User:Kegns/原创性门槛

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。

波音公司的标志并不认为是“含有著作权的作品”，因为它仅包含了简单的字体信息，不涉及美国版权法。但是本标志仍然受商标法的保护。

原创性门槛是版权法中的一个概念，用于鉴别特定的作品是否应受版权保护。它用于区分原创性的作品，保证其受到版权的保护，与非原创内容区分开来。从字面上来说，“原创”指的是“由他/她本人所创作”（以某种方式反应了作者的个性），而不是“从来没有出现过”（这是另外需要保护的，比如专利）。

各国案例

美国

在美国版权法中，本原则于1991年美国最高法院裁决费斯特出版公司诉乡村电话公司案一案中被援引。法院的意见指出，版权保护只能授予达到原创性门槛最低标准的“原创作品”。就此而论，仅仅是劳动而非原创是没有版权的。这项司法解释是由美国宪法的著作权条款引申而来，授予美国国会“促进科学和实用艺术的进步，在有限的时间内确保作者和发明者各自著作和发明的专属权利”之权。这项要求使得美国法律下的原创门槛非常低。例如，一些编译、计算常用方法的表达式。同样黄页、空表单并不能获得版权。（莫里西诉宝洁案中说明了这一点）但是，如果作品中包含了一些受版权保护的要素——例如内容为黄页的照片、空表单上的即兴创作——这些要素是可以获得版权保护的。

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

参见：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.