, das nur in eher geringfügiger Weise abgeändert wurde.[15]
  • ein Logo (Abbildung hier in schwarz-weiß) bestehend aus dem Text „Match by Audiotec Fischer“ und dem bekannten „Vorspulen“-Symbol, weil weder die grafische Gestaltung des Schriftzugs noch diejenige des Symbols („im Audiobereich häufig verwendet[]“) noch der Gesamteindruck des Logos eine künstlerische Leistung darstellen.[16]

Schutz bejaht:

  • ein Logo, das aus einem Mund, Augen und Wellenlinien besteht („Augenbrauen“) (Abbildung in der Entscheidung, Seite 3) (im vorliegenden Fall war das Muster auf die Außenseite eines Schiffes gemalt und konnte daher im Rahmen der Panoramafreiheit vervielfältigt werden);[17]
  • eine Spielzeugeisenbahn, die aus hölzernen Tierfiguren auf Rädern besteht („Geburtstagszug/Geburtstagskarawane“) (Abbildung in der Entscheidung, S. 3), weil es sich bei ihr um eine gänzliche Neugestaltung eines vorbestehenden Spielzeugzugs handelte, dessen Lokomotive und Waggons durch Tiere ersetzt wurden, und deren Form­- und Farbwahl nicht technischen Zwängen geschuldet waren, sondern auf künstlerischen Entscheidungen beruhen;[18]
  • eine Urne mit der Darstellung eines Rehs im Airbrush-Verfahren (Abbildung in der Entscheidung, links);[19]
  • eine Birkenstock-Sandale (Model „Madrid“);[20]
  • ein Porsche 356 (abgebildet in der Entscheidungsbegründung, 3. und 4. Bild von oben);[21]
  • ein Terrassenheizer mit dreieckigem Sockel (Abbildung in der Entscheidung, erstes Bild).[22]

In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten betrafen gerichtliche Entscheidungen, in denen ein Urheberrechtsschutz als angewandte Kunst bejaht wurde, hauptsächlich anerkannte Designer-Gegenstände, insbesondere Möbelstücke und Lampen.[23] Einige Beispiele aus jüngerer Zeit:

  • Stühle und Tische nach Entwürfen der Designer Marcel Breuer (Stuhl „Wassily“, Tisch „Laccio“) und Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Stuhl, Hocker, Couch und Tisch „Barcelona“; Stuhl „Brno“; Stuhl „Prag“);[24]
  • die „Wilhelm Wagenfeld Tischleuchte“;[25]
  • ein Brillant-Ring („Niessing-Spannring“).[26]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Estonia

Estland

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Finland

Finnland

For works of visual art, the threshold of originality is relatively low.[27] Simple logos, however, are generally below the threshold of originality.[28] In particular, the threshold is high when only basic colors and shapes (such as triangles, squares and circles or capital letters) are used.

[29][27]

OK
Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)
OK
Differences compared to the coat of arms of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality. (TN 1998:5)
 Nicht OK Commons:Deletion_requests/Aalto_vases "The wave-like forms of the [original Aalto vases] do not... result from the intended use of the object but the creative mental effort of the author. [Therefore the original vases] are independent and original enough to be considered works of art as meant in 1 § of [the Finnish Copyright law]" (p. 4). (TN 2010:10)
OK A specific house type (Eurohouse S 2, court ruling)
OK
The logo is below the threshold of originality because it is "ordinary and [does] not express an independent and original result of a creative process of its author. Somebody else in undertaking a comparable task could have contrived a similar ... logo". (TN 2000:1)
 Nicht OK Save the Children Fund logo The logo is above the threshold of originality, because its "visual manifestation is the creative work of its author, whereby the ideological basis of the fund has been successfully conformed with in an independent and original manner... [N]o one else undertaking a comparable task could have reached a similar outcome". (TN 2010:3)
OK

and

The logos are "in their literary and visual manifestation simple and ordinary to the degree that they are not to be regarded as original works in their own regard." (TN 2009:2)
OK
The logo is "is not original and independent in such a way that it would be protected ... by copyright". (TN 2011:7)
OK
The logo is below the threshold of originality because "its central elements and the way in which they have been combined are commonly used in logos and are thus ordinary". (TN 2000:1)
 Nicht OK "Silmu" logo Although the logo consists of a "stylized, albeit fairly simple, red tulip", it is above the threshold of originality for works of visual art. (TN 2001:12)


Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO France

Frankreich

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

[30]

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

[31]

A decision from Supreme court (Cour de Cassation) on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality.[32] According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court does not control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

In 2017, copyright protection on this image of Jimi Hendrix was restored after a court initially denied protection.

