共享资源:原创门槛/美洲

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Threshold of originality/Americas and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Threshold of originality/Americas and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

原创门槛
非洲美洲亞洲欧洲大洋洲 Others

此页面提供了美洲不同国家或地区的原创性阈值规则概述。它是从各个页面部分“嵌入”的，给出了每个地区的规则。

美洲国家

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Argentina

阿根廷

The creations are subject to a threshold of originality that distinguishes them from others by giving their personal imprint.^[1]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Antigua and Barbuda

There are some court cases related to threshold of originality in Brazil. According to one study, and the court decisions contained in it, the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States, and consequently the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States, which is the general reference in Commons.

^[2]

Examples:

可以. In the case of Boneco de Preço Miúdo (2011), puppets that were a tridimensional and humanized version of a logo were deemed by the court to lack enough originality to be protected. The court considered that there was no originality or unpublished work in the puppets because they represented an already existing symbol (the supermarket's logo), and that there were already previous 3D and humanized versions of that logo. The court did not grant any value nor legal protection to the specific 3D and humanized version of the logo in question, and called it something like a "stylization subordinate to a previous idea".

^[3]

可以. Copyright for compilations/ reorganizations of already existing elements has often been rejected on court, hinting that the threshold for what constitutes an "intellectual creation" in this respect is quite high in Brazil.

^[4]

可以. Slogans are generally acceptable. In rare occasions they may be protected, when there is such a level of creativity as to attain the level of a literary work. For example, in the Guerra das Moedas court case (2013), copyright in the expression was not recognized by the court. The verdict stated that the language is the cultural patrimony of the people, so language expressions can't be protected by law. The Rede Globo vs. Ronaldo Ciambroni case was similar.

^[5]^[6]

Some examples help define which photos are, and are not, "artistic creations", and therefore object of protection under the 1973 copyright law:

可以. The facade of the Jung Frau building, in Joinville, as well as partial views of the city, when photographed in an obvious simple way, without employment of any special ("diferenciada") technique". The court ruled: "photographs are not considered artistic creations ... that portray in a manifestly simple way, without use of any differentiated technique, the front of a residential building and a partial view of the city, under a service contract with a real estate business with a predefined advertising purpose"

^[7]

可以. Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."

^[8]

可以. A 2000 ruling stated: "Photographs for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works. ... Neither should purely technical photographs, which reproduce a certain object without the slightest artistic concern, be protected by copyright."

^[9]

不可以 Another 2000 decision stated: "the photos [...] have an artistic character characterized by the originality, creativity and technique of its author, elements that reveal ... a work of art. They are not, as the appellant claims, mere reproductions of images for advertising purposes, or common snapshots."

^[10]

Puppets who were a tridimensional and humanized version of this logo were deemed in court to lack enough originality to be protected.

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Peru

秘鲁

Indecopi established parameters to qualify the originality of graphic and photographic compositions. Because of the higher originality threshold (independent of its endeavour, novelty, inspiration and technique, the requirement is to leave some space for the development of its author's personality, not a copy or imitation, referred as "originalidad subjetiva"),^[11] simple designs, non-production videographic creations and old photographs without demonstrating their individuality can be uploaded to Commons. See also Andean Community: Threshold of originality.

簡單的照片

Old published photographs have a copyright term of 20 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the disclosing of the photograph before 1976. The notes shown are based on the rescinded 1961 law:

For old pictures taken prior to 31 December 1975 and which were not published within an author's own work fail to meet the general definition of a "work" under 1961 law (and Article 3.4 of Universal Copyright Convention: "The provisions […] not apply to photographic works […] shall not be less than ten years").^[12] The duration of the photograph was for 20 years after performed its first copy, without the author presenting this in a literary, scientific or documentary work, from January 1 of the following year.^{[13714/1961 Art. 27]} They were not renewed during the URAA date.^{[13714/1961 Art. 27 and 57]} Use {{PD-Peru-photo}}.
The duration is reduced if the following occurs: when the author did not place the name of the label with the message "Reproduction prohibited" or that the author published in a work without a full name or under an unknown pseudonym.^{[13714/1961 Art. 58]} The duration of anonymous works prior to 31 December 1980 was 15 years after publication and expired on 1 January 1996. They were not renewed during the URAA date. Use {{PD-Peru-anonymous}}.
If they were used in literary or scientific works, they were documentary works or are reproductions of artistic material "of private domain", and the author died before 1946 (of before 1966 if someone had no family heirs), the law considers the photographs as the author's work (life + 30/50 years).^[12] In the case of collective works, the date is considered to be the last survivor. If they died after 1947, they are protected by the current law. Use {{PD-Peru-1961law}}.

