Australia was copyrighted in Australia until the copyright of the flag was transferred to the Commonwealth on 25 January 2022. Despite consisting only of two fields and a circle at the centre, the
Federal Court of Australia had upheld copyright claims over the
Australian Aboriginal flag by its designer,
Harold Thomas. On 24 January 2022, the Commonwealth government announced, after more than three years of confidential negotiations, Thomas had transferred the copyright to the flag to the Commonwealth. The federal government paid AUS$20.05 million to Thomas and licence holders (including WAM Clothing and Carroll and Richardson Flagworld) to extinguish existing licences and secure copyright. As part of the copyright transfer, Thomas retained
moral rights over the flag (which include the right to be identified as its creator). Following the copyright transfer, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld continued to be the exclusive manufacturer, although individuals may make copies for personal use.
Canada Under
Canadian copyright law, an eligible work must be original to its author, not copied from another work, and requires more than trivial or mechanical intellectual effort. In the case of
CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, the
Supreme Court of Canada examined the different approaches taken to the definition of originality. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the proper approach in Canadian law fell between the approach of labour and diligence, and that of creativity.
Chief Justice McLachlin stated that the "exercise of skill and judgment" was necessary in order for an expression to attract copyright protection. Chief Justice McLachlin went on to state that the exercise of skill and judgement would require "intellectual effort" and "must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise." It has been suggested that this approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada is functionally the same as the approach taken by the
Supreme Court of the United States in
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., and by some civil law courts as those courts require that a work demonstrate a "modicum of creativity" in decision making rather than a mechanical exercise in order to be original.
European Union The test for the threshold of originality is in the European Union whether the work is the author's own intellectual creation. This threshold for originality was harmonised within the European Union in 2009 by the
European Court of Justice in
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening case.
Germany to be ineligible for protection under German copyright law. In
German copyright law, the "Schöpfungshöhe" (literally:
height of creation) could 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 coin") was low, the requirements for design, works that have a "purpose" (such as
brand identification), was set much higher, as "novel" designs could be protected by the
lex specialis law for
design patents ("Geschmacksmustergesetz") or by
trademark laws. In November 2013, the Federal Court of Justice rejected the concept of a lower standard for applied artworks in the
Geburtstagszug case. The court ruled that per changes made to German law in 2004 by the implementation of the
Directive on the legal protection of designs, copyright and design right were two separate concepts that could co-exist in applied art, as they had different requirements; novelty and an "individual character" for design right, and "a degree of creativity which allows, from the view of a public open to art and sufficiently skilled in ideas of art, to be called an 'artistic' performance", for copyright. This makes the threshold nearly identical to that in other forms of works. The case centred around the creator of the "Birthday Train", who had received royalties from a design patent but wanted to also collect royalties on the concept as a copyrighted work. In June 2016, a state court ruled in a complaint against the
Wikimedia Foundation by the
Reiss Engelhorn Museum that digital reproductions of public domain works are subject to a new copyright.
Netherlands A controversial decision on 16 July 2013 rendered "backseat conversations"—such as those between
Willem Endstra and police—not sufficiently creative for copyright protection.
India Section 13(1)(a) of the
Copyright Act, 1957 (which is largely derived from the British
Copyright Act 1956) states that copyright subsists in "original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works". Courts initially favoured a doctrine of originality being based upon the "skill, labour and brain" used in the preparation of the work. This was demonstrated in the cases of
V. Govindan v E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and
Burlington Home Shipping Pvt Ltd v Rajnish Chibber, which held that compilations (an English-Tamil dictionary) and databases (an internal customer database that had been obtained by a former employee and brought to their competitor) were eligible for copyright. However, the
Supreme Court would reject this doctrine in the 2007 case
Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr; Eastern Book Company had published
copy-edited versions of Supreme Court judgments with numbered paragraphs,
cross-references, and
headnotes that were written by the Company itself. The respondents had published CD-ROMs containing compilations of these judgments, which Eastern Book Company alleged were sourced from its publications; the CD-ROMs contained the copy-edited texts of the judgments themselves, but did not contain the headnotes and original content that were written by Eastern Book Company. The court held that mere copy-editing "lacks originality as it does not depict independent creation even a modicum of creativity. The inputs put by the appellants is nothing but expressing an idea which can be expressed in a limited way and as such there cannot be a copyright. Filling the blanks or gaps by providing names of the parties or citations of the judgments, both of which are well known and unchangeable parts of that idea, are not original work." The court held that the headnotes that did not copy from the judgment verbatim were copyrightable, and that the division of a judgment into paragraphs and numbering them was enough to meet a standard of skill. In a case law,
Nissin Foods lost the case for the design of
Cup Noodles packaging. Tokyo High Court ruled that although the shape is stylised, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters. Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general.
