Commons:Schöpfungshöhe/Europa
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
COM:TOO Albania
Albanien
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Andorra
Andorra
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Armenia
Armenien
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Azerbaijan
Aserbaidschan
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Belarus
Belarus
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Belgium
Belgien
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnien und Herzegowina
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Bulgaria
Bulgarien
Keine Information verfügbar
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] |
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]
COM:TOO Estonia
Estland
Keine Information verfügbar
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.
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) |
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").
France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".
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.
COM:TOO Georgia
Georgien
Keine Information verfügbar
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]
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:
ISPCA official logo | Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISPCA official logo.png |
COM:TOO Iceland
Island
Keine Information verfügbar
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."
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.
COM:TOO Kazakhstan
Kasachstan
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Croatia
Kroatien
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Latvia
Lettland
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Lithuania
Litauen
Keine Information verfügbar
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.
COM:TOO Malta
Malta
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Moldova
Moldau
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Monaco
Monaco
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Montenegro
Montenegro
Keine Information verfügbar
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".
COM:TOO Северна Македонија
Nordmazedonien
Keine Information verfügbar
COM:TOO Norway
Norwegen
- Not protected
Two-minute theatre play.
- Protected
- A specific chair design (Tripp Trapp)
- The logo for the TV series Jul i Blåfjell.
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:
COM:TOO Poland
Polen
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.
- 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.
- Puppets wearing Madeira national costumes (generally tourist souvenirs) following old and common models were considered without copyright.[50]
COM:TOO Romania
Rumänien
COM:TOO Russia
Russland
- 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[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.
COM:TOO San Marino
San Marino
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."
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 too 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) |
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]
COM:TOO Serbia
Serbien
COM:TOO Slovakia
Slowakei
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.
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.
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]
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)]
COM:TOO Türkiye
Türkei
COM:TOO Ukraine
Ukraine
COM:TOO Hungary
Ungarn
OK
- stylized text with a common stylized globe icon (does not show the actual image).
Nicht OK
COM:TOO Vatican City
Vatikanstadt
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:
- en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg (uploaded as free in the US only on en.wikipedia.org): British courts have ruled it eligible for copyright protection,[68] with the judge finding:
[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:
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]
COM:TOO Cyprus
Zypern
Spezifischer Status
COM:TOO Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Akrotiri und Dekelia
COM:TOO Faroe Islands
Färöer
COM:TOO Gibraltar
Gibraltar
COM:TOO Bailiwick of Guernsey
Guernsey
COM:TOO Jersey
Jersey
COM:TOO Isle of Man
Isle of Man
COM:TOO Svalbard
Template:Svalbard
Begrenzte Anerkennung
COM:TOO Abkhazia
Abchasien
COM:TOO Kosovo
Kosovo
COM:TOO South Ossetia
Südossetien
COM:TOO Transnistria
Transnistrien
COM:TOO Northern Cyprus
Türkische Republik Nordzypern
COM:TOO United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus
UN-Pufferzone in Zypern
teilweise in Europa
Some citation text may not have been transcluded
|
---|
|