原创性门槛

著作权法概念

原创性门槛(英文:Threshold of originality)是源自英美法系的一个著作权法概念,用来检验某一作品能否得到著作权法的保护。原创性是作品获得著作权法保护的前提要件[1][2],其要求作品需为作者独立完成,具备最低程度的创意,不能是单纯复制自既有作品。只要一件作品具备最低程度的创意,即可达到原创性门槛而获得保护[3]

缺乏原创性的作品虽然无法获得著作权法保护,但仍可依据商标法专利法中的相关规定,又或者依据普通法中的假冒行為来寻求知识产权保护。

地圖编辑

字体及几何图形编辑

 
Skyy 伏特加酒酒瓶

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc.一案及一份国会报告(House Report No. 94-1476)中,字体的设计被认为无法获得美国著作权法保护。在本案的裁决中法院指出:[64]

Skyy 伏特加酒的酒瓶,虽然很具有吸引力,但没有什么特殊的设计或者其他的特色,能让其单独作为一项作品而存在。这不过是为了发挥一定的功能普通形状的酒瓶罢了。 现在来察看瓶身上的标签。地区法院也认为 Ets-Hokin 的照片是衍生作品。我们也说过“仅能获得商标法保护而不具有著作权法保护的印刷品或标签,是无法提起著作权侵犯之诉的”。虽然标签的“图像”一般可以获得著作权法保护,但上面的“文字”所组成的图像,除非这些文字有助于说明或附属于其附带的图像,也无法获得著作权法保护。此处 Skyy 伏特加酒的酒瓶标签只有文字,没有任何图像。

机械创造的作品编辑

在机械创造的作品中,“很有可能存在著作权……因为‘只要有那么一点人格就能保证原创性的存在。’”[65] 但在美国著作权法当中,Stephen M. McJohn 写道:

著作权被限定在“有作者的作品”当中。这似乎意味着要有一个人,在满足创造性的条件下创造了该作品。如果一个作品是完全由机器创造的,那可能会因为没有“作者”而丧失著作权的保护。 [10]

此处就浮现出一个问题,即如何判定一个作品到底是完全由机器随机创造的,还是其创作过程当中有那么一丁点的人为因素,使得该作品能够获得著作权保护。美国的国会科技评估办公室认为,这个问题要取决于是否能将电脑与其他工具区分开,作为作者之一。[66][62]美国版权局的看法是,“要能够满足注册版权的条件,一件作品必须是人类创造的。机器创造,或完全没有人为因素参与的随机创造作品,无法进行注册。”[67]