Recent published photographs below threshold have a copyright term of 70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the taking of the photograph. Fortunately, this term usually flexible in the cases and facts shown below:

The general definition of a "work" in the 1996 law is "any personal and original intellectual creation capable of being disclosed or reproduced in any form that is or may yet become known".^{[822/1996 Art.2(17)]} Simple photographs taken or disclosed since 1976 are those which fail to meet the general definition of a "work" and only receive neighbouring rights,^{[822/1996 Art.144]} but works above this threshold will receive standard protection (life + 70 years, see below).
The Court of Indecopi believes that originality in a photograph should be limited to the originality of any work, requirements to protect against plagiarism. According to article 3.c of the Regulation of Inscriptions in the Registry National Copyright Act, provides that "no may be subject to registration the photographs that are limited to simple reproductions of people, of things, or of objects already existing or showing a mere documentary character [...] photography to be a work can not constitute only a simple reproduction of already existing objects".^[13]
Derecho PUCP journal explains examples of highly distinguishable events that surpass the threshold of originality: creative use of lights, unique moment, transmission of a message in their work and the photographer's personality. Below these and other criteria, simple photographs are legislated under Legislative Decree 1044 on unfair competition.^[14]

Examples for photographs under 1961 law:

Photography within an advertisement not considered "literary work". Image protection expired in 1988. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See UR.
Photography taken in 1973 for a sports magazine. Because this is a journalistic assignment for an organization, the photograph remained protected for 20 years until its expiration in 1993. It also can't be protected in the 1996 law. See DR.

Examples for photographs under 1996 law:

In 2002 the Court considered two images of household appliances as below of threshold of originality due to the lack of creative evidence, despite they are in a catalog with individuality. See Resolution No 354-2002/TPI-INDECOPI.^[15]
Also, in 2002 the Court ruled that a magazine photograph of Skándalo boy band in ordinary dress and solid-colored background receives related rights-only because it lacks individuality. See Resolution No 378-2002/TPI-INDECOPI, Alomi Producciones S.A.C. v Karinto S.A p.13.^[13]
In 2007 the Court justified a photograph of gift box for a web catalog as original work because of its shade selection and during the editing process it carried meticulous details, specifically the colored shade artificially created. See Resolution No 1263-2007/TPI-INDECOPI, Enrique Capella v Grupo Americano de Comercio S.A.C. and Citybank del Perú S.A p.4.^[16]
In 2008 the court determined that press snapshots of sporting, political or weather events lack originality for lack of prior preparation in their production. See Resolution No 2521-2008/TPI-Indecopi, Agencia Efe S.A. v Las Rosas Editorial S.A.C.
In 2012 the Court concluded that non-artistic techniques of photographs are not protectable (for example, scanning). See Resolution No 059-2012/TPI-Indecopi and Indecopi (2015), p.75.^[17]
In 2013 Indecopi deduced that a promotional photograph of a model wearing clothes of a textile company does bear originality due to the framing, focus and composition to highlight her outfit. See Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI, Peruvian Connection Ltd. v SENATI p. 9 and 10.^[18]
In 2021 the criteria for originality of photographs were simplified to three points: transmittable, framed and lighting that shows their personality. Between pages 77 and 82 of this resolution the court evident that press photographs from Hildebrandt en sus trece magazine do carry originality because they focus on the gestures of the photographed and the depth of the camera. See Resolution No 0096-2021/TPI-INDECOPI, Plutón Editores S.A.C. v DP Comunicaciones S.A.C..