Switzerland to lack "individual character".
Copyright law of Switzerland defines works as being "creations of the mind, literary or artistic, that have an individual character." In a 2003 decision, the
Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland ruled that a photo of
Bob Marley taken at a concert by a spectator with a handheld camera was eligible for protection, because it had the required individual character by virtue of the aesthetic appeal of the picture, combined with the orientation of the picture's components and the distribution of light and shadow. It also found that the photograph was a "creation of the mind" by being shot at a specific time during the singer's movement on the stage. By contrast, in the 2004 case
Blau Guggenheim v. British Broadcasting Corporation, the Court found that a photo, shot by a reporter to document
Christoph Meili with the files he had taken from his employer, lacked individual character. It found that the scope of conceptual and technical possibilities was not exploited, and that the photograph did not distinguish itself in any way from what was common use. However, in an amendment to Swiss copyright law that took effect on 1 April 2020, "photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography" are now eligible for copyright, even if they do not display individual character, although their creation must still be the result of "human actions", and they are subject to a shorter copyright term (50 years after production rather than 70 years after the death of the author).
Taiwan texts are uncopyrightable in Taiwan. logos are uncopyrightable in Taiwan. While the threshold of originality (原創性) is not defined in Taiwan's copyright law, it is used in practice. It is divided into "originality" (原始性) and "creativity" (創作性) which are under the influence of Japan (that is under the influence of
Germany) and the
United States. The
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office describes that independently created works with "minimal creativity" are eligible for copyright protection, and courts in practice described that the threshold is refilled when "the works are recognisable from previous works that can show the creators' individuality by common sense of the society". The threshold of originality in Taiwan will vary by court.
Criminal justice tends to have a higher threshold to protect
defendant. In case law, Sunshow (双手機電), a Chinese manufacturer, won the case for the design of their logo, which consisted of a graphic and a
typeface. The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (智慧財產及商業法院) ruled that while the graphic part of the logo is copyrightable, its typeface is not, thus is below the threshold of originality. In addition, traditional images are under the threshold of originality, and not protected by copyright. File:CarCreditCity.png|thumb|right| Car Credit City logo: US Copyright office ruled this logo too simple to be protected, but a slightly more complicated version was accepted for registration (authority). is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple
typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. In
United States copyright law, the principle of requiring originality for copyright protection was invoked in the 1991 ruling of the
United States Supreme Court in
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. The court opinion stated that copyright protection could only be granted to "works of authorship" that possess "at least some minimal degree of creativity". As such, mere labour ("
sweat of the brow") is not sufficient to establish a copyright claim. For example, the expression of some obvious methods of compilation and computation, such as the
Yellow Pages or blank forms, cannot receive a copyright (demonstrated in
Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble), but sufficiently original elements within the work itself can still be eligible for protection. The Supreme Court similarly established in
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that artistic elements of a practical article (such as clothing) can be copyrighted if they meet the threshold of originality, and can be identified as art when they are mentally separated from the item's practical aspects.
Reproductions 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 US 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". Another court case related to threshold of originality was the 2008 case
Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales US In this case, the court ruled that
wire-frame computer models of Toyota vehicles were not entitled to additional copyright protection since the purpose of the models was to faithfully represent the original objects without any creative additions. In May 2016,
Judge Percy Anderson ruled that remastered versions of musical recordings are eligible to receive a new copyright if they contain "multiple kinds of creative authorship, such as adjustments of equalization, sound editing and channel assignment", that are perceptible from the original work. This applies even if the work was only subject to
common law state copyright as a sound recording published prior to 1972, thus making them become eligible for
compulsory licences under federal copyright law. This was overruled in 2018 in a 3–0 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that "A digitally remastered sound recording made as a copy of the original analog sound recording will rarely exhibit the necessary originality to qualify for independent copyright protection."
Typefaces and geometry bottle House Report No. 94-1476 states that the design of a
typeface cannot be protected under US law. The non-eligibility of "textual matter" was raised in
Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., judging whether photographs of bottles of
SKYY vodka were original enough for protection:
Mechanically produced works In works produced in a mechanical medium, "there is broad scope for copyright . . . because 'a very modest expression of personality will constitute originality.'" With respect to United States law, Stephen M. McJohn writes: Difficulties arise when attempting to determine the boundary line between mechanical or random processes and instances in which the slight intervention of a human agent results in the production of a copyrightable work. The
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment posited that the question is open as to whether computers are unlike other tools of creation in that they are possible of being co-creators. The
US Copyright Office has taken the position that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable." == The "sweat of the brow" doctrine ==