Shortcut: COM:DM

Дэ мініміс (de minimis) — лацінскі выраз, які абазначае пра найменшае, звычайна ў крылатай фразе дэ мініміс нон курат лекс (de minimis non curat lex) — «Закон не клапоціцца пра дробязі». Найменшае выкарыстаньне абароненай аўтарскім правам працы настолькі малаважнае, што згода ўласьніка аўтарскага права не патрабуецца.

У некаторых выпадках файлы Вікісховішча са зьместам пад аўтарскім правам, якія лічацца прымальнымі ў якасьці найменшых, могуць пазначацца шаблёнам {{De minimis}}. Аднак большасьць такіх файлаў не пазначаюць гэткім чынам.

Што такое «пра найменшае»?

Паняцьце звычаёвага права вядомае як пра найменшае паходзіць ад максімы дэ мініміс нон курат лекс (de minimis non curat lex), якую часта перакладаюць як «закон не клапоціцца пра дробязі». Некаторыя тэхнічныя парушэньні закону лічуць настолькі малаважнымі і неістотнымі, што суд можа вырашыць, што іх наогул ня варта разглядаць у якасьці парушэньняў. Паняцьце тычыцца шматлікіх галінаў права, але тут мы разглядаем яго прымяненьне канкрэтна да закону аб аўтарскім праве.

Пра найменшае можа быць поўнай абаронай ад позвы наконт парушэньня аўтарскага права, калі будзе даказаным у судзе. Справа ня проста ў тым, што парушальніку могуць сысьці з рук некаторыя рэчы безь вялікага шанцу быць засуджаным у сувязі з высокім коштам разбору. Хутчэй, калі капіяваньне ёсьць найменшым, капіявальнік насамрэч зусім не парушае закон.

Прыклад

У вызначэньні, ці капіяваньне дастаткова малаважнае, суд разгледзіць усе акалічнасьці. Так, напрыклад, калі плякат утварае істотную частку агульнай фотакампазыцыі або фатаграфію наўмысна зрабілі, каб улучыць плякат, то пэўна ёсьць парушэньне аўтарскага права, і не абароніць, калі скажуць, што плякат проста на заднім пляне. Парушэньня аўтарскага права не пазьбегнуць дадатковым улучэньнем у кадр большай часткі абстаноўкі або навакольля, калі існаваньне пляката было прычынай фатаграфаваньня.

Абарона найменшым ад позвы наконт парушэньня аўтарскага права пэўна праваліцца, калі існаваньне пляката робіць выяву больш прывабнай і карыснай або можа нанесьці больш чым нязначную гаспадарчую школу ўласьніку аўтарскага права.

Карысным выпрабаваньнем можа быць пытаньне, ці будзе фатаграфія настолькі ж добрай і карыснай, калі плякат замаскуюць. Калі не, тады складана давесьці, што плякат насамрэч пра найменшае, нават калі той малы і «на заднім пляне».

Рэкамэндацыі

• the file is in use to illustrate X
• the file is categorised in relation to X
• X is referenced in the filename
• X is referenced in the description
• X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
• from other contextual clues (e.g., by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.

Прыміце да ўвагі: развагі пра найменшае тычацца канкрэтнай кампазыцыі выявы. Істотнае абразаньне, каб засяродзіцца на працы пад аўтарскім правам можа даволі лёгка пераўтварыць «пэўна прымальна» ў «пэўна непрымальна».