Videographic process

There is threshold of originality for audiovisual creations but their protection is similar for both works and recordings (publish/create + 70 years). While cinematographic works ("obra audiovisual") are protected in their entirety, the related rights can only be granted to the producer of non-artistic filming ("grabación audiovisual"),^{[822/1996 Art. 140]} which also include performance and broadcasting.^{[822/1996 Art. 143]} Resolution 000111-1999-ODA-INDECOPI establishes differences between the two terms, in particular, and in a similar way to simple photographs, the fixation of the succession of images. But, Resolution 371-2001/TPI-INDECOPI establishes that the main requirement to receive related rights from the producer of non-artistic filming consists of: "present in their creation process a certain degree of creativity, technical or organizational skill sufficient to justify the recognition of a similar right in their favor" (p.e. Pay-per-View events).

Theoretically, a security camera captures in a public place could lack of their producer (as a public asset is mainly assumed to Peruvian State) to be in the public domain. Security camera footage from Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Ciudadana is provided anonymously to the Peruvian National Police or Public Prosecutor's Office like state cameras in public areas, there is no knowed evidence from the original producer of the material.^{[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 18]} Opinión Consultiva 60-2019-JUS/DGTAIPD indicates that footage records are disclosure if these are for public interest and share in open data process (see also Works by the Peruvian Government ),^{[N° 007-2020-IN Art.22]} the places filmed correspond to "places of public domain",^{[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 7]} human monitoring exists but does not interfere with the surveillance camera's technical or creative ability for recording.^{[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 2]} Also it isn't artistic work since its custody cannot be altered from the original,^{[N° 007-2020-IN Art. 19]} as a result, the footage is below the threshold of originality and don't comply with related rights of article 143 of the 1996 law.^[19]^[20] Moral rights prevail of the person involved in this media. For these footage in official works, use {{PD-PE-exempt}}.

標誌、設計和其他作品

Simple or ordinary logos and designs are OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. In words of Indecopi and Ministry of Justice and quoting Resolutions No. 1349-2001/TPI-INDECOPI (first paragraph) and 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI (second paragraph):

“	According to Article 3 of Decision 351 [of the Andean Decision], in accordance with Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 822, a work is understood to be any original intellectual creation of an artistic, scientific or literary nature, susceptible of being disclosed or reproduced in any form.[...] Whatever already part of the cultural heritage -artistic, scientific or literary- will not be considered [original creation], nor will [original] the form of expression that derives from the nature of things or from mechanical-only application of the provisions of certain legal norms, nor will [original] the form of expression that is reduced to a simple technique or simple instructions that only require manual skill for this execution.	”
—Indecopi, La originalidad como requisito de protección por derechos de autor ("requisito de la originalidad"), Precedentes y normativa del Indecopi en Propiedad Intelectual (2015)^[17]

In 18th paragraph in Casación Número: 1686-2011 explains the use of originality with architectural works satisfying utilitarian functions:

“

The originality of the architectural work [...] must be sought essentially in the creative features that are most distinguishable from the purposes of the model, its nature, its geographic and landscape context, and the functional requirements of the costumer, as well as the technical and urban planning standards applicable to the case; and respond rather, in a particular way or as totality, to the individuality or artistic personality of the author. [An] architectural model [...] must be subjected to analysis for the purpose of identifying whether they respond only to elements of functionality or natural characteristics of the species to which they belong or, on the contrary, contain features that correspond to the whim or personality that the author has wanted to attribute to them, beyond their functionality or technical rigor, resulting in giving individuality to the work, in relation to the rest of the constructions of its species.

”

