Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter/zh

告示牌和標誌簡單描述是否應受版權保障？

告示牌和標誌的版權保護是否適用於原創性門檻？如不符合原創性門檻的公告（如簡單圖案），則不適用於版權？

根據伯恩公約，單純為了傳達真實之新聞情況或雜報不能受版權保護的。

即是還原真實的文字描述不得受版權保護，同時簡單且通用的標誌也不受著作權所保護，但是，具獨特個性的告示牌，例如加入漫畫成份描述的確應受著作權保障的。

個人認為簡單的公告為了還原真實表達內容不應受版權保護，如具獨特個性必須具備努力創作的話，版權法亦可延伸到這些內容，例如香港醫院提醒不應使用粗口或作出暴力行為的海報。

下圖例子： https://evchk.fandom.com/zh/wiki/粗口?file=Cs-06-02.png Thomas Chu Tsun On (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

English Vision: Should simple descriptions of signage and signs be protected by copyright?

Does copyright protection for billboards and signs apply to the originality threshold? Does copyright not apply to announcements that do not meet the originality threshold (such as simple patterns)?

According to the Berne Convention, miscellaneous news or miscellaneous reports that are solely intended to convey true news cannot be protected by copyright.

Even textual descriptions that restore the truth cannot be protected by copyright, and simple and common logos are not protected by copyright. However, signboards with unique characteristics, such as those that include comic descriptions, should indeed be protected by copyright.

I personally think that simple announcements should not be protected by copyright in order to restore the true expression of content. If unique personality requires hard work, copyright law can also be extended to such content, such as posters from Hong Kong hospitals reminding people not to use foul language or commit violent acts.

Example below (Subject to Copyright Sign): https://evchk.fandom.com/zh/wiki/粗口?file=Cs-06-02.png Thomas Chu Tsun On (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)