Talk:Threshold of originality

Worldwide view

The concept of threshold of originality is important in the law of many countries; e.g. in Germany a higher threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) is needed for protection than in the US. The article currently deals only with US law and should be expanded. Much could be found in the long article de:Schöpfungshöhe in the German Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although a bit "late", I tagged the article with a "problem"-box. Maybe somebody will expand the article - although the German part is now in, the rest of the world is missing... mabdul 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'random design' copyrightable?

The text currently says:

"or random designs on the blank forms—then those elements can receive copyright protection."

I would have chosen a different word (than 'random') as I'm not sure if something that is random is copyrightable. The concept of threshold of originality seems to indicate that some sort of creative effort/element by an intelligent being is required for copyright protection and randomness seems to indicate a total absence of creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.173.129 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would decorative be a better word than "random"? Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, thank you, you are both correct. Grollτech (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK left

Could please someone add the EDGE logo precedent!? UK court has afforded protection to the Edge logo, see here [1]. This is also the precedent on Commons to delete anything from UK without a clear license. (Whether this is an insult to freedom and intelligence of every human being.) → User: Perhelion 07:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 it should be added. LGA _talk^edits 08:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Slater's Monkey

I've got a question about the Slater's monkey photo case- is it legal to hold a copyright of a photo of a photo? If it is, did he somehow circumvent that process? If he had taken a photo of his photo and then destroyed the original and only distributed the copy would he have had a copyright? How about a digital copy? I was reading about the case, but most of the articles were second or third hand versions of the story.

Nacoran (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No

→ User: Perhelion 14:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous answer is 100% correct, but just to explain it a bit further, citing U.S. law in our example, together with an assumption that the original photograph was not copyrightable.... As held in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a photo of that photo would simply be an exact or "slavish" reproduction of a two-dimensional work that was already in the public domain. It cannot, therefore, be considered original enough for protection. —grolltech^(talk) 17:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More images?

Commons links here from here. This logo seems worth noting and including (low-res, fair use) as an example of a registered logo. I'm surprised this logo was considered copyrightable, but it was, by one Virginia Giroux. By contrast, we consider File:CC some rights reserved new 2.svg (at right)

to not meet the ToO. Should we add 'em to the article?--Elvey^(t•c) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is a good idea to put a lot of images on this page. This page is meant to describe the worldwide situation and shouldn't contain too much discussion about national differences. The decision that one of the CCC logos is copyrightable while the second one is not is something which is valid in the United States, but other countries may be different, either by declaring both copyrightable or by declaring neither copyrightable. It may be more useful to add those logos to an article which specifically discusses originality in United States law. We have Originality in Canadian copyright law but I don't think that there is any article about originality in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. Dude. CCC and CC are totally unrelated, different organizations. I'm asking about one CC logo and one CCC logo. Please actually follow the ipmall link I provided. FS. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your first post, you are talking about some unspecified "'em". Since we only have a reliable source for the assessment of the copyright status of the CCC logos but not for the CC logos, I assumed that you were talking about the CCC logos. If you want to add CC logos to this article, you would first need to find a reliable source which tells whether the logos are copyrightable or not. A discussion on Commons is not a reliable source. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the one registered CCC logo I referred to and the one CC logo I referred to. You instead decided I was talking about two CCC logos. I was not. But fair point re the CC logo I referred to or other CC logos. Anyway, are you opposed to either of the CCC logos being added, Stefan? Your "I'm not sure that it is a good idea" is so noncommittal. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on 4 November, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to add more pictures to this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what you wrote on 4 November. Please don't make untrue statements. At least you answered. Disruptively. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on 18 November, what I wrote on 18 November was just a repetition of what I wrote on 4 November. Please do not make untrue statements. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent EU jurisprudence

Useful reference: Margoni 2016 (and references there). Nemo 20:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ 186.11.101.250 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]