French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

• Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.

French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

• It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting.

Under § 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."

According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case

1. if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
2. if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.^[7]

The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:

1. The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
2. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
3. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or

1. the work is characteristic in any other way.^[8]

Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.^[9]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:^[10]

In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.^[13]

An unofficial translation of Article 10a of the Icelandic copyright act reads:

• Authors’ exclusive rights under Article 3 (cf. Article 2), shall not apply to the making of reproductions (copies) that are transient or incidental...^{[73/1972-2018 Art.10a(1)]}

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000),

• The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.^{[28/2000 Sec.52(1)]}
• A work shall not be regarded as included in an incidental manner in another work where it is included in a manner where the interests of the owner of the copyright are unreasonably prejudiced.^{[28/2000 Sec.52(3)]}

According to Pascal Kamina, the Irish legislation is similar to the legislation in the United Kingdom from 1988.

According to 2007 Copyright Act, section 22:

• An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use.^{[2007-2011 Sec.22]}

De minimis, in its exact form, is not recognised under the Diritto d'autore italiano (Italian copyright law) published as Law No. 633 of April 22, 1941.^[15] A similar provision known as a "quotation right" exists, though, but only for educational and scientific purposes of non-commercial nature and that the quotation or excerpt of the work strictly complies the Berne three-step test:

• The summary, quotation, or reproduction of excerpts or parts of a work and their communication to the public are free if done for the purposes of criticism or discussion, within the limits justified by such purposes and provided they do not compete with the economic exploitation of the work; if carried out for teaching or scientific research purposes, the use must also occur for illustrative purposes and for non-commercial purposes.^{[633/1941 art. 70(1)]}
• The free publication through the internet, free of charge, of low-resolution or degraded images and music is permitted for educational or scientific use, and only if such use is not for profit. By decree of the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities, after hearing the Minister of Public Education and the Minister of University and Research, and following the opinion of the competent parliamentary committees, the limits of educational or scientific use referred to in this paragraph are defined.^{[633/1941 art. 70(1-bis)]}
• Summaries, quotations, or reproductions must always be accompanied by mention of the title of the work, the names of the author, the publisher, and, if it is a translation, the translator, provided that such indications appear on the reproduced work.^{[633/1941 art. 70(3)]}

Nevertheless, there appears to be a de facto de minimis based on "minimal reproduction" of a work, according to a thesis on musical plagiarism cases in Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, authored by Raphael Meir, BA of Leopold Franzens University of Innsbruck and citing two legal literatures (Piola-Caselli/Arienzo/Bile, Diritti d’autore, in Azara/Eula (a cura di), NovissDI, and Algardi, La tutela dell’opera). Accordingly, a "minimal reproduction" must not significantly endanger the legitimate interests of the author/s, therefore not resulting to an infringement. "Any infringement is not a question of quantity, but of quality" (Mair, 2020). In this sense, using percentage of the work used or covered is not enough in "minimal reproduction" claims. Additionally, Mair (2020) expounds in the case of Italy: "Italian doctrine maintains that the author's interest prevails when his 'individual' representation, consisting in the work, is usurped.... The individuality of the representation refers directly to the author's personality, which must be recognizably expressed through creative activity in order to invoke protection of the work, the fruit of this activity."^[16]

Copyright Act Article 30-2, amended in 2012, states:

• Article 30-2: When creating a copyrighted work of photography, sound recording or video recording, other copyrighted items that are incidental subjects of the work because they are hard to be separated from the item that is a subject of the work may be copied or translated along the work being created (only if they are minor components of the work being created). However, if, considering the kinds of the incidentally included works and the manner of the copying or translation, it unfairly is prejudicial to the interest of the copyright holders of the incidentally included works, they may not.

Dutch legislation contains an article that relates to situations in which copyright is not or hardly relevant. This is referred to as de minimis or bagatel. Based on this article, it is permitted to incorporate works by others into one's own work, but only if they are incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or less by chance. Of minor significance means the copyrighted work constitutes a small part of the work.

Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:

The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.

Sources

• Auteurswet art. 18a
• Lexology.com
• Understanding intellectual property (In Dutch)

"It shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes".^{[1-05-192/2006 Art.20]}

There is subtle mention of "de minimis" in determinate cases:

• Media for private use, non-profit educative events or extracts of musical works in official events.^{[822/1996 Art.41(a, b and c)]} In other words, the sentence is equivalent to Fair use and is unacceptable to upload in Commons.
• Broadcasting of well-known quotations and current events in any media.^[18] "The exception provided [...] shall be interpreted restrictively, and may not be applied to cases that are contrary to proper practice".^{[822/1996 Art. 44-45, 50 and Decision 351 Art. 22]}
• Don't be an object of intelligent plagiarism ("plagio inteligente", also referred in Article 217c of the Penal Code, 2007):
  • Parodies: Allowed within the legal basis.^{[822/1996 Art. 49]} Resolution No. 0864-2007/TPI-INDECOPI (also No. 4372-2013/TPI-INDECOPI) pointed out that the work is a infringement if the design adopts similarities or derivations from another without the parody intention (ordinary or substantial plagiarism). Best example is the 2008 TV series Magnolia Merino, which complies with the concept of parody when deals with a subject of public interest from other artistic point of view with excerpts based on the scenario, impersonation and musicalization of Magaly TeVe (see Resolution No. 3251–2010/SC1-INDECOPI).^[19]
  • Incidental: In APSAV v. Arkinka S.A. (Anuario Andino 19 August 2004, based on Resolution No. 243-2001/ODA-INDECOPI) the limitation of the use of third parties works has been applied when "the appearance within the work should be incidental". Freedom of panorama is also mentioned and justified in both Decision 351 and DL 822 with the term "public places" such as "public museums".^[20]

• Copyright in a work shall not be infringed (a) by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, audio-visual work or broadcast; or (b) by the issue to the public of copies of the playing, showing or communication to the public of anything whose making was not an infringement of copyright by virtue of paragraph (a) of this section.^{[14/2024 Section 58(1)]}

Note: "For the purposes of this section, a musical work, words spoken or sung with music, or so much of a sound recording, audio-visual work or broadcast as includes a musical work or such words, shall not be regarded as incidentally included if it is deliberately included."^{[14/2024 Section 58(2)]}

Under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.) of Singapore, unless a contrary intention appears:

• a reference to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subject-matter shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work or other subject-matter; and
• a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a work shall be read as including a reference to a reproduction, adaptation or copy of a substantial part of the work, as the case may be.

Therefore, acts done in relation to insubstantial parts of a work or other subject-matter do not breach copyright.

Article 52 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act:

• "Such disclosed works that may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object, may be used freely while exploiting such object."^{[2007 Art.52]}

Article 52 has been interpreted by the copyright expert Miha Trampuž in his book Copyright and Related Rights Act with Commentary. He has highlighted the following aspects: the work must have been disclosed, it must have been incidental with another object or work, it could be at will replaced with another work, and it is inessential in the copyright sense to the object or work.^[21]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg.

Under the Copyright Act (as amended up to Act No. 16600 of November 26, 2019),

Article 35-3 (Incidental Inclusion, etc.),

A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply.

Article 20a of the copyright law as of 2017 says:

Section 31 of the UK Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, as subsequently amended in 2003, states that:

• Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast.

"Artistic work", as defined within the act, includes photographs.

De minimis -kuvien rajaukset

Koska de minimis -periaatteen mukaisesti sallitun kuvan on väistämättä sisällettävä jonkin verran tekijänoikeudellista materiaalia, tällaisia kuvia ei voida rajata mielivaltaisesti. Jos valokuva sisältää julisteen, vaikka valokuvaaja puolustautuisi loukkausta vastaan de minimis -periaatteella, tämä ei poista julisteen suunnittelijan tekijänoikeutta. Jos joku ottaa valokuvan ja rajaa sen niin, että jäljelle jää vain juliste, de minimis -puolustusta ei enää voida käyttää, koska julisteesta tulee olennainen osa rajausta. Näin ollen rajattu versio loukkaa oikeutta, eikä sitä voida sallia Commonsissa.

