共享资源:最低限度
最低限度（拉丁語：De minimis），意思是「關於最小的事物」，通常用在術語「de minimis non curat lex」（法律不問瑣事）。由於對有版權作品的「最低限度」使用微不足道，因此不需要版權擁有者的同意。
在某些情況下，可以使用{{De minimis}}模板來標識共享資源文件中的版權內容是最低限度使用的。（不過，絕大多數此類文件都「未」以這種方式標識。）
什麼是「最低限度」?
最低限度是一個習慣法的概念，源於格言「de minimis non curat lex」，通常被翻譯為「法律不問瑣事」。某些技術上違反法律的情況被認為是瑣碎且無關緊要的，因此法院可以裁定其根本不被視為違反法律。該概念適用於法律的許多分支，但是在這裡我們僅考慮其在版權法的應用。
如果在法庭上得到证明，「最低限度」完全可以成为版权侵权诉讼的辩护理由。这并不只是说，由于诉讼成本高昂，侵权者可以在某些情况下逍遥法外，而不会有太多机会被起诉；而是说，如果复制行为是「微不足道」，复制者实际上根本就没有违法。
一個示例
Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. In taking the photograph and uploading it to Commons, the photographer will of course be making a copy of the poster design, and without consent that will generally be an infringement and hence not allowed. The fact that the photographer has created a new copyright of their own does not prevent the poster copyright from being infringed, and that is so even if the photograph displays a high level of originality itself.
However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster.
In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.
If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.
It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters.
A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".
指引
Variations in laws and in uses of works mean that firm rules are not possible. As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:
- the file is in use to illustrate X
- the file is categorised in relation to X
- X is referenced in the filename
- X is referenced in the description
- X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
- from other contextual clues (e.g., by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
Note: de minimis consideration applies to a specific image composition. Significant cropping to focus on the copyrighted work can very easily turn a "probably OK" into a "probably not OK".
| # | Case can be considered de minimis | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  OK Yes, definitely
|
Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable.
|
| 2 | OK Very likely |
Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
|
| 3 | OK Very likely |
Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
|
| 4 | OK Very likely |
Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless).
|
| 5 |  Maybe
|
Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply. |
| 6 |  Very unlikely |
Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
|
| 7 | Definitely not |
Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
|
.jpg)
COM:DM United States
- 技術違規是微不足道的，法律不會施加法律後果；
- 複製的程度低於實質性相似的閾值（始終是可操作複製的必需要素）；
- 與合理使用有關（此處不相關，因為Commons不允許合理使用圖片）。
Commons通常特別關注這些問題中的第一個。
正如在Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.中發現的那樣，瓶子的照片不是其標籤的衍生作品（儘管在這種特殊情況下，標籤也恰好低於原創性閾值）：
| “ | 然而，我們不需要決定標籤是否受版權保護，因為Ets-Hokin的產品鏡頭是基於瓶子的整體，而不是標籤。拍攝的重點是完整地捕捉瓶子。被告沒有引用任何案例證明這種性質的瓶子可能受版權保護，我們知道沒有。事實上，Skyy的立場是，日常的、功能性的、不可版權的物體的照片需要進行分析，因為衍生作品會剝奪業餘和商業攝影師對版權保護的合法期望。因為Ets-Hokin的產品鏡頭是整個瓶子的鏡頭——一篇不受版權保護的有用文章——而不是僅僅或什至主要是其標籤的鏡頭，我們認為瓶子不符合“預先存在的作品”的條件“在版權法的含義內。因此，Ets-Hokin拍攝的瓶子照片不能是衍生作品。 | ” |
特定国家法律
COM:DM Belgium
比利時
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
加拿大
無意和故意不構成侵犯版權
(a) 在另一作品或其他主題中包含一個作品或其他主題；
(b) 進行與作品或其他主題相關的任何行為，而這些行為是偶然且並非故意包含在另一作品或其他主題中的。
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]
版權指令（歐洲議會和理事會2001年5月22日關於協調信息社會中版權和相關權某些方面的指令2001/29/EC允許第5(3)(i)條中的最低限度例外：[1]
- 在以下情況下，成員國可對第2條和第3條規定的權利規定例外或限制：[……]將作品或其他主題偶然包含在其他材料中。在第5(5)條的一般條件下：
- 第1、2、3和4款規定的例外和限制僅適用於某些特殊情況，不與作品或其他主題的正常利用相衝突，並且不會不合理地損害當事人的合法利益。權利人。
COM:DM Finland
芬蘭
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
法國
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
德國
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
冰島
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
愛爾蘭共和國
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
以色列
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
日本
COM:DM Netherlands
荷蘭
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
摩洛哥
"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
秘鲁
There is subtle mention of "de minimis" in determinate cases:
- Media for private use, non-profit educative events or extracts of musical works in official events.[822/1996 Art.41(a, b and c)] In other words, the sentence is equivalent to Fair use and is unacceptable to upload in Commons.