#	Справу можна лічыць пра найменшае	Апісаньне
1	OK Так, дакладна	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам бачная, але нераспазнавальная. Х — конная статуя Чынгісхана
2	OK Вельмі верагодна	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам распазнавальная, але служыць нежаданай назолай для прадмета выявы, якую на жаль нялёгка прыбраць. Х — рэклямны шчыт на заднім пляне ўверсе справа
3	OK Вельмі верагодна	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам распазнавальная, але ёсьць малой часткай большай працы, таму большую працу нялёгка паказаць без Х. Х — частка большай працы, і яе ўлучэньне непазьбежнае. Х — піраміда Люўра Х — карціна Эшэра Х — эмблема дружыны
4	OK Вельмі верагодна	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам распазнавальная і ёсьць непазьбежнай часткай прадмету выявы, але не істотная для прадмету (яе зацямненьне не зробіць файл бескарысным). Х — экраны на сядзеньнях у самалёце Х — дзьве фігуры справа ад сярэдзіны Х — Вежа Нараджэньня Х — Вежа Нараджэньня
5	Maybe	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам распазнавальная, ёсьць непазьбежнай часткай прадмету выявы і істотная для прадмету (то бо яе зацямненьне зробіць файл бескарысным), але працу паказалі ў недастаткова падрабязна і зь недастатковай яснасьцю, таму пра найменшае магчыма прымяніць. Х — сьцягі зьвісаюць са столі (Запыт на выдаленьне) Х — фатаграфіі вісяць у музэі (Запыт на выдаленьне)
6	Вельмі малаверагодна	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам — ключавая частка прадмету (то бо ёсьць прычынай фатаграфаваньня). Яе прыбіраньне зробіць вытворную працу грунтоўна адрознай, але мабыць усё ж карыснай. Прыклад: File:Carla del Ponte Mladic 1.jpg паказвае Карлю дэль Понтэ з абароненай аўтарскім правам фатаграфіяй Раткі Младзіча, якую скарысталі для ілюстраваньня артыкула пра яго (гэтае выданьне па-анг.). Абрэзанае выданьне File:Carla del Ponte.jpg выключае працу пад аўтарскім правам, але грунтоўна адрозьніваецца (Запыт на выдаленьне). Прыклад: File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG з графіці на эквадорскай скульптуры паказвае гульнявога пэрсанажа пад аўтарскім правам (Марыё), які скарысталі для ілюстраваньня Звышбраты Марыё 3 (ням.). Прыбіраньне графіці было магчымым з пакіданьнем скульптуры File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg (Запыт на выдаленьне). </gallery>
7	Дакладна не	Праца Х пад аўтарскім правам — галоўная частка прадмету (то бо ёсьць прычынай фатаграфаваньня). Яе прыбіраньне зробіць вытворную працу бескарыснай. Прыклад: File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg скарысталі ў гэтым выданьне Мяшанай франкатуры (анг.). Маркі былі толькі малой часткай прасторы выявы, але галоўнымі паводле значнасьці (Запыт на выдаленьне). Прыклад: File:Swmovies.jpg — фатаграфія збору лічбавых відэакружэлак «Зорных войнаў». </gallery>

Законы канкрэтных краінаў

Text transcluded from
COM:DM United States

Злучаныя Штаты Амэрыкі

The United States courts interpret the de minimis defense in three distinct ways:

1. Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;
2. Where the extent of copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity (always a required element of actionable copying); and
3. In connection with fair use (not relevant here, since Commons does not allow fair use images).

It is the first of these that is often of particular concern on Commons.

As found in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of its label (though in this particular case, the label also happened to be below the threshold of originality):

“

We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.

”

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Belgium

Бэльгія

Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:

• Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...].

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Canada

Канада

Subsection 30.7 of the Canadian Copyright Act, 1985 states:

It is not an infringement of copyright to incidentally and not deliberately

(a) include a work or other subject-matter in another work or other subject-matter; or

(b) do any act in relation to a work or other subject-matter that is incidentally and not deliberately included in another work or other subject-matter.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Czech Republic

Чэхія

Under the Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll. as amended up to 216/2006,

• Copyright is not infringed by anybody who uses a work incidentally, in connection with an intended primary use of another work or element.^{[121/2000–2006 Art.38c]}

Text transcluded from
COM:DM European Union

Эўрапейскі Зьвяз

The Copyright Directive (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 allows for de minimis exception in Art. 5(3)(i):^[1]

• Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: […] incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material.

