使用者:Kegns/原創性門檻

維基百科中的法律相關內容僅供參考，並不能視作專業意見。如需獲取法律相關的幫助或意見，請諮詢所在司法管轄區的法律從業人士。詳見法律聲明。

波音公司的標誌並不認為是「含有著作權的作品」，因為它僅包含了簡單的字體信息，不涉及美國版權法。但是本標誌仍然受商標法的保護。

原創性門檻是版權法中的一個概念，用於鑑別特定的作品是否應受版權保護。它用於區分原創性的作品，保證其受到版權的保護，與非原創內容區分開來。從字面上來說，「原創」指的是「由他/她本人所創作」（以某種方式反應了作者的個性），而不是「從來沒有出現過」（這是另外需要保護的，比如專利）。

各國案例

美國

在美國版權法中，本原則於1991年美國最高法院裁決費斯特出版公司訴鄉村電話公司案一案中被援引。法院的意見指出，版權保護只能授予達到原創性門檻最低標準的「原創作品」。就此而論，僅僅是勞動而非原創是沒有版權的。這項司法解釋是由美國憲法的著作權條款引申而來，授予美國國會「促進科學和實用藝術的進步，在有限的時間內確保作者和發明者各自著作和發明的專屬權利」之權。這項要求使得美國法律下的原創門檻非常低。例如，一些編譯、計算常用方法的表達式。同樣黃頁、空表單並不能獲得版權。（莫里西訴寶潔案中說明了這一點）但是，如果作品中包含了一些受版權保護的要素——例如內容為黃頁的照片、空表單上的即興創作——這些要素是可以獲得版權保護的。

Typefaces and geometry

House Report No. 94-1476 states that the design of a typeface cannot be protected under U.S. law. The non-eligibility of "textual matter" was raised in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., judging if photographs of bottles of SKYY vodka were original enough for protection.

The Skyy vodka bottle, although attractive, has no special design or other features that could exist independently as a work of art. It is essentially a functional bottle without a distinctive shape. Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not--at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.

Reproductions of public domain works

The requirement of originality was also invoked in the 1999 United States District Court case "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp." In the case, Bridgeman Art Library questioned the Corel Corporation's rights to redistribute their high quality reproductions of old paintings that had already fallen into the public domain due to age, claiming that it infringed on their copyrights. The court ruled that exact or "slavish" reproductions of two-dimensional works such as paintings and photographs that were already in the public domain could not be considered original enough for protection under U.S. law, "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original".

Although the court claimed that their copyright claims would fail even in the United Kingdom where labor and investment in time in the creation of a work can be enough for one to be considered original, whether this applies to reproductions of public domain works is inconclusive.

Germany

A German court did not consider the logo of German state broadcaster ARD to be eligible for protection under German copyright law.

In German copyright law; the "Schöpfungshöhe" (height of creation) can classify copyrightable works into two classes, a design, or anything else (such as a literary work). While the threshold (which is reached even by simple creations, known as "Kleine Münze", German for "Small change") is low, the requirements for design, works that have a "purpose" (such as brand identification), are set much higher, as such works can be protected by the lex specialis law for design patents ("Geschmacksmustergesetz") or by trademark laws. Only design creations that are very high above the average are considered as "works of applied art" and so granted copyright. As an example in case law, the logo of the German state broadcaster ARD, is not considered protectable under German copyright law.

The "sweat of the brow" doctrine

參見：Sweat of the brow

Some countries also grant copyright protection based on how much labour and diligence it took to create a work, rather than or in addition to how original a work is. This is referred to as the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in relation to the idiom, "the sweat of one's brow". Courts of the United States had previously rejected this notion in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. The latter case however, stated that Bridgeman Art Library's copyright claims on reproductions of works that had already fallen into the public domain wouldn't be valid in the United Kingdom.

However, the sweat of the brow doctrine has been recognized in the United Kingdom and even the European Union on several occasions. The 1900 case Walter v. Lane ruled that the copyright of an account of a speech transcribed by a reporter belonged to the newspaper he worked for because of the effort it took to reproduce his spoken words. The European Union also recognizes a sui generis right for databases and compilations, which would make situations such as the ones encountered in Feist vs. Rural be considered infringing.

External links

• U.S. Copyright Office: Compendium of Office Practices II, section 500. URL last accessed June 26, 2006.