Commons:Obres derivades

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Derivative works and the translation is 42% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Derivative works and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Other languages:

Shortcuts: COM:DW • COM:DERIV

This page is considered an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons. It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Fent-ne 5 cèntims:
  • Llevat que tingueu l'autorització del titular dels drets d'autor o en situacions en què això no s'apliqui tal com es descriu a continuació, no pengeu a Commons obres derivades d'altres obres no lliures, si ho feu s'eliminaran.
Normes de drets d'autor
Arbre de decisions per a obres derivades a Wikimedia Commons. Nota: simplificació incompleta; existeixen excepcions.
Arbre de decisions per a obres derivades a Wikimedia Commons. Nota: simplificació incompleta; existeixen excepcions.

Moltes obres creatives són obres derivades d'una altra cosa, amb dret a drets d'autor. Una obra derivada és aquella que no només es basa en una obra anterior, sinó que també conté prou contingut creatiu i nou per donar-li dret als seus propis drets d'autor. No obstant això, si l'obra subjacent encara està protegida per drets d'autor, el titular original dels drets d'autor també ha de llicenciar l'obra subjacent per a la seva reutilització. En altres paraules, una obra derivada no és només una obra "basada en" una altra obra, una obra derivada es considera una obra nova a causa d'una certa quantitat significativa de creativitat addicional que va entrar en la seva producció: tots els treballs posteriors basats en una altra, els treballs anteriors però que no tenen contingut creatiu substancial es consideren simplement còpies d'aquesta obra i no tenen dret a cap nova protecció dels drets d'autor i no s'han d'anomenar "obres derivades", ja que tenen un significat molt específic en la legislació sobre drets d'autor.

En qualsevol dels dos casos, tret que l'obra subjacent sigui de domini públic o hi hagi evidències que l'obra subjacent hagi estat llicenciada lliurement per a la seva reutilització (per exemple, sota una llicència de Creative Commons adequada), el creador original de l'obra ha d'autoritzar explícitament la còpia/treball derivat abans de poder penjar-la a Commons.

En resum: no es pot vectoritzar o escanejar un dibuix creatiu protegit per drets d'autor d'una altra persona per tal de penjar-lo a Commons amb una nova llicència gratuïta perquè una vectorització és una còpia sense contingut creatiu nou; de la mateixa manera, no podeu fer una versió de pel·lícula d'un llibre que acabeu de llegir sense el permís de l'autor, fins i tot si heu afegit material creatiu i substancial a la trama, perquè la pel·lícula requereix el permís de l'autor del llibre original, però, si es va obtenir aquest permís, probablement la pel·lícula es consideraria una obra derivada amb dret a la seva pròpia protecció de drets d'autor. "Derivat", en aquest sentit, no significa simplement "derivat de", sinó "derivat i inclòs contingut creatiu nou que té dret a un nou dret d'autor".

Què és una obra derivada?

Aquesta fotografia de la Venus de Milo és una obra derivada (l'estàtua de Venus de Milo es considera l'obra subjacent): se sap que l'artista va morir fa més de 100 anys, de manera que l'estàtua està en domini públic - no hi ha aquí problemes de dret d'autor sempre que l'autor de la fotografia (que és l'obra derivada) alliberi els drets d'autor sota una llicència adequada.

Les obres derivades, segons la Llei de drets d'autor dels Estats Units de 1976, secció 101, es defineixen de la següent manera:[1]

"Una obra derivada és una obra basada en una o més obres preexistents, com ara una traducció, arranjament musical, dramatització, ficcionalització, versió cinematogràfica, enregistrament de so, reproducció d'art, resum, condensació o qualsevol altra forma en què una obra es pot reformar, transformar o adaptar. Una obra que consisteix en revisions editorials, anotacions, elaboracions o altres modificacions, que, en el seu conjunt, representen una obra d'autoria original, és una obra derivada".

En resum, totes les transferències d'una obra creativa i protegida per drets d'autor a un nou mitjà (per exemple, d'un llibre a una pel·lícula), així com totes les altres modificacions d'una obra el resultat de la qual és una nova obra original i creativa (per exemple, de l'obra shakespeariana a interpretació d'una obra de Shakespeare amb redacció o personatges nous) es consideren obres derivades que tenen dret a nous drets d'autor. Qui té permís per crear aquestes obres? Segons la Llei de drets d'autor dels Estats Units de 1976, secció 106:

  • "El propietari dels drets d'autor sota aquest títol té els drets exclusius de fer i autoritzar qualsevol de les accions següents: (...) (2) per preparar obres derivades basades en l'obra amb drets d'autor".

