User:Kareha/draft

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: [[:]]

Derivative works in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | italiano | 日本語 | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | 中文 | +/−

Decision tree for derivative works on Wikimedia Commons

Summary[edit]

You are not permitted on Commons to upload photographs of works of art that are still copyrighted, whether they are 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional. Pictures of copyrighted 3-dimensional works of art are called derivative works, while pictures of 2-dimensional works of art are called reproductions. This article explains why you may not upload derivative works, i.e. pictures of sculptures, action figures and other things that are copyrighted. There are a few legal exceptions to the rule (mainly for objects that are permanently installed in public places), which are explained in Commons:Freedom of panorama.

What is a derivative work?[edit]

Derivative works, according to the US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101 are defined as follows:

"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'".

In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. Also, all other modifications whose outcome is a new, creatively original work. Who may create such a derivative work? See US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 106:

"(T)he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (...) (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work".

As opposed to an exact copy or minor variation of a work (e.g. the same book with a different title), which does not create a new copyright, a derivative work creates a new copyright on all original aspects of the new version. Thus, for example, the creator of The Annotated Hobbit holds a copyright on all of the notes and commentary he wrote, but not on the original text of w:The Hobbit which is included in the book. The original copyright is still valid! The person who holds the copyright to, say, a Darth Vader action figure or a Picasso statue, has the exclusive right to create derivative works. That includes photographs of the work, since (as court decisions put it) that's one aspect of his work that he/she might want to exploit commercially.

If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?[edit]

By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and do not go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That is why you will not be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so.

If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?[edit]

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.

This photograph of the Venus de Milo is a derivative work. Luckily, the artist died more than 2000 years ago, so the statue is in the public domain - no copyright problems here provided that an appropriate licence is provided to cover the photographer's copyright in the photograph

Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?[edit]

No. There are special provisions in 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 over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such. ([1])

There are things, like sculptures, paintings, action figures that do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore are generally copyrighted as works of fine art. There is no clear line between copyrightable and not copyrightable. Also, different legislations use different criteria. German law, for example, has a term called Schöpfungshöhe, which is defined as the threshold of originality that is needed for an object or a drawing to be copyrightable, and which is especially high for works of applied art. Of course, there is no legal definition for this threshold; you can only use your common sense and actual court decisions (a good start: [2]).

彫刻や絵画、アクションフィギュアのようなものは、実用品としての側面を持たず、したがって美術の著作物として著作権が保護されます。著作権の保護の対象となるかならないかという点について、はっきりとしたラインはありません。また、立法が違えば著作権の保護の要件もちがってきます。たとえば、ドイツの法律では、Schopfungshohe という用語があり、著作物として保護されるために必要な threshhold of originality が定義されており、特に美術の著作物に関してはハードルが高くなっています。もちろん、この threshholdを定義する法律はありませんので、ただ、判例と常識のみが判断の基準となります（[3] はよい足がかりとなるでしょう）

The design of your alarm clock or your dinner plate is probably not copyrighted in the same way Mickey Mouse is. Please keep apart works of art (the Pokemon) and objects of daily use (gaming consoles, dinner plates), the latter of which generally are not works in the sense of copyright, or, depending on jurisdiction, do not show enough originality for the vastly increased prerequisites for copyright protection of such objects. They are generally protected by design patents, which may or may not (depending on jurisdiction again) hinder commercial use of pictures for anything but quotation-like contexts, but that's not our problem, since it's entirely independent of copyright and thus not something that we should care about.

目覚まし時計や食器は、おそらく、ミッキーマウスのようには著作権が保護されないでしょう。美術の著作物（ポケモン）と日用品（ゲーム機本体や食器類）を混同しないようにしてください。一般的に、日用品は、著作権の保護の対象となりうる著作物ではありませんし、あるいは、法管轄によりけりですが、この手のものとして著作物性を認められる前提条件である創作性が十分に発揮されたものではありません。これらは一般的に意匠権や特許権によって保護されており、写真を撮って引用的文脈以外の目的で商用利用することが（ここもまた法管轄しだいです）認められていない場合がなきにしもあらずですが、これは著作権とはまったく別個の問題ですから、私たちが懸念すべき問題ではありません。

著作権の保護期間内にある美術品（絵画や彫刻など）の写真をアップロードしてはいけないことはわかりましたが、玩具はどうなのでしょう？　玩具は美術品じゃありません！[edit]

Legally, most toys are art. It is the same thing whether you take a picture of a sculpture or a picture of Darth Vader. Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you will need the permission of the original creator. You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.

法律上、ほとんどの玩具は美術品です。彫刻やダース・ベーダーの写真を撮影するのと同じことです。どちらも著作権が保護されており、どちらの場合も撮影者の権利は原作の著作権を無効にしませんので、原作者の許諾が必要となります。ピカソ作の彫刻の写真をアップロードしてはいけませんし、ミッキーマウスやポケモンの人形の写真もアップロードしてはいけません。

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. They can be copyrighted, perhaps, if they were given a very special form by a designer, but the ones you use at home are probably not.