Telefónica v Deutsche Telekom (Resolución N° 1127-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)^[17]: "It's not possible to grant a monopoly on this letter in favour of a single holder".
Agrotrade S.R.LTDA. v Infutecsa E.I.R.L. (Resolución Nº 0286-1998/TPI-INDECOPI)^[17]: "When it is certain that a creation lacks individuality and has been copied verbatim, it does not make it a work".
Resolución Nº 1370-2011/TPI-INDECOPI: "Although it is not a common typeface and may eventually show some differences with respect to the classic graph, this is not sufficient to consider that the work is protected by copyright".
Resolución Nº 0366-2011-TPI-INDECOPI: "The title of the poster consists of a sentence without creativity and directly informs and announces the content of the event".
Corporación Oro Verde S.A.C. v Industrias Alimenticias Cusco S.A. (Resolución Nº 008-2008/CDA-INDECOPI): "The borders with Inca motifs and the typeface used to represent the word "CUSCO" do not meet the requirement of originality sufficient to be considered an artistic work".
Carga Máxima v Del Barrio and Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión (Resolución Nº 0209-2019/CDA-INDECOPI): the court determined that the "squeaky font style" from Chicha posters for this logo is not original due to its common usage.
Resolución N° 0546-2005/TPI-INDECOPI: In the "drawing", they bear the texts and the crown of the Statue of Liberty, which lack individuality.
Resolución N° 0698-2014/TPI-INDECOPI: "The fact that [...] the exclamation mark is written in an irregular form and that each letter or sign has a different color, [does not] determine that such characteristics endow the design applied for registration with the features of originality required by the norm to provide it with protection as a work".
Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI: "The Court notes that there are no original elements, since they are figures that do not present any particularity, which have been reproduced in the usual manner, without any element having been included".
Resolución Nº 1192-2017/TPI-INDECOPI (see Resolución Nº 1194-2017/TPI-INDECOPI).
Resolución N° 4301-2015/TPI-INDECOPI: "These are ornamental elements that lack originality, since the same or similar ones are being used by different people and companies to identify".
Empresas Luc-Chetti S.A. v Molinoitalia S.A. y Pragma DePublicidad S.A. (Resolución Nº 074-2000/TPI-INDECOPI): "[...] although musical works comprise melody, harmony and rhythm; exclusive rights to the melody can only be acquired".^[21]
Resolución Nº 211-94-DA-INDECOPI: "la protección [...] no abarca la ordenación alfabética de usuarios que contiene [la guía telefónica]"
Far from fiction, Duff is an element that individually lacks the protection of a work of art. Subsequently, Fox managed to obtain identification characteristics to be registered as beer trademark (Resolución Nº 1508-2009/TPI-INDECOPI).^[22]
Resolución N° 2418-2009/TPI-INDECOPI: While the angle of the handle to the horizontal line or the depth of the concave part of the teaspoon [is slightly different] from the standard shape [...] the object is not an original work, due to the common form of others teaspoons.^[23]
Resolución N° 0184-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: The miniature representation of Machu Picchu in plastic material cannot be granted as an original work, because its registration would prohibit people create other miniature versions of the citadel.^[23]
Resolución Nº 1645-2007/TPI-INDECOPI: "The elaboration of a [portable stage] (similar to this image) may have meant an intellectual effort on the part of its creator, but it does not have enough characteristics to be considered a work of [3D] art, since it consists of a simple arrangement of removable panels in the form of a screen".
Resolución Nº 0148-2008/TPI-INDECOPI: "However, the Court considers that allowing protection to a design composed exclusively of figures or designs in the public domain, such as the Inca chakana, would mean for no other person to be able to use such designs belonging to the common cultural heritage".
Resolución Nº 0083-2011/DDA-INDECOPI does not consider protection to use of Tumi with common text.
A newsline that is not subject to copyright protection but the image, also not considered a work of authorship, is subject to related protection for 70 years post-creation.
Resolución N° 0082-2023/TPI-INDECOPI: "The additional elements that appear on the images (e.g. rectangles containing phrases or expressions) also do not present particular features that denote a minimum of originality, so they cannot be protected by copyright"

Note: Some creations are above the threshold of originality and are not valid for upload to Commons:

Logo of Tres Olivas: a leaf with three olives with tonalities, use of brightness and sensation of movement. See Resolution No 1774-2012/TPI-INDECOPI, Olivos del Sur S.A.C. vs Antonio Moncayo Cortés.^[24]
Emblema La Primera. See Resolution No 2361-2016/TPI-INDECOPI.
A fictional character in Superman: Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite. See Resolution No 1164-2014/TPI-INDECOPI.
A logo with a people with torch to the letter E, above the letter T. Triunfo Empresarial. See Resolution No 0319-2018/TPI-INDECOPI.