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Georgia

Georgien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Greece

Griechenland

The term “work” is defined as including any original intellectual creation expressed in any form, including alterations of other works as well as collections of works, provided that the selection or the arrangement of such collections is original.[33]

Originality is understood by Greek jurisprudence as a notion of “statistical uniqueness”, which means that the work involves skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work.[34]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Ireland

Irland

 Unknown

Despite uncertainty on the required level of originality needed to qualify for copyright protection, images that have been retained on Commons include:

! Image !! Description !! Discussion
ISPCA official logo Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Iceland

Island

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Italy

Italien

Hogan Lovells states "In summary, the threshold for an industrial design product to enjoy copyright protection is still quite high and even famous industrial design products have been denied such protection by Italian Courts."

[35]

Probably this applies to logos too. These files have been kept as simple logos:

But the logo of AC Parma was deleted as being a complex logo.

[36] Another Parma logo has been deleted but then restored.

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Kazakhstan

Kasachstan

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Croatia

Kroatien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Latvia

Lettland

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Lithuania

Litauen

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Luxembourg

Luxemburg

According to Jean-Luc Putz, the threshold of originality in Luxembourg is not as strict as in UK but not as liberal as in Germany. During the legislation the intent was to orientate with other Benelux states or France.

[37]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Malta

Malta

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Moldova

Moldau

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Monaco

Monaco

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Montenegro

Montenegro

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Netherlands

Niederlande

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. Whether something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgment "'Van Dale/Romme'". In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that:[38]

  • In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker.

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgment ''Endstra-tapes':[39]

  • The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product has to bear the personal mark of the maker means that there has to be a shape that is the result of creative human labor and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgment on Stokke v. Fikszo that:[40]

  • For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Северна Македонија

Nordmazedonien

Keine Information verfügbar

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Norway

Norwegen

Not protected

Two-minute theatre play.

[41]

Protected

[42]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Austria

Österreich

Austria has a low threshold of originality despite being a civil law country. See the archived discussion on the German Wikipedia.

Diese Logos sind  Nicht OK:

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Poland

Polen

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Portugal

Portugal

w:File:Juventude Socialista Portugal.png was deleted as it was considered to be above the threshold of originality.

Photographs

In Portugal photographs have been consistently specifically required to have a significant degree of creativity in order to be copyrighted. Article §164 of the current 2017 copyright law states that "the choice of a photograph's subject and the conditions of its creation must be deemed to be a personal artistic creation by the author before a photograph may qualify for protection".

Court cases
  • Landscape photograph: Ruled as without originality. In 2009 the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa ruled as void of copyright for lack of artistic creativity a landscape photograph the author was claiming copyright on due to his choice of the setting, light and other conditions. It was considered by the court "a vulgar photograph resultant from the mere choice of an object, such as a city council building and part of a group of trees, without a minimum of creativity".[47] The subject is discussed in a 2017 article published by the Instituto Portugues de Fotografia.
[48]
  • Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition: Ruled as without originality.[47]
  • Clothing/Fashion: Ruled as without originality.
[49]
  • Puppets wearing Madeira national costumes (generally tourist souvenirs) following old and common models were considered without copyright.[50]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Romania

Rumänien

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Russia

Russland

Automatic camera works

Public domain 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[51]). 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

 Nicht 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.

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO San Marino

San Marino

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Sweden

Schweden

"A simple general rule is that if it is unlikely that two persons would create, for example, a text identically or similarly, the text is probably sufficiently original to qualify as a protected work. (..) Often, the requirements for copyright protection are considered to be relatively low."

