Commons:De minimis
De minimis es un significado de expresión latino sobre cosas mínimas, normalmente en el locution de minimis no curat lex ("La ley no se se preocupa con bagatelas"). Uso de minimis de un obra protegida por derechos de autor es un uso tan trivial que el consentimiento del dueño de copyright no es requerido.
En algunos casos Commons archivos con contenido protegido por derechos de autor consideró aceptable cuando de minimis puede ser identificado con la plantilla {{De minimis}}. Aun así, la mayoría vasta de tales archivos es no identificado de este modo.
¿Qué significa "de minimis"?
La figura legal conocida como de minimis deriva de la máxima de minimis non curat lex, que podría traducirse como "la ley no se ocupa de tonterías". Algunas lagunas legales se suelen considerar tan triviales e inconsecuentes que una corte seguramente no las consideraría lagunas en absoluto. El concepto se aplica a numerosos ámbitos de la legalidad, pero aquí se considera su aplicación en lo referido a las leyes de derechos de autor.
Si se prueba en una corte, "de minimis" puede ser una defensa adecuada a una acción de infracción de derechos de autor. No se refiere a que quien hace una copia pueda violar la ley y salirse con la suya ya que sería improbable que el dueño de los derechos se molestara a litigar dicho caso, sino que si la copia es de minimis no se estaría violando la ley en lo absoluto.
Un ejemplo
Supongamos que sacamos una foto en la ciudad y en la misma aparece un cartel publicitario con contenido protegido por derechos de autor. Hay dos derechos de autor involucrados: el del fotógrafo, y el del cartel, y ambos subsisten en forma independiente. Sacando una foto de un cartel protegido y publicándola sin consentimiento se comete una violación de derechos de autor, sin importar que el fotógrafo cree un segundo derecho de autor propio, incluso si la foto posee un alto grado de trabajo creativo.
Sin embargo, si la presencia del cartel es circunstancial respecto del tema central de la foto, ésta puede considerarse de minimis: quizás el cartel queda fuera de foco, no se puede apreciar con nitidez o queda semioculto por otros objetos, o aparece en forma imperceptible en el fondo. Una corte no considerará que se haya cometido una violación de derechos de autor simplemente porque se haya incluido en forma accidental una imagen protegida en el fondo.
Sin embargo, al determinar si la defensa de de minimis es válida para el caso se tomaría todo en cuenta. Si el cartel forma parte de la composición de la foto, o la misma fue tomada con el objeto de que el cartel apareciera en la misma, una argumentación de minimis no es aceptable incluso aunque se intente añadir otros elementos. La descripción de la imagen al subirla también se tiene en cuenta: si se menciona en la misma la presencia del cartel, o se categoriza la imagen de acuerdo al mismo, o se utiliza a la imagen en otros proyectos referenciando al tema contenido en el cartel, entonces la defensa de de minimis no será aceptable.
Si la existencia del cartel hace la imagen más atractivo, más utilizable, o propenso de causar más de daño económico insignificante al dueño de derechos de autor, entonces un de minimis defensa a un copyright-acción de contravención probablemente fallará.
Pueda ser pertinente cómo la imagen está descrita o clasificado: sea difícil de argumentar de minimis si la fotografía está descrita cuando ilustrando "un cartel publicitario" y está colocado dentro de la categoría Anuncian carteles.
Una prueba útil puede ser para preguntar si la fotografía sería tan buena o tan útil si el cartel era para ser enmascarado fuera. Si no, entonces es difícil de argumentar que el cartel es de hecho de minimis, incluso si el cartel es pequeño y es "en el fondo".