A diferència d'una còpia exacta o una variació menor d'una obra (per exemple, el mateix llibre amb un títol diferent), que es consideraria una mera còpia i no donaria lloc a un nou dret d'autor, una obra derivada crea un nou dret d'autor sobre tots els aspectes originals del nova versió. Així, per exemple, el creador de The Annotated Hobbit té dret d'autor sobre totes les notes i comentaris que va escriure, però no sobre el text original de The Hobbit, que també s'inclou al llibre, el dret d'autor del qual és propietat la Tolkien Estate. Els drets d'autor originals de la propietat encara es conserven i, a continuació, les anotacions també adquireixen un dret d'autor nou i independent. De la mateixa manera, la corporació que té els drets d'autor de Darth Vader (és a dir, Walt Disney) té el dret exclusiu de crear o autoritzar qualsevol obra derivada d'aquest personatge, incloses fotografies o dibuixos d'ell que el representin de manera nova i creativa, ja que (com les decisions judicials ho diuen) que és un aspecte del treball dels titulars dels drets d'autor que potser voldrien explotar comercialment. De la mateixa manera, qualsevol persona pot fer una pel·lícula basada en La Bíblia i pot fer la seva pròpia pel·lícula anomenada "Els deu manaments" basada en el capítol bíblic Èxode, però no pot fer una nova versió de la pel·lícula del 1956, "Els deu manaments", fins i tot amb noves aportacions creatives substancials, sense obtenir el permís de Paramount Pictures (el titular dels drets d'autor).

Si faig una foto d'un objecte amb la meva pròpia càmera, tinc els drets d'autor de la imatge. No puc llicenciar-lo d'alguna manera que pugui escollir? Per què m'he de preocupar d'altres titulars de drets d'autor?

By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a T-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

It does not matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Llibertat de panorama).

Locations such as theme parks usually allow photography and sometimes even encourage it even though items of copyrighted artwork will almost certainly be included in visitors' photos. Such policies, however, do not automatically mean that such photos can be distributed under a public domain dedication or a free content license; the intent of a venue allowing photography may be to facilitate photography for personal usage and/or non-commercial sharing on social networking sites, for example. (See this discussion.) Also, the legal concept of de minimis can apply in such a setting: if the subject of your theme park photograph is your daughter eating an ice cream but someone in a Mickey Mouse costume can be seen in the background, this is not considered infringement nor a derivative work so long as it is clear from the photograph that you are interested in the girl and the frozen treat rather than the oversized rodent, and you may even market that image commercially (though you must be sure that Mickey really is "de minimis" and his presence must not make that image more useful, more interesting, or more marketable than it would be without him).

Si faig una fotografia d'un nen que sosté una joguina de peluix de Winnie the Pooh, Disney és propietària dels drets d'autor de la foto ja que són propietaris del disseny de Pooh?

No. Disney does not hold the copyright on the photo. There are two different copyrights to be taken into account, that of the photographer (concerning the photo) and that of Disney (the toy). You have to keep those apart. Ask yourself: Can the photo be used as an illustration for "Winnie the Pooh"? Am I trying to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures of Pooh by using a photo of a toy? If so, then it is not allowed.

Be aware, though, that Disney's protection strategy both relies on author's right (artistic property) and trade mark (extended to protect a design). The actual legal analysis would be more subtle in that case. While Disney does not hold a copyright on the photo, there may be an infringement on Disney's copyright of Pooh by virtue of copying via the photograph. As virtually all photography is considered to involve at least a modicum of creativity on the part of the photographer, in fact you may have created a derivative work without permission.

No tenen tots els productes uns drets d'autor? Com els cotxes? O les cadires de la cuina? O la meva funda per l'ordinador?

Shortcut

No. There are special provisions in US copyright law to exempt utility articles to a wide degree from copyright protection:

The second part of the amendment states that

"the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

A "useful article" is defined as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." This part of the amendment is an adaptation of language added to the Copyright Office Regulations in the mid-1950's in an effort to implement the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazer case.

In adopting this amendatory language, the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copyrighted works of industrial design. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee's intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies' dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill.

The test of separability and independence from "the utilitarian aspects of the article" does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such.

From Cornell University Law School notes on US Code 17 § 102; content primarily taken from a U.S. Government work
Note that while the commentary above was apparently written while some language was an amendment which had not then been enacted, it was subsequently enacted and can be found in 17 USC 101.

Sculptures, paintings, action figures, and (in many cases) toys and models do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore in the United States (where Commons is hosted) such objects are generally considered protected as copyrighted works of art. A toy airplane, for example, is mainly intended to portray the appearance of an airplane in a manner similar to that of a painting of an airplane.[2] On the other hand, ordinary alarm clocks, dinner plates, gaming consoles— as well as actual, full-scale planes— are not generally copyrightable... though any design painted on the dinner plate would likely be subject to copyright protection, as would an alarm clock in the shape of Snoopy the dog.