[52] From the court cases below it can be concluded that the threshold of originality in Sweden is significantly higher then the ditto in the United Kingdom even though it might be considered low compared to the one in the United States.
Status Example Notes
OK
The text itself can't be considered to fulfill the general threshold of originality considered for copyright protection. This same interpretation is made whether one sees it as Roman numerals or Latin letters. The logo itself does have some figurative design. The font must however, despite some inconsistancies along the edges, be considered as ordinary and the black rectangle in the background does not contribute to any distinctive character. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende nr 2017/00120/01, Registrering nr 540495
OK
The logo consists of an a and a 6. The round part of each character is not closed, however the characters are, besides that, made in a fairly ordinary font without any distinctive character. Between the characters is a simple, sun-feather resembelling, figure with a pointy tip which goes down between the characters. Above this figure there are four points, two to the left and two to the right. The logo is way to simple to be granted such copyright protection which can constitute an impediment for others' trademark registration. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende nr 2005/0006/0001, Registrering nr 369154.

This ruling was appealed to Patentbesvärsrätten (Patent court of appeals) which settled the original ruling (Mål nr 06-304, vm.reg. 369.154), albeit with one member of the court with a dissenting opinion. Unfortunately, they did not elaborate as to why they settled the original ruling.

OK
Technical drawing. According to decision by the Swedish Supreme Court.NJA 2004 s. 149
 Nicht OK https://shop.textalk.se/shop/4541/files/entombed/ENT_logo_web.png The logo has been created using a Gothic font in a way which is frequently used among bands in the genre in question [death metal]. The logotype can thus not be considered to fulfill the demands of originality and distinctive character needed for copyright protection. - Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) Invändningsärende 2013/0133/0001, Registrering nr 514059.

According to the court, after a comprehensive assessment, the wordmark shows such level of indivudual, distinctive character that it must be considered to possess copyright protection. The court especially values the font of choice, the individual design of the first and last letter and the fact that the first and last letter has been written in caps. - Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court) PMÄ 10796-16

This ruling was appealed to Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Patent and Market Court of Appeals) which settled the previous ruling (Mål nr PMÖÄ 5441-17). Unfortunately, they did not elaborate as to why they settled the previous ruling.

 Nicht OK A black-and-white version of fr:File:Dunderklumpen Logo.png Ruled above the TOO by Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) (Varumärkesansökan nr 2014/00870), another part of the same ruling was appealed to the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court) which settled the original ruling (Mål nr PMÄ 10748-16). Neither instance elaborated further as why the logo was ruled above the TOO but one can speculate that it was because it was a very obvious case.
 Nicht OK Michelin man lamp Ruled above the TOO by Patent- och registreringsverket (Swedish Intellectual Property Office) (Varumärkesansökan nr 2015/03538). The office did not elaborate further as why the logo was ruled above the TOO but one can speculate that it was because it was a very obvious case.
 Nicht OK
Mini Maglite torch (Mål: T 1421-07, Högsta domstolen)
 Nicht OK Porcelain [1] "Sundborn", made by Rörstrand
 Nicht OK Photo illustrating a newspaper article RH 2009:18 (removed from the website in 2004 because of copyright infringement, protected as a photographic work for 70 years after author's death)
 Nicht OK Knitted tunic (NJA 1995 s. 164)
 Nicht OK Technical drawings (NJA 1998 s. 563)

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Switzerland

Schweiz

Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose".[53] Such works are protected by copyright: "Up to 70 years after the death of the author (50 years for computer programs); 50 years from the taking of a photograph without individual character; 70 years from the performance/publication of a phonogram or audio-visual fixation; 50 years from the transmission of a broadcast."[54] This section discusses some types of subject matter.

Photographs: Photographs may be protected as works on the basis of their individual character (individual photographs). Some photographs that lack individual character may also enjoy protection (non-individual photographs).

  • Individual photographs: The individual character may manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as the choice of the depicted object, the decision on when the picture is taken, or the editing work done after the picture has been taken.[55] In a 2003 decision, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland held that a photo of Bob Marley taken at a concert by a spectator with a handheld camera was eligible for protection as a photographic work because it had the required individual character by virtue of the aesthetic appeal of the picture, combined with the orientation of the picture's components and the distribution of light and shadow. It also found that the photograph was a "creation of the mind" by being shot at a specific time during the singer's movement on the stage.[56] By contrast, in the 2004 case Blau Guggenheim v. British Broadcasting Corporation, the Court found that a photo (en:File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg), shot by a reporter to document Christoph Meili with the files he had taken from his employer, lacked individual character. It found that the scope of conceptual and technical possibilities was not exploited, and that the photograph did not distinguish itself in any way from what was common use.[57] The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.[58]
  • Non-individual photographs: Effective 1 April 2020, Swiss law also protects certain non-individual photographs. Article 2(3bis) URG provides that "photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography are considered works, even if they do not have individual character". While no individuality is required, according to the official motives accompanying the (eventually adopted) revision draft, these photographs are still required to be "based on human actions", and thus "automatically created photographs such as radar pictures, pictures from surveillance cameras or camera traps" are ineligible for protection.[59] It should be noted that the new right also applies to photographs created before 1 April 2020 that had previously not been protected for failing the individuality test; however, if a particular use of a non-individual photograph was "begun prior to the commencement" of the new law, it "may be completed".[60] According to the official motives, this has the effect that "if non-individual photographs are used on a web page, the web page may be maintained after the entry into force of the protection of non-individual photographs. If, on the other hand, such photographs are included into an existing or a new web page after the entry into force of this protection, permission is required from the owner of the rights in the non-individual photographs."[61] The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.[62]
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Serbia