参考来源编辑

  1. ^ 从"大黄鸭"谈作品原创性与创造性. www.sipo.gov.cn. 
  2. ^ "銀幣侵權第一案"一審宣判停止侵權賠償道歉. zscq.eastday.com. [2014-03-01]. (原始内容存档于2016-10-14). 
  3. ^ 淺析衍生著作保護問題–以美國法為借鏡 (2011年10月). www.saint-island.com.tw. 
  4. ^ Maurice Leblanc. The Arthur Conan Doyle Encyclopedia. [2019-12-26]. 
  5. ^ Urbanski, Heather. Plagues, Apocalypses and Bug-Eyed Monsters. McFarland. 2007: 156–8. ISBN 978-0-7864-2916-5. 
  6. ^ Parrinder, Patrick. H.G. Wells: The Critical Heritage. Routledge. 1997: 4–5. ISBN 0-415-15910-5. 
  7. ^ David Y. Hughes and Harry M. Geduld, A Critical Edition of The War of the Worlds: H.G. Wells's Scientific Romance (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), pgs 281–289.
  8. ^ The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema. [2016-12-02]. 
  9. ^ What's the Big Deal?: Nosferatu (1922). [2016-12-02]. 
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 10.2 McJohn, Stephen M. Copyright: examples and explanations. Aspen Publishers Online. 2006: 20. ISBN 978-0-7355-5287-6.  引用错误:带有name属性“McJohn 20”的<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. v. Flyingman, Case Number CIV-07-949-C Memorandum and Order (W.D. Okla., 27 October 2008). Retrieved 21 April 2013.
  12. ^ Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. v. Flyingman, Case Number CIV-07-949-C Defense Motion for Summary Judgement (W.D. Okla., 28 Aug. 2008). Retrieved 21 April 2013.
  13. ^ Frankel, Susy. The Copyright and Privacy Nexus (PDF). Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. October 2005, (36): 518 [2011-01-09]. [永久失效連結]
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 English Court of Appeal: Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland & Others [2000] EWCA Civ 37 (10 February 2000); URL retrieved 2011-01-11.
  15. ^ Vaver, David. Intellectual property law: copyright, patents, trade-marks. Irwin Law. 1997: 54–55. ISBN 978-1-55221-007-9.  As cited in Perry, Mark; Margoni, Thomas. From Music Tracks to Google Maps: Who Owns Computer Generated Works?. SSRN: 9. 2010-07-26. SSRN 1647584 . 
  16. ^ Vaver, D.: Creating a Fair Intellectual Property System for the 21st Century, p. . F.W. Guest Memorial Lecture: 19 July 2000. Otago Law Review, vol 10(1), 2001. URL retrieved 2011-01-11.
  17. ^ Kamina, Pascal. Film copyright in the European Union. Cambridge University Press. 2002: 78. ISBN 978-0-521-77053-8.  已忽略未知参数|url-access= (帮助)
  18. ^ Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as last amended on December 8, 2011). WIPO. [2014-03-27]. 
  19. ^ Ruling of the Ninth apellate arbitration court of 20.04.2011 № 09АП-2257/2011 on case № А40-113912/10-12-720; Decision of the Arbitration court of city of Moscow of 04.02.2011 on case № А40-131349/10-67-236
  20. ^ Masnick, Mike. Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos. Techdirt. [2014-06-24]. 
  21. ^ Can monkey who took grinning self-portrait claim copyright?. Metro. 2011-07-14 [2014-06-24]. 
  22. ^ Masnick, Mike. Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain. Techdirt. [2014-06-24]. 
  23. ^ Axelrad, Jacob. US government: Monkey selfies ineligible for copyright. Christian Science Monitor. 2014-08-22 [2014-08-23]. 
  24. ^ Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2 (PDF). United States Copyright Office: 22. 2014-12-22 [2015-04-27]. To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. 
  25. ^ Jeong, Sarah. The monkey selfie lawsuit lives. The Verge. 2018-04-13 [2018-04-13]. 
  26. ^ Monkey selfie: warring parties reach settlement over court case. The Guardian. 2017-09-12 [2017-11-04]. 
  27. ^ Alexander, Isabella. Explainer: our copyright laws and the Australian Aboriginal flag. The Conversation. [2019-06-19] (英语). 
  28. ^ David Vaver, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd Edition, Irwin Law: Toronto, 2011. at pg 100.
  29. ^ 2004 SCC 13
  30. ^ Daniel J. Gervais. Canadian Copyright Law Post-CCH. Intellectual Property Journal. 2004, 18 (2): 131. 
  31. ^ in Infopaq § 37 the European Court of Justice rules that subject-matter [protected by copyright] is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation.
  32. ^ 32.0 32.1 Hartwig, Henning. Germany: conflict between design and copyright law?. World Intellectual Property Review. [2015-08-17]. 
  33. ^ Schack, Haimo. Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck. 2007: 118. ISBN 978-3-16-149489-5 (德语). 
  34. ^ German Federal Court of Justice expands copyright protection of works of Applied Art (PDF). Baker & McKenzie. [2015-08-17]. (原始内容 (PDF)存档于2015-09-23). 
  35. ^ Germany: Copyright Protection More Easily Available For Works Of "Applied Arts". KSNH. [2015-08-17]. 
  36. ^ Digitising public domain images creates a new copyright, rules German court [Updated]. Ars Technica UK. 2016-06-23 [2016-06-23]. 
  37. ^ Sherman, Brad. "Backseat conversations" not protected by copyright. Kluwer Copyright Blog. 2013-08-20 [2013-09-22]. 
  38. ^ Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004
  39. ^ AIR 1955 Mad 391
  40. ^ ¶8, V. Govindan vs E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone And Anr. (AIR 1955 Mad 391)
  41. ^ 1995 IVAD Delhi 732
  42. ^ 42.0 42.1 ¶37, Eastern Book Company v DB Modak
  43. ^ [2004] 1 SCR 339
  44. ^ ¶16, CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339
  45. ^ Japanese copyright law. Government of Japan. [2013-08-26]. (原始内容存档于2016-10-28) (日语). 
  46. ^ Tokyo High Court ruling 昭和55(行ケ)30, Supreme Court ruling 昭和55(行ツ)75, [1]
  47. ^ Tokyo High Court ruling 平成6(ネ)1470[2]
  48. ^ SR 231.1 Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte. Government of Switzerland. [2013-05-20]. 
  49. ^ X. gegen Y. AG, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of 5 September 2003. bger.ch. [2021-06-23].  BGE 130 III 168.
  50. ^ Blau Guggenheim gegen British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of 19 April 2004; BGE 130 III 714.
  51. ^ Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights 1992. Swiss Federal Council - English translation (select DE, FR or IT for legally enforceable versions). 2020-04-01. 
  52. ^ 著作權基本概念篇-1~10. Intellectual Property Office, MOEA. 2008-03-31 [2018-11-10] (中文). 
  53. ^ Carson, David O. Best Western Logo (PDF). Copyright appeals (2006). United States Copyright Office. (原始内容 (PDF)存档于2016-04-12). 
  54. ^ Morrissey v. Procter and Gamble. An Introduction to Intellectual Property. University of Connecticut School of Law. [2013-09-23]. (原始内容存档于2011-07-18). 
  55. ^ Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.. Harvard Law Review. 2017-11-04 [2018-07-16]. 
  56. ^ Filler, Stephen C. Copyright Protection and Subject Matter in Photographs. 2006-12-09. (原始内容存档于2006-12-09). 
  57. ^ Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. (2008) (PDF). [2013-09-22]. 
  58. ^ CBS Radio Has Novel Argument to Legal Demand to Stop Playing Pre-1972 Songs. The Hollywood Reporter. [2016-06-02]. 
  59. ^ CBS Beats Lawsuit Over Pre-1972 Songs With Bold Copyright Argument. The Hollywood Reporter. [2016-06-02]. 
  60. ^ Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
  61. ^ U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT-302 72 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office, April 1986).
  62. ^ 62.0 62.1 Acosta, Raquel. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Rights. JOLTdigest.com. 2012-02-17 [2013-02-06]. (原始内容存档于2012-04-29).  引用错误:带有name属性“JOLTDigest”的<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次
  63. ^ See Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices § 503.03(a) (1984)
  64. ^ 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)
  65. ^ Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
  66. ^ U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT-302 72 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office, April 1986).
  67. ^ See Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices § 503.03(a) (1984)