Huomaa, että pelkästään se, että de minimis -periaatteen nojalla sallittua kuvaa voidaan rajata niin, että siitä saadaan kuva, joka ei ole sallittu, ei tarkoita, että alkuperäinen teos ei olisi loppujen lopuksi de minimis -periaatteen mukainen. Jopa erittäin korkearesoluutioisia kuvia, joissa satunnaiset yksityiskohdat voidaan luotettavasti ottaa talteen ja suurentaa, olisi tarkasteltava kokonaisuutena tavanomaiselta katseluetäisyydeltä, kun harkitaan, soveltuuko de minimis -periaatetta.

Esimerkkejä

• 
  Burj Khalifa (UAE sallii panoraamakuvan vapauden vain silloin, kun sitä käytetään lähetysohjelmissa.) (DR)
• 
  Trollface T-paidassa
• 
  Escherin taideteos keskellä (DR)
• 
  Taustalla maalauksia ja kirja, jonka käsi peittää
• 
  Ilma-aluksen peittävän lentävän kalan taideteosta pidetään satunnaisena (DR)
• 
  Scratch Cat ja Raspberry Pi -logo

Katso myös

• Commons:Teoskynnys
• Commons:Maisemanvapaus
• Keskustelu de minimis -periaatteesta videoissa
• Cromer, Julie, Harry Potter ja kolmen sekunnin rikos: Olemmeko hävittämässä de minimis -puolustusta tekijänoikeuslaista?

Huomautukset

Some citation text may not have been transcluded

↑ Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal L 167 10-19 (22 June 2001). Retrieved on 2019-03-20. ↑ 03-14.820 Arrêt n° 567 du 15 mars 2005 (french). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25. ↑ ... Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ... ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16]. ↑ M Vogel, "§ 57" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; T Dreier, "§ 57" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 1. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26f]. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27]. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27]. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31]. ↑ Appeals court level or higher. ↑ R Jacobs, "Was ist "beiläufig"? Ein Beitrag zu § 57 UrhG" in W Büscher and others (eds), Rechtsdurchsetzung: Rechtsverwirklichung durch materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Ahrens zum 70. Geburtstag (Heymanns 2016), 225; FL Stang, "Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13" (2015) 117 GRUR 670 (note). ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 10 January 2019, case I ZR 267/15 Cordoba II, (2019) 121 GRUR 813 [59]. ↑ Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554. ↑ (2002) Film Copyright in the European Union, Cambridge University Press, p. 278 29DSe2bcDyUC ↑ Protezione del diritto d'autore e di altri diritti connessi al suo esercizio. (041U0633), LEGGE 22 aprile 1941, n. 633 (Italian). Gazzetta ufficiale. ↑ Mair, Raphael (2020). La giurisprudenza sul plagio musicale in Italia, nei Paesi Bassi e negli Stati Uniti (Italian) 17–18. ↑ いわゆる「写り込み」等に係る規定の整備について. Agency for Cultural Affairs. ↑ Schmitz Vaccaro, Christian (september 2014). Journalistic work in latin american legislations: from its creation to self-management of copyright (spanish). Retrieved on 2020-10-06. ↑ (in spanish) Murillo Chávez, Javier André (july 2014). "De Dumb Starbucks y Otros Demonios ¿La Parodia Justifica El Uso de Marca Ajena?". Actualidad Jurídica: 86-88. ISSN 1812-9552. Retrieved on 2021-12-15. ↑ Caso ARKINKA (spanish). Anuario Andino (2004). Retrieved on 2021-08-23. ↑ Trampuž, Miha (1997) (in slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik

Category:Copyright rules by territory transclusion lists/fi Category:Commons policies/fi Category:Commons licensing help/fi Category:De minimis