Serbien

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Slovakia

Slowakei

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Slovenia

Slowenien

The threshold of originality in Slovenia depends on the field of creativity. If the maneuvering space of the possible creativity is narrower, it requires more creativity for a work to be copyrighted.

[63]

In this regard, the following court cases are relevant:

Applied arts:

  • VSL0069492 - the design of a couch set has been found to be below the threshold.
  • VS0011606 – the design of a sales stand has been found to be above the threshold.

Architecture:

  • VSL00432 – only the works that constitute an original artwork are copyrighted; the renovation plan of Ljubljana Castle as well as the newly built and (at least some of) the renovated parts of the castle count as such.

Logo:

  • VSL00013281 – the logo with inscription "I Feel Slovenia" [2] was found to constitute a copyrighted work.
The court opined: "The slogan and the logo, which contains both verbal and graphic elements, do not allow them to be separated. Only the synergy of the verbal and graphic elements allows the observer to identify the overall message of the author's work."

Titles:

  • VS07924 – the title "Brez zavor" (meaning "Without inhibitions") has been found to be below the threshold.

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Spain

Spanien

STS 4443/2004 notes that a work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection.[64]

STS 1644/2017 concerns architecture and states "The terms in which an architectural project is drawn up largely respond to the technical or functional requirements and compliance with urban regulations. When this is the case, the project or the architectural buildings are not protected by copyright in the part imposed by those technical, functional or normative requirements"; and more generally, "the factor of recognizability or differentiation of the work with respect to the pre-existing ones [is] essential to grant an exclusive right with moral and patrimonial aspects".[65]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Czech Republic

Tschechien

The work must be "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author".[121/2000–2006 Art.2(1)] For photographs and computer programs, it suffices if the work "is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation".[121/2000–2006 Art.2(2)]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Türkiye

Türkei

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Ukraine

Ukraine

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Hungary

Ungarn

OK

  • stylized text with a common stylized globe icon (does not show the actual image).
[66]

 Nicht OK

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Vatican City

Vatikanstadt

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO United Kingdom

Vereinigtes Königreich

OK for Lego bricks (see w:Interlego v Tyco Industries).

 Nicht OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low.

In determining whether a work is protected, typographical copyright, publication rights and database rights need to be considered.

These images are eligible for copyright protection:

[The defendants] submitted that the claimant can have no copyright in its EDGE logo because it is not original over the Franklin Gothic typeface. I do not accept this submission. The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work: see Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 16th Ed at 3-130 and Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 287. The claimant's logo is original within this test.

— Mrs Justice Proudman, in: Future Publishing Ltd v The Edge Interactive Media Inc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1489 (Ch) at [10][69]

Digitale Kopien von Bildern

In 2014 (updated 2015) the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued an advice notice, which said, in part:

[70]

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts.