- Broadcasting of well-known quotations and current events in any media.[15] "The exception provided [...] shall be interpreted restrictively, and may not be applied to cases that are contrary to proper practice".[822/1996 Art. 44-45, 50 and Decision 351 Art. 22]
Don't be an object of intelligent plagiarism ("plagio inteligente", also referred in Article 217c of the Penal Code, 2007):
- Parodies: Allowed within the legal basis.[822/1996 Art. 49] Resolution No. 0864-2007/TPI-INDECOPI (also No. 4372-2013/TPI-INDECOPI) pointed out that the work is a infringement if the design adopts similarities or derivations from another without the parody intention (ordinary or substantial plagiarism). Best example is the 2008 TV series Magnolia Merino, which complies with the concept of parody when deals with a subject of public interest from other artistic point of view with excerpts based on the scenario, impersonation and musicalization of Magaly TeVe (see Resolution No. 3251–2010/SC1-INDECOPI).[16]
- Incidental: In APSAV v. Arkinka S.A. (Anuario Andino 19 August 2004, based on Resolution No. 243-2001/ODA-INDECOPI) the limitation of the use of third parties works has been applied when "the appearance within the work should be incidental". Freedom of panorama is also mentioned and justified in both Decision 351 and DL 822 with the term "public places" such as "public museums".[17]
COM:DM Singapore
新加坡
根據新加坡版權法（第63章，2006年修訂版）第10(1)條，除非出現相反的意圖：
- 對與作品或其他主題有關的行為的提及應理解為包括對與作品或其他主題的重要部分有關的行為的提及；
- 對作品的複制、改編或複製品的引用應被理解為包括對作品主要部分的複制、改編或複製品的引用，視情況而定。
因此，與作品或其他主題的非實質性部分有關的行為不違反版權。
COM:DM Slovenia
斯洛文尼亞
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
大韩民国
根據版權法（由2019年11月26日第16600號法修訂）， ：第35-3條（附帶包含等）， ：在攝影、錄音、錄像（本條以下簡稱拍攝等）過程中看到或聽到的作品，偶然包含在拍攝等主要對像中的，可以被複製、分發、公開表演、展示或公開傳播。因使用作品的類型、性質、使用目的和性質等不合理損害作者經濟權利人利益的，不適用。
COM:DM Sweden
瑞典
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 不可以:
- 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)
1988年英國版權、設計和專利法第31條（隨後於2003年修訂）規定：
- 作品的版權不會因偶然包含在藝術作品、錄音、電影或廣播中而受到侵犯。
該法案中定義的"藝術作品"包括照片。
剪裁“最低限度”图片
Since an image which is allowable under the de minimis principle must of necessity include some copyright material, it follows that such images cannot be cropped at will. For the case of a photograph which includes a poster, even if the photographer has a defence against infringement on the de minimis principle, that does not negate the original poster-designer's copyright. If someone takes the photograph and crops it so that only the poster remains, the de minimis defence is no longer available, as the poster design then becomes an essential part of the crop. So, the cropped version infringes and cannot be allowed on Commons.
Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.
示例
-
Burj Khalifa (UAE allows freedom of panorama only when used in broadcast programs.) (DR)
-
Maybe a series of photographs exhibited in a museum → de minimis (DR)
-
Artwork by Escher in the center (DR)
-
North gate of the Expo 2005 Aichi Japan with copyrighted works on its wall
-
The artwork of a flying fish covering the aircraft is considered incidental (DR)
-
Lotte World Tower (South Korea allows freedom of panorama only noncommercial purposes.) (DR)
参见
注释
| Some citation text may not have been transcluded |
|---|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