It is possible for utilitarian objects to have aspects which are copyrightable, but there is no clear line in US law between works which are copyrightable and objects which are not.[3] A white paper on copyright and 3D printing mentioned several US court rulings that were each about whether a functional object had artistic elements that were "physically or conceptually" separable from the object's functional aspects and therefore copyrightable. The whitepaper suggested a consideration for determining if specific elements of a utilitarian object are copyrightable under US law: if an object has non-functional elements, then those elements are more likely to be copyrightable if the design of the elements was not influenced by utilitarian pressures.[4]

Different countries may have different definitions: German law has a term called Schöpfungshöhe, which is the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts.[5] It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland.[5][6] There is no legal definition for this threshold, so one must use common sense and existing case law.[7]

Instead of copyright protection, utilitarian objects are generally protected by design patents, which, depending on jurisdiction, may limit commercial use of depictions. However, patents and copyright are separate areas of law, and works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. Therefore, patents of this kind are not a matter of concern for Commons.

Photos of people in costumes of copyrighted characters may or may not be copyrighted.[8] See Commons:Normes sobre drets d'autor per tema#Costumes and cosplay for more information. These should be decided on a case-by-case basis using the separability test.[2]

Text

It is prohibited to copy text from non-free media like copyrighted books, articles or similar works. Information itself, however, is not copyrightable, and you are free to rewrite it in your own words. Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source.

Sé que no puc penjar fotos d'obres d'art protegides per drets d'autor (com ara quadres i estàtues), però i les joguines? Les joguines no són art!

Shortcuts

Vegeu també: Category:Toys related deletion requests

Although the scope of copyright varies between countries, it is a misconception that copyright applies solely to "art". Instead, copyright typically applies to a larger variety of works; to use the United States, where WMF servers are located, as an example: copyright protection is available to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”[9] Indeed, toys generally are original (owe their origin to an author), have authors (human creators), and are fixed in a tangible medium (wood, fabric, etc.)

The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright. Other countries, such as the United States, however, do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. Accordingly, paintings, statues and toys are all works subject to copyright whose photographs would require permission of the original creator to be hosted on the Commons. Just as you cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you cannot upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokémon figures.

The legal rationale in the United States has been established in numerous cases. "Gay Toys, Inc. versus Buddy L Corporation", for example, found "a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function."[11] Additional rulings have found, for example, "it is no longer subject to dispute that statues or models of animals or dolls are entitled to copyright protection"[12] and "There is no question but that stuffed toy animals are entitled to copyright protection."[13]

Similarly, dolls' clothing has been found to be copyrightable in the US on the grounds that it does not have a utilitarian function of providing protection from the elements or preserving modesty in the manner that clothing for humans does (the latter is a "useful article.")[2] Numerous lawsuits have shown that Mickey Mouse or Asterix have to be treated as works of art, which means they are subject to copyright, while a common spoon or a table are not works of art. Artistic elements of these items could be copyrighted, but only if it's separable from the utilitarian elements.[14] Some toys are also too simple to meet the threshold of originality, for example, the Kong dog toy.[15] "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.[16]

In other cases, the "separability" test may be needed (see Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.). Consensus on Commons has found that sex dolls are copyrightable, as their design elements are separable from their utilitarian function.

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.[17]

Però Wikimedia Commons no és comercial. I què passa amb l'"ús raonable"?

Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial project, but the project scope requires that every single file be licensed for possible commercial reuse and be free of third-party copyrights. Fair use arguments are not allowed on Commons. "Fair use" is a difficult legal exception that exists only for pictures that are used in a certain limited context; it is never applicable to entire databases of copyrighted material.

Però, com podem il·lustrar temes com Star Wars o Pokémon sense imatges?

Admittedly, it may be difficult or even impossible to illustrate such articles. However, the articles can still be written. Their lack of illustrations will not affect the vitality of Wikimedia's projects, and there are plenty of topics with opportunities to create illustrations which do not violate third-party copyrights. Even your own drawing of Pikachu cannot be published under a free license.

Some Wikimedia projects allow non-free works (including derivatives of non-free works) to be uploaded locally under fair use provisions. The situations in which this is permitted are strictly limited. It is vital to consult the policies and guidelines of the project in question before attempting to invoke fair use claims.

Què passa amb les imatges de personatges amb drets d'autor en obres de domini públic?