This was restated in a November 2023 Appeal Court judgement (THJ v Sheridan, 2023) which confirmed that no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork, and that this has been the case since 2009. According to the judgement, the previously used "skill and labour" test had been replaced by the "author’s own intellectual creation" test.[71][72]

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Cyprus

Zypern

Keine Information verfügbar

Spezifischer Status

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Akrotiri und Dekelia

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Faroe Islands

Färöer

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Gibraltar

Gibraltar

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Bailiwick of Guernsey

Bailiwick of Guernsey

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Jersey

Jersey

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Isle of Man

Isle of Man

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Svalbard

Template:Svalbard

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Svalbard

Begrenzte Anerkennung

Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Abkhazia

Abchasien

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Kosovo

Kosovo

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO South Ossetia

Südossetien

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Transnistria

Transnistrien

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO Northern Cyprus

Türkische Republik Nordzypern

Keine Information verfügbar
Text eingebunden aus
COM:TOO United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus

UN-Pufferzone in Zypern

Keine Information verfügbar

teilweise in Europa

Some citation text may not have been transcluded
  1. ↑ V-74-01 Jydsk Vindueskompagni mod Bering Byg (pdf). Retrieved on 17 April 2020.
  2. ↑ 3 February 2004 (V 98/01))
  3. ↑ Sø- og Handelsretten (The Maritime and Commercial Court) in March 1998, U 1998:946 S and NIR 69:3, p. 413-418 [2000]
  4. ↑ Violation of the copyright of the Global Knife Series. Supreme Court (19-09-2011). Archived from the original on October 9, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-03-24. "Det var for Højesteret ubestridt, at Global-knivene er ophavsretligt beskyttet i medfør af ophavsretslovens § 1. Højesteret udtalte, at Global-knivene som brugskunst er beskyttet mod meget nærgående efterligninger. Højesteret fandt, at Royal-knivenes design ikke indebar en tilstrækkelig frigørelse fra det særegne ved Global-knivenes udformning, men måtte anses som en meget nærgående efterligning. (It was undisputed to the Supreme Court that the Global blades are protected by copyright under section 1 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court stated that the Global blades as a utility art are protected from very close imitations. The Supreme Court found that the design of the Royal blades did not sufficiently differ from the distinctive nature of the design of the Global blades, and had to be regarded as a very close imitation."
  5. ↑ Infringement of the Copyright Act Case 306/2009. Supreme Court (28-06-2011). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  6. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 12. Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10 – Seilzirkus = GRUR 2012, 58 Rn. 17.
  7. ↑ Siehe insbesondere BGH, Urt. v. 27. November 1956, I ZR 57/55 = BGHZ 22, 209, 215 ff. – Morgenpost; Urt. v. 22. Juni 1995, I ZR 119/93 = GRUR 1995, 581, 582 – Silberdistel. Dazu näher Ohly, „Where is the Birthday Train Heading? The Copyright-Design Interface in German Law“, in: Karnell et al. (Hrsg.), Liber Amicorum Jan Rosén, eddy.se ab, 2016, S. 593 ff.
  8. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 13. November 2013, I ZR 143/12 = BGHZ 199, 52 Rn. 26 – Geburtstagszug.
  9. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 13. November 2013, I ZR 143/12 = BGHZ 199, 52 Rn. 41 – Geburtstagszug.
  10. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 12. Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10 = GRUR 2012, 58 Rn. 19 – Seilzirkus.
  11. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 12. Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10 = GRUR 2012, 58 Rn. 20 – Seilzirkus.
  12. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 12. Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10 = GRUR 2012, 58 Rn. 20 – Seilzirkus.
  13. ↑ Nur mindestens obergerichtliche Entscheidungen. Entscheidungen, mit denen der Urheberrechtsschutz auf Grundlage der inzwischen aufgegebenen "Stufentheorie" verneint wurde, bleiben unberücksichtigt.
  14. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 12. Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10 = GRUR 2012, 58 Rn. 30 – Seilzirkus.
  15. ↑ OLG Schleswig, Urt. v. 11. September 2014, 6 U 74/10 = GRUR-RR 2015, 1 Rn. 17–23 – Geburtstagszug II.
  16. ↑ OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2019, 11 U 51/18 = ZUM 2019, 787, 788 f.
  17. ↑ BGH, Urt. v. 27. April 2017, I ZR 247/15 = GRUR 2017, 798 Rn. 11 – AIDA Kussmund.
  18. ↑ OLG Schleswig, Urt. v. 11. September 2014, 6 U 74/10 = GRUR-RR 2015, 1 Rn. 29–31 – Geburtstagszug II. Nicht beanstandet in der Revisionsentscheidung: BGH, Urt. v. 16. Juni 2016, I ZR 122/14 = GRUR 2016, 1291 – Geburtstagskarawane.
  19. ↑ OLG Köln, Urt. v. 20. Februar 2015, 6 U 131/14 = GRUR-RR 2015, 275 Rn. 14–16 – Airbrush-Urnen.