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Bolivia

玻利維亞

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Belize

伯利兹

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Colombia

哥伦比亚

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

The threshold of originality is subject to the personal stamp that the author puts on their work.^[25]

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Costa Rica

哥斯达黎加

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Cuba

古巴

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Dominican Republic

多明尼加

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Dominica

多米尼克

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Ecuador

厄瓜多尔

See Andean Community: Threshold of originality

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Grenada

格瑞那達

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Guyana

圭亚那

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Haiti

海地

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Honduras

洪都拉斯

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Canada

加拿大

與其他普通法國家不同，加拿大的原創性門檻更接近美國。CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada明確拒絕“汗流浹背”的標準太低，但同時表示原創性的創意標準太高：

創造力標準意味著某些東西必須是新穎的或非顯而易見的——與專利法相關的概念比與版權法相關的更恰當。出於這些原因，我得出結論，版權法下的“原創”作品是來自作者的作品，而不是從另一部作品中復制的作品。然而，僅憑這一點還不足以發現某些東西是原創的。此外，原創作品必須是作者運用技能和判斷力的產物。製作作品所需的技能和判斷力的練習不能太瑣碎，以至於可以將其描述為純粹的機械練習。”

同案還說：

對於版權法意義上的“原創”作品，它必須不僅僅是另一件作品的複製品。同時，它不需要具有新穎性或獨特性的創造性。在表達想法時獲得版權保護需要的是技巧和判斷力的練習。我所說的技能是指在製作作品時運用自己的知識、發展的才能或實踐能力。我所說的判斷是指通過比較製作作品的不同可能選項來使用一個人的辨別能力或形成意見或評估的能力。這種技能和判斷力的練習必然涉及智力方面的努力。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO United States

美國

這些圖像 OK可以上傳到Commons。因為它們低於版權保護所需的原創性門檻。

Bridgeman v Corel 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): court ruling that 2D photographs of the original art has no valid claims for new copyrights (case description)
國家美式足球聯盟放棄紐奧良聖徒標章之著作權請求（新聞報導）
Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
DUB magazine: Consists of letters only. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
日建美國公司 (authority)
李小龍核心符號 (authority)
紐約箭頭標誌 (案例報告)
車貸城標誌：版權局裁定該標誌過於簡單無法保護，但接受了稍微複雜的版本（如鍊接信中所示）進行註冊(authority)
“神秘”的象徵(authority)
字母S(authority)
(authority)
註冊被取消(authority)
註冊被拒絕(authority)
Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits Inc.: 照片有資格獲得版權保護，但瓶子不是
塑料版本缺乏獨創性(L Batlin & Son v. Snyder)
Koosh balls; "不可分割的", OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Oman (case report)
阿肯色州地圖：在免費的黑白輪廓地圖中添加陰影、顏色、標籤（案例報告）
聖徒大道標誌；註冊被拒絕，儘管編譯版權要求安排其他不受保護的元素(authority)
極客小隊標誌(authority)
賽百味標誌 (authority)
Discover It標誌：版權局發現包括陰影效果在內的元素創意不足，不符合版權條件(authority)
“賽博朋克2077”標誌(authority)
洛杉磯FC標誌 (authority)
尼康標誌 (authority)
舊金山震動隊標誌 (authority)
公用保險庫系統六邊形徽標 (authority)

儘管一再要求，美國版權局還是發現了Vodafone語音標記（陰影版）/vodafone-speechmark.pdf 不符合版權保護。但是，它不能上傳到Commons，因為它是英國的標誌。

這些是 Not OK上傳到Commons（除非在版權所有者的免費許可下發布），因為它們高於版權保護所需的原創性門檻。

這兩個“禁止招攬”標誌雖然可以說相對簡單，但已經由版權局頒發了版權登記號美國版權局，這意味著它們已經過審查並確定有資格獲得版權保護。需要注意的是，版權登記適用於整個圖像，包括其邊界。
File:CarCreditCity.png 帶有額外的邊框。
美國航空公司航班符號 VA0002130520；版權局最初拒絕版權，因為版權剛好低於閾值，但在提交更高分辨率後的藝術品，決定陰影加上排列將徽標推到閾值上方並授予註冊。 (DR)

w:File:Disney Junior.svg (VA0001927957).
w:File:Prince logo.svg (VA0000832222).
The "Omega Globe Design" (VAu000574660) was assumed to be copyrightable by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals.^[26]
Works from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country (Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.)
New "pan and scan" versions of films where a widescreen film has been resized to fit the size of a TV screen even if the existing widescreen film is uncopyrighted (Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp.)^[27]