少なからぬ裁判で、ミッキーマウスやアステリックスを美術の著作物として扱わねばならず、つまり著作権の保護の対象である旨が判示される一方で、ありふれたスプーンやテーブルが美術の著作物でないことも示されています。デザイナーによって特殊な造形を施されていれば、ひょっとしたら著作権が保護されるかもしれませんが、一般家庭で日常的に使用しているものであればおそらく大丈夫でしょう。

でもウィキメディア・コモンズは非営利です！ フェアユースはどうなのでしょう？[edit]

Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial project, but the project scope requires that every single picture may be used commercially via free licenses. Every image or media file must be free of third party copyrights.

ウィキメディア・コモンズは非営利のプロジェクトですが、Commons:プロジェクト基準は、それぞれの写真が商用利用を自由とする許諾が得られていることを求めています。あらゆるファイルが第三者の著作権から自由でなければなりません。

Fair use is generally not allowed on Commons. "Fair use" is a difficult legal exception for pictures that are used in a certain limited context; it is not applicable on entire databases of copyrighted material.

基本的に、フェアユースはコモンズでは認められていません。「フェアユース」は一部の文脈においてのみ用いられる、著作権法の難解な例外であり、著作物のデータベース全体に適用できるものではありません。

でもスターウォーズやポケモンのようなトピックの記事を画像なしに書けといわれても、どうすればいいのでしょう？[edit]

Admittedly, it is difficult. You'll probably have to refrain from illustrating such Wikipedia articles. However, there is plenty of photo opportunities for many topics that do not violate third party copyrights. This project is not going to die because we do not have pictures of Pikachu and Asterix. Also, we will not have pictures of works by Picasso or Andy Warhol for a long time, but we can still write articles about them.

確かに難しいかもしれません。ひょっとしたら、ウィキペディアにおいてその手の記事を起こすのを断念しなければならないかもしれません。しかしながら、第三者の著作権を侵害しない写真が豊富なトピックも数多くあります。ピカチュウやアステリックスの画像ないからといって、このプロジェクトが意義を没するわけではありません。同じように、ピカソやアンディー・ウォーホルの作品の画像もまた当分は私たちの自由にできないものですが、かれらについての記事を書くことは可能です。

And no, it does not matter whether Mickey Mouse is printed on a T-shirt, which you bought with your own money and which is worn by yourself while you are walking in a public place, loudly reciting the GFDL. That does not at all give you the right to take a picture of the T-shirt, cut out Mickey Mouse and upload it as "free" material. Nothing you will ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material.

なお、あなたのお金であなたが購入したミッキーマウスがプリントされた T シャツを、公の場であなた自身が着て、声高らかに GFDL を謳ったところで、結論は変わりません。以上の事実はその T シャツからミッキーマウスの部分を切り抜いて「フリーな」素材としてアップロードする権利をあなたに与えません。また、自分の手でピカチュウを描いたり、巨大なセーラームーンのフィギュアを造成したりしたとしても、それによって著作権が保護されている素材がたちまちのうちに「フリーな」素材に変化するようなことは決してありません。

I've never heard about this before! Is this some kind of creative interpretation?[edit]

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.

Casebook[edit]

How does this policy 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 allowed (as long as the original is not in the public domain). No pictures 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:Licensing). You can also use scans from other web sites - they're not copyrighted, as long as they do not show the frame. Frames are 3-dimensional objects, so the photo may be copyrighted. Remove the frame (via cropping) and everything is fine. - 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, and furthermore, the moral rights of the original creator—which include the right to be named as the author—are perpetual in some countries.
  • 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 PD paintings on flat surfaces 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 if you are on public ground while taking the picture. Check Commons:Freedom of 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.)
    • Full freedom of panorama: Australia, Austria, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom
    • Restricted or no freedom of panorama: Armenia*, Azerbaijan*, Belarus*, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia*, Finland***, France, Georgia*, Hungary, Italy, Japan***, Kazakhstan*, Kyrgyzstan*, Latvia*, Lithuania*, Moldova*, Norway**, Romania*, Russia*, Uzbekistan*, Ukraine, USA**
      * These countries limit their freedom of panorama to non-commercial uses of the image only. Overview images that do not feature a single coyprighted building or other work as their main subject are allowed.
      **These countries have freedom of panorama only for buildings, but not for sculptures or other works.
      ***These countries have full freedom of panorama only for buildings, whereas images of sculptures or other works may only be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
  • Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, are copies and not derivative works, which means they're not copyrightable by the person who creates the replica. Photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.
  • Photographs of three-dimensional objects are 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 are 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.

Weblinks[edit]

Case studies
Other useful sites
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kareha/draft&oldid=11975652"