Under the generic conditions of Article 5(5):

• The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Finland

Фінляндыя

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

• Works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text: 1) in a critical or scientific presentation; and 2) in a newspaper or a periodical when reporting on a current event, provided that the work has not been created in order to be reproduced in a newspaper or a periodical.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(1)]}
• When a copy of a work of art has, with the consent of the author, been sold or otherwise permanently transferred, the work of art may be incorporated into a photograph, a film, or a television programme if the reproduction is of a subordinate nature in the photograph, film or programme.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(2)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:DM France

Францыя

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:^[2]

• 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.^[3]

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.

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Germany

Нямеччына

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."

The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.^[4] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.^[5]To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.^[6]

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
4. 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]

There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around § 57.^[11] In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on § 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.^[12]

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]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Iceland

Ісьляндыя

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)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Ireland

Ірляндыя

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.^[14]

Text transcluded from
COM:DM Israel

Ізраіль

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.^[17]

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.

No information available

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

• It is allowed for a film or television program to include copies of works of art or public performances and transfer the artwork to the public, as long as the copy is of secondary importance with respect to the film or television program content. This may be done with artwork that appears in the background of, or otherwise forms an insignificant portion of an image.^{[729/1960-2017 §20a]}

These are  Няслушна:

• Thumbnail-sized photos on a screenshot - copyvio of two of the thumbnail-sized photos (NJA 2010 p. 135)
• People on a scene with decorations in the background - copyvio of the background (NJA 1981 p. 313)

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.

Абрэзаныя выявы пра найменшае

Паколькі дапушчальная паводле прынцыпу пра найменшае мае пры патрэбе ўлучаць некаторыя матэрыялы, абароненыя аўтарскім правам, з гэтага вынікае, што такія выявы нельга абразаць пры жаданьні. У выпадку фатаграфіі, якая ўлучае плякат, нават калі фатограф мае абарону ад парушэньня паводле прынцыпу пра найменшае, гэта не адмяняе аўтарскага права распрацоўніка спачатнага пляката. Калі хтосьці робіць фатаграфію і абразае яе так, што застаецца толькі плякат, абарона пра найменшае больш не даступная, бо рысунак пляката становіцца важнай часткай абрэзкі. Такім чынам, абрэзанае выданьне парушае правы і ня можа дапускацца на Вікісховішча.

Прыміце да ўвагі, што проста рэчаіснасьць таго, што дапушчальная паводле найменшага выява можа абразацца, каб стварыць недапушчальную, не абазначае, што спачатная праца зусім не пра найменшае. Нават выявы ў вельмі высокім разрозьненьні, у якіх выпадковыя падрабязнасьці могуць пэўна ўзнаўляцца і павялічвацца, маюць разглядацца цалкам са звычайнай адлегласьці агляду, калі разглядаюць, ці прымяняецца пра найменшае.

Прыклады

• 
  Вежа Халіфа (ААЭ дапускаюць свабоду панарамы толькі ў вяшчальных перадачах.) (Запыт на выдаленьне)
• 
  Мабыць шэраг фатаграфіяў, выстаўленых у музэі → пра найменшае (Запыт на выдаленьне)
• 
  Мастацкі твор Эшэра пасярод (Запыт на выдаленьне)
• 
  Паўночная брама Сусьветнай выставы 2005 году ў Аіці (Японія) з працамі пад аўтарскім правам на сьцяне
• 
  Мастацкі твор зь лятучай рыбай, які пакрывае самалёт, лічыцца выпадковым (Запыт на выдаленьне)
• 
  Сусьветная вежа Лотэ (Паўднёвая Карэя дапускае свабоду панарамы толькі для некамэрцыйнай задачы.) (Запыт на выдаленьне)

Глядзіце таксама

• A discussion about de minimis in videos
• Cromer, Julie, Harry Potter and the Three-Second Crime: Are We Vanishing the De Minimis Defense from Copyright Law?

Заўвагі