Commons:De minimis
De minimis è un'espressione latina che significa su cose minimali, normalmente nella locuzione de minimis non curat lex ("La legge non si occupa delle sciocchezze"). L'uso de minimis di un'opera protetta da copyright è un uso così banale che non è richiesto il consenso del proprietario del copyright.
In alcuni casi i file Commons con contenuti protetti da copyright considerati accettabili come de minimis e possono essere identificati con il template {{De minimis}}. (Tuttavia, la stragrande maggioranza di tali file non è identificata in questo modo).
Che significa "de minimis"?
Il concetto della Common Law conosciuto come de minimis deriva dalla massima de minimis non curat lex,, spesso tradotta con "la legge non si occupa di stupidaggini". Alcune violazioni tecniche della legge sono considerate così banali e prive di conseguenze che una corte potrebbe decidere di non trattarle affatto come violazioni. Il concetto si applica a molti ambiti della legge ma qui consideriamo la sua applicazione alla leggi sul diritto d'autore.
Se dimostrato in una corte, de minimis può essere una difesa esaustiva ad un'azione di violazione del diritto d'autore. Non è solo che il trasgressore può cavarsela con poca probabilità di essere citato in giudizio per colpa degli alti costi della causa legale; piuttosto, se la copia viene ricnosciuta de minimis, il copiatore in realtà non ha infranto alcuna legge.
Un esempio
Supponiamo di avere una foto con un poster coperto dal diritto d'autore sullo sfondo. Vi sono due diritti d'autore coinvolti: quello del fotografo e quello del progettista del poster ed entrambi possono sussistere indipendentemente. Scattando la foto e caricandola su Commons, il fotografo avrà ovviamente effettuato una copia del poster, che senza il permesso sarà una violazione e pertanto non ammessa. Il fatto che il fotografo abbia creato di suo un nuovo diritto d'autore non evita che si possa violare quello relativo al poster e ciò avviene anche se la fotografia presenta un alto livello di originalità.
Tuttavia, se il poster è del tutto accessorio al soggetto complessivo della fotografia, la copia potrebbe essere considerata de minimis (magari il poster è piccolo in una parte insignificante dell'immagine, completamente sfocato rispetto al soggetto principale o in gran parte nascosto nello sfondo). In altre parole, un tribunale non accoglierebbe facilmente una denuncia di violazione del diritto d'autore solamente perché un fotografo ha incluso accidentalmente un poster coperto dal diritto d'autore.
Nel determinare se una copia è stata sufficientemente banale, la corte prenderà in considerazione tutte le circostanze. Quindi ad esempio, se il poster costituisce una parte essenziale della composizione fotografica complessiva oppure se la fotografia è stata scattata deliberatamente per includere anche il poster, probabilmente è violazione del diritto d'autore e non è ammesso difendersi sostenendo che che il poster si trova 'sullo sfondo'. Se l'esistenza del poster è la ragione per cui è stata scattata la foto, la violazione del diritto d'autore non può essere evitata includendo nello scatto altre parti dell'ambiente e della zona circostante.
Se l'esistenza del poster rende la fotografia più attraente, più usabile oppure incline a causare più che un danno economico marginale al proprietario del diritto d'autore, allora la difesa de minimis ad una causa per violazione del diritto d'autore probabilmente fallirà.
Potrebbe essere rilevante com l'immagine è descritta o classificata: sarà difficile argomentare de minimis se la foto è descritta come illustrazione di un poster pubblicitario ed è collocata nella categoria Advertising posters.
Una verifica utile è quella di chiedersi se la fotografia sarebbe ugualmente buona o utile se il poster fosse rimosso. Se non lo fosse, è difficile argomentare che il poster è realmente de minimis anche se è piccolo e "sullo sfondo".
Linee guida
Le variazioni nelle leggi e negli usi delle opere rendono impossibili delle regole assolute. Come linea generale comunque, un file che contiene un lavoro coperto da diritto d'autore X è meno incline a soddisfare il de minimis se le seguenti condizioni sono soddisfatte:
- il file è in uso per illustrare X
- il file è catalogato in relazione a X
- si fa riferimento a X nel nome del file
- si fa riferimento a X nella descrizione
- X non può essere rimosso dal file senza renderlo inutile
- da altri indizi di contesto (ad es. andando a guardare la serie di caricamenti dello stesso utente) X è la ragione per cui è stato creato il file.
