User:Nillerdk/Sandbox

Guidelines for determining level of originality in a Danish law perspective

The following is meant to serve as a guideline to decide whether a photo is a photographic work or just a photographic picture in the sense of the Danish law on copyright (Lov om Ophavsret). Regarding this distinction, the text of the law is rather vague and there have been no court decisions on the matter. The best we can do here is thus be careful and follow recommendations given by copyright experts. In the end, it is a case-by-case decision.

User:Hemmingsen has translated ([1] relevant quotes from two Danish books on copyright.

Evaluating whether a photograph meets the threshold of originality, includes elements such as composition, the angle of the photo, the choice of scene, perspective, lighting etc.. An independent effort must have been made where multiple options were available. In practice, one will often look at whether the photographer has a professional education and uses photography to make a living. But of course nothing prevents an amateur from creating a photographic work.

— Birkmann, Anette & Dyekjær, Thomas Maagaard (2006): Håndbog i ophavsret (in Danish), Nyt Juridisk Forlag, p. 64

The requirement for originality may be met if the photographer was creative in the choice of scene [...] or there may be originality in the timing [...] There may also be originality in the photographers choice of angle and positioning of the camera, the lighting, arranging the photographed people, depth of field etc.

— Rosenmeier, Morten (2007): Ophavsret for begyndere (in Danish), Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, p. 52

Cases

Photographic works (level of originality high)

• 
  Originality in light, background and choice of clothing
• 
  Even more originality in composition
• 

Photographic pictures (low level of originality)

• 
  Seems rather "random" - low level of originality
• 
  The King of Denmark riding by, but the photo has low level of originality
• 
  Postcard motive, but there was not much room for originality
• 
  Another rather random photo of a Danish politician
• 
  /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  Not sure if artistic /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  Not sure if artistic. No evidence that photo is old enough to be Anonymous-EU. /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  Not sure if artistic. /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  Photographer Bodil Hauschildt died in 1951. /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.
• 
  Probably artistic. Not old enough to be PD in USA. /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok. Jeg vil gætte på at Atelier Moderne betyder at fotografen var Marius Christensen, men jeg ved ikke hvor længe han levede.
• 
  PD in the US (pub. before 1923), but Albert Schou Jr (probably son of photographer Albert Schou 1849-1900) probably lived in 1939 and is thus not PD-old-70. /Hemmingsen: Det er simpelt nok til at man godt kunne bilde mig ind at det var ok.