1951年，this mezzotint 複製品現有未受版權保護的繪畫被發現受版權保護。
在“Varsity Brands 等.v.Star Athletica”（2015 年）。
PAC 12 盾牌標誌en:File:Pac-12 logo.svg (V3617D047)。

VA0001789579 (and CC-BY 3.0)

File:Five-element-cycles.jpg ([2])：根據 WMF Legal，安排受版權保護。
w:File:BP Helios logo.svg 是根據WMF法律有資格獲得美國版權，儘管“不是很多，但剛好”。請注意，Commons對原產國的政策要求此徽標由UK標準來判斷。在英國和大多數其他普通法國家，版權保護所需的創造力要低得多；法律只評論了美國原創性的門檻。
File:REMAX hot air balloon logo.svg: 該徽標是拒絕版權註冊作為1998年早期徽標的微不足道的簡化。然而，這並不意味著整個作品不受版權保護；它仍然是原始標誌的衍生作品，並且DR共識與File:Mickey Mouse head andears.svg不同，衍生品仍然有足夠的創意元素來獲得版權。
w:File:NVIDIA_logo.svg Nvidia“眼睛”標誌 (VA0001427710) 另見(DR1) (DR2)

VA0001427710 (and Apache License 2.0)
VA0001950611 (and Apache License 2.0)

w:File:PBS logo.svg and w:File:PBS (1984-2019) logo.svg: The PBS logo (VA0001310087). Also see DR1 and DR2
Juneteenth flag (on English Wikipedia as en:File:Juneteenth flag.webp) (VAu000488555)

畫作

Not OK對於大多數繪畫。

即使由幾何形狀組成的看似簡單的繪畫也經常受到版權保護，因為細節對觀眾來說可能不是立即顯而易見的。

Mark Rothko繪畫的攝影複製品已獲得美國版權局的註冊，因此可以合理地假設原始作品也受版權保護。
- 紅色、白色和棕色 (VA0000089094)

其他

儘管非圖形作品（如建築和錄音）的原創性門檻遵循相同的標準，但此類情況可能難以確定。

通常伴隨英特爾徽標出现的五音符旋律已獲得版權保護，因為它“合并、混合了合成數字音频”並且“使用特殊的空間增強器進行了改进和重制”。 ^[28]
Anish Kapoor 的Cloud Gate是一個被认为有资格获得版权的相對簡單的3D雕塑 (VA0001983425)
位于New York-New York Hotel and Casino（纽约-纽约酒店）的公有领域物件Statue of Liberty（自由女神像）的复制品被认为有资格获得版权。另外，United States Postal Service（美国邮政总局）因其在永久邮票（Forever stamps）上对该雕像（而不是实际的自由女神像）的一次有名且错误的使用而被卷入一场版权侵权诉讼中（VAu001149387、VA0001882070）。另参见DR1及DR2。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Mexico

墨西哥

如上所述，以下是1996年版權法受保護和不受保護的示例：

這些圖片 OK可以上傳到Commons

字母、數字或孤立的顏色
名稱和標題或孤立的短語
可填寫任何類型信息及其說明的簡單格式或空白表格（示例圖片）
未經授權複製或模仿任何國家、州、市或同等政治部門的盾牌、旗幟或標誌
未經授權，對國際政府、非政府組織或任何其他官方認可的組織進行複製或模仿

這些是 Not OK上傳到Commons（除非在版權所有者的免費許可下發布），因為它們高於版權保護所需的原創性門檻，不受法律本身的保護。

私人實體的標誌，例如足球隊或公司。“政府/非政府組織/官方認可的組織”一詞並不是指每個現有的 organization，而是指在特定目的下創建的組織。簡單來說，如果公司在他們的網站上使用“.com”，他們就不會被視為一個組織。如果他們使用“.org”，則他們作為一個組織運作。
在墨西哥運營的國際政府組織的標誌，其標誌首先在另一個國家發布。雖然大赦國際是一個在墨西哥運作的國際非政府組織，但他們的標誌最早在英國出版，擁有墨西哥法律無法撤銷的獨立版權.
假設，如果圍標不是由墨西哥政府創作的，它將受到保護，因為其字母符合條件“除非它們的風格使它們成為原始圖紙”。