Directrices
Las variaciones en leyes y usos de las obras hacen que no sea posible definir las reglas en lo absoluto. Sin embargo, como pauta general, un archivo que contenga una obra protegida por derechos de autor X tiene menos probabilidades de cumplir el requisito de "minimis" cuanto más de estos requisitos cumpla:
- el archivo se utiliza para ilustrar X
- el archivo se clasifica en relación con X
- X se menciona en el nombre del archivo
- X se menciona en la descripción
- X no puede eliminarse del archivo sin que éste resulte inútil
- a partir de otras pistas contextuales (por ejemplo, mediante la comparación con una serie de cargas del mismo cargador), X es el motivo de la creación del archivo.
Nota: la consideración de minimis aplica a una composición de imagen concreta. Significativo recorte para centrar en el trabajo con derechos de autor puede muy fácilmente cambiar de un "probablemente OK" a un "probablemente no OK".
| # | Caso que podría considerarse de minimis | Descripción |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  OK Sí, sin duda
|
Trabajo X con derechos de autor es visible, pero no identificable.
|
| 2 | OK Muy aproximado
|
La obra protegida por derechos de autor X es identificable, pero es una intrusión no deseada en el objeto de la imagen que, lamentablemente, no puede eliminarse fácilmente.
|
| 3 | OK Muy aproximado
|
La obra protegida por derechos de autor X es identificable, pero es una pequeña parte de una obra mayor, de modo que la obra mayor no puede mostrarse fácilmente sin mostrar X. X es una parte de la obra mayor, y su inclusión es inevitable.
|
| 4 | OK Muy aproximado
|
La obra X protegida por derechos de autor es identificable y forma parte inevitable del tema de la imagen, pero no es esencial para el tema (si se tacha no se inutiliza el archivo)
|
| 5 |  Maybe
|
La obra X protegida por derechos de autor es identificable y forma parte ineludible del tema, y es esencial para el mismo (por ejemplo, si se tacha, el archivo quedaría inservible) pero la obra se muestra con un detalle insuficiente y/o con una claridad insuficiente, por lo que puede aplicarse de minimis. |
| 6 |  Muy desfavorable
|
La obra con derechos de autor X es una parte clave del tema (por ejemplo, es la razón por la que se tomó la foto). Eliminarlo haría que la obra derivada fuera radicalmente diferente, pero potencialmente seguiría siendo útil.
|
| 7 | Definitivamente no
|
La obra X protegida por derechos de autor es la parte central del tema (por ejemplo, es el motivo por el que se tomó la foto). Eliminarlo haría que la obra derivada fuera inútil.
|
.jpg)
COM:DM United States
The United States courts interpret the de minimis defense in three distinct ways:
- Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;
- Where the extent of copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity (always a required element of actionable copying); and
- In connection with fair use (not relevant here, since Commons does not allow fair use images).
It is the first of these that is often of particular concern on Commons.
As found in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of its label (though in this particular case, the label also happened to be below the threshold of originality):
| “ | We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. | ” |
Leyes de países específicos
COM:DM Belgium
Bélgica
Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:
- Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...].
COM:DM Canada
Canadá
Subsection 30.7 of the Canadian Copyright Act, 1985 states:
It is not an infringement of copyright to incidentally and not deliberately
(a) include a work or other subject-matter in another work or other subject-matter; or
(b) do any act in relation to a work or other subject-matter that is incidentally and not deliberately included in another work or other subject-matter.
COM:DM Czech Republic
República Checa
Under the Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll. as amended up to 216/2006,
- Copyright is not infringed by anybody who uses a work incidentally, in connection with an intended primary use of another work or element.[121/2000–2006 Art.38c]
COM:DM European Union
Unión Europea
The Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society allows for de minimis exception in Art. 5(3)(i):
- Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: […] incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material.
Under the generic conditions of Article 5(5):
- The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.
COM:DM Finland
Finlandia
Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,
- Works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text: 1) in a critical or scientific presentation; and 2) in a newspaper or a periodical when reporting on a current event, provided that the work has not been created in order to be reproduced in a newspaper or a periodical.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(1)]
- When a copy of a work of art has, with the consent of the author, been sold or otherwise permanently transferred, the work of art may be incorporated into a photograph, a film, or a television programme if the reproduction is of a subordinate nature in the photograph, film or programme.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(2)]
COM:DM France
Francia
French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:
- Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.