  20. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 October 2021, case 5 W 40/21 Grand Step Shoes, (2022) 124 GRUR 565 [22]–[26].
  21. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 7 April 2022, case I ZR 222/20 Porsche 911, (2022) 124 GRUR 899 [26]–[32].
  22. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2023, case 5 U 84/21, (2023) 27 ZUM-RD 481.
  23. ↑ Zentek, Acht Jahrzehnte verkanntes Design im deutschen Urheberrecht: Die Geschichte des Schutzes von Gebrauchsgestaltungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nationalsozialismus, Diss., Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 2015, S. 276. Siehe auch Mezger, Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht, V&R unipress, 2017, S. 60 f. (Rechtsprechung gerade zu Designermöbeln „kaum zu überblicken“).
  24. ↑ OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 27. April 2011, 5 U 26/09; insoweit nicht beanstandet in BGH, Urt. v. 5. November 2015, I ZR 91/11 = NJW 2016, 2335 Rn. 26–28 – Marcel-Breuer­-Möbel II.
  25. ↑ OLG Hamburg, Urteil vom 30. März 2011, 5 U 207/08; insoweit nicht beanstandet in BGH, Urteil vom 5. November 2015, I ZR 76/11 = NJW 2016, 2338 Rn. 20–22 – Wagenfeld-Leuchte II.
  26. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 30. Mai 2000, 20 U 4/99 = GRUR-RR 2001, 294, 296 – Spannring.
  27. ↑ a b TN 2011:7
  28. ↑ TN 2014:13
  29. ↑ TN 2001:12
  30. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Paradis
  31. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Pavis
  32. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  33. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EAO
  34. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greeklawdigest
  35. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lovells
  36. ↑ Logo on external site DR
  37. ↑ Jean-Luc PUTZ. das luxemburgische Urheberrecht: eine Einführung (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  38. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Van-Dale/Romme
  39. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Endstra-tapes
  40. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Stokke-Fikszo
  41. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Høyesteretts2007
  42. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JuliBlåfjelllogo
  43. ↑ Bauer logo.
  44. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  45. ↑ Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  46. ↑ Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  47. ↑ a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL0TJLSB-8
  48. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPF2017
  49. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named TRL2YHLSBL1-7
  50. ↑ 167/17.9YHLSB.L2.S2, 2020 (with photos of the puppets).
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FineCamera
  52. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PRVprotected
  53. ↑ Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, art 2(1). SR 231.1 Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. Government of Switzerland. Retrieved on 12 September 2020.
  54. ↑ Envisioned. Created. Protected. – A Concise Guide to Trade Marks, Patents & Co.. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (April 2020). Retrieved on 22 August 2021.
  55. ↑ Cf BGE 130 III 168, 173 – Bob Marley.
  56. ↑ X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 5, 2003; BGE 130 III 168.
  57. ↑ Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of April 19, 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  58. ↑ Art 29(2) lit b URG.
  59. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620. See also W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 35.
  60. ↑ Art 80(2) URG. W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020) art 2 para 38; P Mosimann and Y Hostettler, "Zur Revision des Urheberrechtsgesetzes" (2018) 36 recht 123, 126; Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 620 («In Verbindung mit Artikel 80 Absatz 1 URG führt die Erweiterung des Schutzumfangs auf Fotografien ohne individuellen Charakter dazu, dass der Urheberrechtsschutz solche Fotografien auch dann erfassen wird, wenn sie vor seinem Inkrafttreten dieser Teilrevision geschaffen wurden.»).
  61. ↑ Bundesrat, "Botschaft zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie zur Genehmigung zweier Abkommen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum und zu deren Umsetzung", BBl 2018 591, 621.
  62. ↑ Art 29(2) lit abis, 29(4) URG.
  63. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VSL0069492
  64. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/d42c9049784c7c02/20040821 p. 4
  65. ↑ https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/a95395d6789f5037/20170509 p. 9
  66. ↑ Logó szerzői jogi védelme Ügyszám: SZJSZT – 17/12 (in Hungarian). Copyright Expert Panel (20 February 2013). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  67. ↑ SZJSZT 1/2005
  68. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Borghi
  69. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Future-Edge
  70. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named IPO-2014/1
  71. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named THJvSheridan
  72. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Grosvenor-2023
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Threshold_of_originality/Europe/de&oldid=618690708"