Nota: la considerazione de minimis si applica alla specifica composizione dell'immagine. Un ritaglio significativo sul lavoro protetto da diritto d'autore può facilmente cambiare il responso da "probabilmente OK" a "probabilmente non OK".
| # | Il caso può essere considerato de minimis | Descrizione |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  OK Sì, definitivamente
|
Il lavoro coperto da diritto d'autore è visibile ma non identificabile.
|
| 2 | OK Molto probabilmente
|
Il lavoro X coperto da diritto d'autore è identificabile ma si tratta di una intrusione non voluta che sfortunatamente non può essere facilmente rimossa.
|
| 3 | OK Molto probabilmente
|
il lavoro protetto dal diritto d'autore X è identificabile ma in una piccola parte di una più grande opera, in maniera tale che questa non sia facilmente mostrata senza mostrare anche X. X fa parte di un lavoro più grande e la sua inclusione non è evitabile.
|
| 4 | OK Molto probabilmente
|
Il lavoro protetto da diritto d'autore X è identificabile e una parte non evitabile del soggetto ma non è essenziale a esso (rimuoverlo non rende inutile il file).
|
| 5 |  Maybe
|
Il lavoro protetto da diritto d'autore X è identificabile ed è una parte non evitabile del soggetto ed è essenziale al soggetto (ad es. rimuovendolo si renderebbe inutile il file) ma il lavoro è mostrato con un dettaglio non sufficiente e/o con chiarezza non sufficiente, quindi potrebbe essere applicabile il de minimis. |
| 6 |  Molto poco probabile
|
Il lavoro protetto da diritto d'autore X è una parte chiave del soggetto (ad es. è la ragione per cui è stata scattata la foto). Rimuoverlo renderebbe l'opera derivata radicalmente diversa ma potenzialmente ancora utile.
|
| 7 | Definitivamente no
|
Il lavoro protetto dal diritto d'autore X è la parte centrale del soggetto (ad es. è la ragione per cui è stata scattata la foto). Rimuoverlo renderebbe inutile l'opera derivata.
|
.jpg)
.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. | ” |
Leggi specifiche dei singoli Paesi
COM:DM Belgium
Belgio
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
Canada
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
Repubblica Ceca
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
Unione 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):[1]
- 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
Germania
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
Islanda
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.[14]
COM:DM Israel
Israele
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
Giappone
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.[15]
COM:DM Netherlands
Paesi Bassi
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.
- Sources
COM:DM Morocco
Marocco
"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
Perù
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.[16] "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).[17]
- 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".[18]
COM:DM Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Kitts e Nevis
- Copyright in a work shall not be infringed (a) by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording film, broadcast or cable programme; or (b) by the issue to the public of copies of the playing, showing, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of anything whose making was not an infringement of copyright by virtue of paragraph (a) of this section.[18.08/2000 Section 55]
COM:DM Singapore
Singapore
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
Slovenia
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.[19]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg.
COM:DM South Korea
Corea del Sud
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
Svezia
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 Non OK:
- 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
Regno Unito
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.
Ritagli di immagini de minimis
Dato che un'immagine che è permessa rientra nel principio di de minimis deve necessariamente includere del materiale protetto dal diritto d'autore, si deduce che questo tipo di immagini non può essere ritagliato a piacere. Nel caso di una fotografia che contiene un poster, anche se il fotografo si è difeso contro una causa di violazione del diritto d'autore sfruttando il de minimis, ciò non annulla il diritto d'autore del designer originale del poster. Se qualcuno prende la foto e la ritaglia così che rimanga solo il poster, la difesa de minimis non è più utilizzabile, dato che il design del poster diventa una parte essenziale del ritaglio. Dunque, la versione ritagliata vìola il diritto d'autore e non può essere accettata su Commons.
Tieni presente che il semplice fatto che un'immagine ammessa in virtù del de minimis potrebbe essere ritagliata per crearne un'altra che non è ammissibile non implica che il lavoro originale non sia de minimis dopo tutto. Anche le immagini ad alta risoluzione, in cui i dettagli incidentali possono essere recuperati e ingranditi in modo affidabile, dovrebbero essere guardate nella loro interezza da una distanza normale quando si valuta se il de minimis sia applicabile o meno.
Esempi
-
-
Forse una serie di fotografie esibite in un museo → de minimis (DR) -
Opera di Escher al centro (DR) -
Cancello nord dell'Expo 2005 di Aichi Giappone con delle opere sulla parte protette dal diritto d'autore -
L'opera di un pesce volante che copre il velivolo è considerata incidentale (DR) -
Lotte World Tower (La Corea del Sud permette la libertà di panorama solo per scopi non commerciali.) (DR)
.jpg){kind=link}
Vedi anche
- Commons:Soglia di originalità
- Commons:Libertà di panorama
- Una discussione riguardante il de minimis nei video
- Cromer, Julie, Harry Potter and the Three-Second Crime: Are We Vanishing the De Minimis Defense from Copyright Law?
Note
Some citation text may not have been transcluded
|
|---|
|