French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):
- It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting.
COM:DM Germany
Alemania
Under § 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."
The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.[4] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[5]To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.[6]
According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case
- if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
- if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[7]
The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:
- The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
- the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
- the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or
- the work is characteristic in any other way.[8]
Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.[9]
Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[10]
There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around § 57.[11] In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on § 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.[12]
In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[13]
COM:DM Iceland
Islandia
An unofficial translation of Article 10a of the Icelandic copyright act reads:
- Authors’ exclusive rights under Article 3 (cf. Article 2), shall not apply to the making of reproductions (copies) that are transient or incidental...[73/1972-2018 Art.10a(1)]
COM:DM Ireland
Irlanda
Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000),
- The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.[28/2000 Sec.52(1)]
- A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.[28/2000 Sec.52(3)]
According to Pascal Kamina, the Irish legislation is similar to the legislation in the United Kingdom from 1988.
COM:DM Israel
Israel
According to 2007 Copyright Act, section 22:
- An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use.[2007-2011 Sec.22]
COM:DM Japan
Japón
Copyright Act Article 30-2, amended in 2012, states:
- Article 30-2: When creating a copyrighted work of photography, sound recording or video recording, other copyrighted items that are incidental subjects of the work because they are hard to be separated from the item that is a subject of the work may be copied or translated along the work being created (only if they are minor components of the work being created). However, if, considering the kinds of the incidentally included works and the manner of the copying or translation, it unfairly is prejudicial to the interest of the copyright holders of the incidentally included works, they may not.
COM:DM Netherlands
Países Bajos
The law of the Netherlands includes an article devoted to a situation where the copyright is not or barely relevant. This is called de minimus or bagatel. Based on this article, it is allowed to include work of other persons in an own work, but only if it is incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or less by chance. Of minor significance means the copyrighted work is a small part of the work.
Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:
- The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.
COM:DM Morocco
Marruecos
"It shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes".[1-05-192/2006 Art.20]
COM:DM Peru
Perú
Hay una sutil mención sobre "de minimis" en determinados casos:
- Medios de comunicación para uso privado, actos educativos sin ánimo de lucro o extractos de obras musicales en actos oficiales.[822/1996 Art.41(a, b and c)] Es decir, es el equivalente al Uso justo y no está permitido a subirse en Commons.
- Difusión de citas conocidas y de la actualidad en cualquier medio de comunicación.[16] "La excepción prevista [...] se interpretará de forma restrictiva y no podrá aplicarse a casos contrarios a la práctica habitual".[822/1996 Art. 44-45, 50 y Decisión 351 Art. 22]
- No ser objeto de un plagio inteligente (también mencionado en el Artículo 217c del Código Penal, 2007)
- Parodias: Permitido con base legal.[822/1996 Art. 49] Resolución N° 0864-2007/TPI-INDECOPI (y también Nº 4372-2013/TPI-INDECOPI) señala que la obra es una infracción si el diseño adopta similitudes o derivaciones de otra sin la intención de parodia (plagio ordinario o sustancial). El mejor ejemplo es la serie de televisión del 2008 Magnolia Merino, que cumple con el concepto de parodia al tratar un tema de interés público desde otro punto de vista artístico con fragmentos basados en el escenario, la personificación y la musicalización de Magaly TeVe (véase Resolución Nº 3251-2010/SC1-INDECOPI).[17]
- Incidental: En el caso APSAV contra Arkinka S.A. (Anuario Andino 19 de agosto de 2004, basado en la Resolución Nº 243-2001/ODA-INDECOPI) se ha aplicado la limitación del uso de obras de terceros cuando "la aparición dentro de la obra debe ser incidental". La libertad de panorama también se menciona y justifica tanto en la Decisión 351 como en el DL 822 con el término "lugares públicos" como "museos públicos".[18]
COM:DM Singapore
Singapur
Under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.) of Singapore, unless a contrary intention appears:
- a reference to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subject-matter shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work or other subject-matter; and
- a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work shall be read as including a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a substantial part of the work, as the case may be.