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Nicaragua

尼加拉瓜

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO El Salvador

薩爾瓦多

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Saint Kitts and Nevis

聖克里斯多福及尼維斯

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Saint Lucia

圣卢西亚

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

圣文森特和格林纳丁斯

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Suriname

蘇利南

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Trinidad and Tobago

千里達及托巴哥

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Guatemala

危地马拉

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Venezuela

委內瑞拉

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Uruguay

烏拉圭

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Jamaica

牙買加

无可用信息

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Chile

智利

Registration in the Intellectual Property Registry generates a "presumption" of copyright in favor of the registrant. Any work may be registered for "presumed" copyright, but Law No. 17.336 clearly states the "presumed" copyright may be contested. That is because, as established in "Astorga Sánchez José / Inversiones C. S. A.", C-2470-2009, 17.° Juzgado Civil de Santiago (28 October 2011), the Intellectual Property Conservator (Conservador) only makes the deposit of the documents into the registry, does not make an examination of their originality, or to determine whether the deposited documents are works or not, and so certificates of intellectual property generated by the Intellectual Property Registry do not establish that a work is new, original or viceversa. The Conservator of Intellectual Property expressed in 2011 it is up to the judicial system "to carry out an originality test to define whether the creation is indeed a particular manifestation of human ingenuity that can be classified as original compared to other equivalent creations, analyzed from a subjective perspective, that is, that the imprint or trace of the author can be perceived, that allows it to stand out from others". Such pronouncement was adhered to by the 17th civil judge of Santiago.^[29]

其他地区

文本嵌入自
COM:TOO Aruba

Some citation text may not have been transcluded

↑ Cerlalc (25 July 2007). La obra. Originalidad. Marco conceptual Existencia del derecho (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
↑ Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).
↑ Guerra das Moedas court case.
↑ Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"
↑ Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"
↑ Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961
↑ ^a ^b Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.
↑ Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.
↑ Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.
↑ Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015
↑ Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.
↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.
↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.
↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.
↑ ^a ^b Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.
↑ Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.
↑ ¿En Colombia los tweets están protegidos por el Derecho de Autor?. Derecho de Autor Colombia (2016). Retrieved on 2021-09-23.
↑ Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.
↑ Fishman, Stephen (2014) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.
↑ [1]
↑ Sentencia nº C-2470-2009, de 17º Juzgado Civil de Santiago, 28 de Octubre de 2011

[1] Cerlalc (25 July 2007). La obra. Originalidad. Marco conceptual Existencia del derecho (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.

[2] Denis Borges Barbosa (dezembro de 2012). Como o requisito autoral de originalidade vai se radicando nos precedentes judiciais (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[3] Página 417 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 26 de Julho de 2011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[4] STJ AI 604.956 - MG (2004/0059338-6), Ministro Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, 30 de setembro de 2004; also PROCESSO TRT/SP Nº 0001174-81.2012.5.02.0086 (2016).

[5] Guerra das Moedas court case.

[6] Quarta Turma não reconhece violação de direito autoral em título de novela da Globo (in Portuguese) (18 May 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[7] Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). "não se considera criação artística as fotografias tiradas por profissional do ramo que retratam de forma manifestamente singela, sem o emprego de qualquer técnica diferenciada, o frontispício de um edifício residencial e a vista parcial da cidade, em observância a contrato de prestação de serviços entabulado com empresa do ramo imobiliário e com destino publicitário previamente ajustado entre as partes"

[8] Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina TJ-SC - Apelacao Civel : AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-11. "mera documentação fotográfica, sem caráter artístico, afasta a incidência do direito de autor, "... tornando possível o uso de terceiro sem menção do nome do fotógrafo, pois, conforme lei brasileira, somente a fotografia artística (pela escolha do objeto e condiçõe de execução) se inscreve dentre as obras protegidas." (...) [segue exemplo ilustrativo] fotografias documentárias de reuniões sociais - Autor que na época estava do desempenho de funções junto ao réu - Inexigível a referência ao nome do fotógrafo por não se tratar de trabalho artístico - Falta de originalidade, criatividade, valor estético ou de furo de documentação"