Shortcuts

Sometimes individual works featuring copyrighted characters (such as Mickey Mouse or Superman) enter the public domain. Although the works themselves are in the public domain, any portions that include the copyrighted characters are still restricted by copyright law.[18][19]

This concept even extends to non-sentient "characters", such as the Batmobile.[20] Derivative representations of characters are protected by copyright law in the United States until the original work that created the character is no longer copyrighted.[21] This protection is separate from trademark protection. See Commons:Character copyrights for information on the copyright status of specific characters.

Mai no he sentit a parlar d'això!. Es tracta d’una interpretació creativa?

Actually, no. Photographs of, say, modern art statues or paintings cannot be uploaded either, and people accept that. If we accept the legal standard that comic figures and action figures can be considered as art and thus are copyrighted, we are just applying the standard rule here.

Llibreta de casos

Vegeu també: Commons:Normes sobre drets d'autor per tema.

How does this guideline concern the selection of images that are allowed on Wikimedia Commons?

  • Comic figures and action figures: No photographs, drawings, paintings or any other copies/derivative works of these are allowed (as long as the original is not in the public domain). No pictures are allowed of items which are derivatives from copyrighted figures themselves, like dolls, action figures, T-shirts, printed bags, ashtrays etc.
  • Paintings with frames: Paintings that are in the public domain are generally allowed (see Commons:Sobre les llicències). Frames are 3-dimensional objects, so the photo may be copyrighted. Remember: Always provide the original creator's name, birth and death date and the time of creation, if you can! If you do not know, give as much source information as possible (source link, place of publication etc.). Other volunteers must be able to verify the copyright status. Furthermore, the moral rights of the original creator—which include the right to be named as the author—are perpetual in some countries. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author (taking from another web site is not allowed without their permission).
  • Cave paintings: Cave walls are usually not flat, but three-dimensional. The same goes for antique vases and other uneven or rough surfaces. This could mean that photographs of such media can be copyrighted, even if the cave painting is in the public domain. (We are looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other paintings on flat surfaces in the public domain should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks.
  • Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed (which means, it is there to stay, not to be removed after a certain time), and in some countries if you are on public ground while taking the picture. Check Commons:Llibertat de panorama. If your country has a liberal policy on this exception and learn more about freedom of panorama. Note that in most countries, freedom of panorama does not cover two-dimensional artworks such as murals.
  • Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas (even poor ones) of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as they do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.
  • Photographs of three-dimensional objects: always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain).
  • Images of characters/objects/scenes in books: subject to any copyright on the book itself. You cannot freely create and distribute a drawing of Albus Dumbledore any more than you could distribute your own Harry Potter movie. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author.
  • Fan art: See Commons:Fan art

Etiquetatge d'obres derivades no lliures

If you come across derivative works of non-free works on Commons, tag them with {{SD|F3}} for speedy deletion.

Vegeu també

  • Collages are combinations of multiple images arranged into a single image
  • Screenshots are a type of derivative work

Referències

  1. ↑ U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  2. ↑ a b Pearlman, Rachel (2012-09-17). IP Frontiers: From planes to dolls: Copyright challenges in the toy industry. NY Daily Record. Retrieved on 2014-06-21.
  3. ↑ Weinberg, Michael (January 2013). What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? 9. Public Knowledge. Retrieved on 2016-09-22.
  4. ↑ Weinberg, Michael (January 2013). What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? 13. Public Knowledge. Retrieved on 2016-09-22.
  5. ↑ a b Summary Report: The Interplay Between Design and Copyright Protection for Industrial Products 4–5. AIPPI.
  6. ↑ VSL0069492. Retrieved on 29 October 2013.
  7. ↑ Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices - Chapter 500. University of New Hampshire School of Law.
  8. ↑ Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan#Comment by Mike Godwin
  9. ↑ 17 U.S. Code § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  10. ↑ "Farby" doll is judged not to be a work of art. Sendai High Court (9 July 2002). Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  11. ↑ (Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corporation, 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983)
  12. ↑ Blazon, Inc. v. DeLuxe Game Corp., 268 F. Supp. 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  13. ↑ R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co., Inc., 444 F. Supp. 1080, 1083-84 (E.D.N.Y. 1978)
  14. ↑ [1] Public domain maps]. Public Domain Sherpa. Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  15. ↑ Kong Design (20 September 213). Retrieved on 2019-04-17.
  16. ↑ Compendium III § 313.4(A)
  17. ↑ HASBRO BRADLEY, INC. v. SPARKLE TOYS, INC., 780 F.2d 189 (2nd Cir. 1985).
  18. ↑ Siegel v. Warner Bros (2009)
  19. ↑ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995)
  20. ↑ DC Comics v. Mark Towle (2013)
  21. ↑ Warner Bros. v. AVELA (2011)

Enllaços externs

Case studies
Other useful sites
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Derivative_works/ca&oldid=802416780"