Therefore, acts done in relation to insubstantial parts of a work or other subject-matter do not breach copyright.
COM:DM Slovenia
Eslovenia
Article 52 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act:
- "Such disclosed works that may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object, may be used freely while exploiting such object."[2007 Art.52]
Article 52 has been interpreted by the copyright expert Miha Trampuž in his book Copyright and Related Rights Act with Commentary. He has highlighted the following aspects: the work must have been disclosed, it must have been incidental with another object or work, it could be at will replaced with another work, and it is inessential in the copyright sense to the object or work.
COM:DM South Korea
Corea del Sur
Under the Copyright Act (as amended up to Act No. 16600 of November 26, 2019),
- Article 35-3 (Incidental Inclusion, etc.),
- A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply.
COM:DM Sweden
Suecia
Article 20a of the copyright law as of 2017 says:
- It is allowed for a film or television program to include copies of works of art or public performances and transfer the artwork to the public, as long as the copy is of secondary importance with respect to the film or television program content. This may be done with artwork that appears in the background of, or otherwise forms an insignificant portion of an image.[729/1960-2017 §20a]
These are :
- Thumbnail-sized photos on a screenshot - copyvio of two of the thumbnail-sized photos (NJA 2010 p. 135[1])
- People on a scene with decorations in the background - copyvio of the background (NJA 1981 p. 313)
COM:DM United Kingdom
Reino Unido
Section 31 of the UK Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, as subsequently amended in 2003, states that:
- Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast.
"Artistic work", as defined within the act, includes photographs.
Recortes de imágenes de minimis
Dado que una imagen admisible en virtud del principio "de minimis" debe incluir necesariamente algún material protegido por derechos de autor, se deduce que dichas imágenes no pueden recortarse a voluntad. En el caso de una fotografía que incluya un afiche, aunque el fotógrafo pueda defenderse de la infracción en virtud del principio "de minimis", esto no anula los derechos de autor del diseñador original del afiche. Si alguien toma la fotografía y la recorta para que sólo quede el afiche, la defensa de minimis ya no se ampara, ya que el diseño del cartel se convierte en una parte esencial del recorte. Por lo tanto, la versión recortada infringe los derechos de autor y no puede ser aceptada en Commons.
Obsérvese que el mero hecho de que una imagen admisible en virtud de "de minimis" "permita" recortarse para crear una que no sea admisible no implica que la obra original no sea "de minimis" después de todo. Incluso las imágenes de muy alta resolución, en las que los detalles incidentales pueden recuperarse y ampliarse de forma fiable, deben verse como un todo desde una distancia de visión normal y que se considera lo suficiente para el principio "de minimis".
Ejemplos
-
-
Quizás una serie de fotografías expuestas en un museo → de minimis (DR)
-
Trabajo artístico por Escher en el centro (DR)
-
Puerta norte de la Expo 2005 Aichi Japón con obras protegidas por derechos de autor en su muro
-
La obra de arte de un pez volador que cubre el avión se considera incidental (DR)
-
Lotte World Tower (Corea del Sur permite la libertad de panorama sólo con fines no comerciales.) (DR)
.jpg){kind=link}
Véase también
- Commons:Umbral de originalidad
- Commons:Libertad de panorama
- Una discusión sobre de minimis en videos
- Cromer, Julie, Harry Potter and the Three-Second Crime: Are We Vanishing the De Minimis Defense from Copyright Law?
Notas
| Algunas citas pueden no haber sido transcluidas |
|---|
|
Normativas y directrices de Wikimedia Commons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normativas |
|  | |||||||
| Recomendaciones | |||||||||
| Ayuda sobre licencias (Café) |
| ||||||||
| Políticas WMF | |||||||||