[9] Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná TJ-PR - Apelação Cível : AC 946589 PR Apelação Cível - 0094658-9 (in Portuguese) (2000). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "As fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas. (...) Também não devem alcançar a proteção do direito de autor as fotografias meramente técnicas, em que se procura uma reprodução tal qual de certo objetivo, sem a menor preocupação artística."

[10] Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais TJ-MG : 2933464 MG 2.0000.00.293346-4/000(1) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "as fotos [...] denotam caráter artístico, caracterizando-se pela originalidade, criatividade e técnica da sua autora, elementos que dela não se podem excluir como reveladores, a princípio, de uma obra de arte. Não são elas, como pretende o apelante, meras constatações ou reproduções de imagens para fins publicitários, ou instantâneos comuns"

[originalidadforsetti-11] Enrique, Cavero Safra (july 2015). "El concepto de originalidad en el derecho de autor peruano". Forsetti (5): 113-127. ISSN 2312-3583. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.

[Law1961-12] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1961

[Skandalo-13] Indecopi (24 April 2002). Fotografía: Alcance de la protección (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2020-12-25.

[14] Chávez Gutierrez, Wendy Elizabeth (september 2014). "The absence of criteria in the peruvian legal system regarding the concept of «authenticity» applied to copyright law protection on photographic images". Derecho PUCP (73): 587-623. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2021-08-20.

[15] Indecopi (17 April 2002). Fotografías no creativas. Protección "sui generis" (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-10-22.

[16] Indecopi (3 July 2007). Fotografía: Originalidad (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-26.

[Indecopi2015-17] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Indecopi2015

[18] Indecopi (4 June 2013). Resolution No 0384-2013/CDA-INDECOPI: Infraction in reuse of Peruvian Connection Spring 2010 photos (in Spanish). Retrieved on 2021-09-12.

[19] Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo N° 1218, Decreto Legislativo que regula el uso de las cámaras de videovigilancia y de la Ley N° 30120, Ley de Apoyo a la Seguridad Ciudadana con Cámaras de Videovigilancia Públicas y Privadas, y dicta otras disposiciones. El Peruano (2020). Retrieved on 2021-05-18.

[20] Murillo Chávez, Javier André (2017). Los derechos de autor y/o conexos del ¿Robot?. Enfoque de Derecho. Retrieved on 2021-05-17.

[21] Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2017). "Fa - Sol - La. Completando conceptos sobre la obra musical y su originalidad en la jurisprudencia peruana". Diálogo como la jurisprudencia (221): 229-254. ISSN 1812-9587. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.

[22] Murillo Chávez, Javier André (june 2015). "The incomplete puzzle. The missing rule and ruling about the protection by copyright of characters and objects of the work". Derecho PUCP (74): 189-220. ISSN 0251-3420. Retrieved on 2020-10-21.

[AA2013-23] Maraví Contreras, Alfredo (2013). "Las creaciones gastronómicas como objeto de protección por el Derecho de Autor: Posibilidades y conveniencia". Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. (9): 95, 103. ISSN 1993-0976. Retrieved on 2020-11-12.

[tresolivas-24] Murillo Chávez, Javier André (febraury 2012). "Conviviendo con el enemigo. Sobre los conflictos entre el Derecho de Propiedad Industrial y el Derecho de Autor". Actualidad Jurídica (221): 321-336. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-5-17.

[25] ¿En Colombia los tweets están protegidos por el Derecho de Autor?. Derecho de Autor Colombia (2016). Retrieved on 2021-09-23.

[26] Omega S.A., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983.

[27] Fishman, Stephen (2014) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More, Nolo, p. 183 Retrieved on 29 August 2014. ISBN: 1413320287.

[28] [1]

[29] Sentencia nº C-2470-2009, de 17º Juzgado Civil de Santiago, 28 de Octubre de 2011

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]