Wikipedia:Domain publik: Perbedaan revisi

27.163 bita ditambahkan ,  1 bulan yang lalu
tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
{{Terjemah}}{{Proposal|WP:DP}}{{Hak cipta Wikipedia}}
Untuk semua tujuan praktis Wikipedia, '''ciptaan domain publik''' adalah ciptaan yang sudah bebas hak cipta: siapa pun dapat menggunakannya untuk tujuan apa pun. Walaupun ciptaan tersebut domain publik, tanggung jawab kita adalah tetap memberikan atribusi atas ciptaan tersebut agar memenuhi kebijakan terkait.
* [[Traktat Hak Cipta WIPO]] ([ WIPO ''Copyright Treaty''/WCT]) sejak 1996, berlaku 2002, adalah tambahan Konvensi Bern yang melindungi basis data dan Program Komputer. Di Amerika Serikat pelindungannya berdasarkan [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]].
* [[Traktat Fonogram dan Pelaku Pertunjukan WIPO]] ([ WPPT]) sejak 1996, berlaku 2002, adalah pemutakhiran Konvensi Roma. Di Amerika Serikat pelindungannya berdasarkan [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]].
== Ciptaan yang tidak berhak cipta ==
: '''Singkatnya: Karya pemerintah atau karya yang tidak menunjukkan kreativitas'''
: ''Lihat pula:'' [[wikipedia:Hak cipta bendera, lambang negara, dan segel|Hak cipta bendera, lambang negara, dan segel]]
=== Karya Pemerintah Amerika Serikat ===
=== Karya Pemerintah Indonesia ===
Karya pemerintah Amerika Serikat—defined as any "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties"<ref>{{usc|17|101}}</ref> and including works prepared by the governments of the [[District of Columbia]], [[Puerto Rico]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Ley Núm. 55 de 2012 -Ley de Derechos Morales de Autor de Puerto Rico|url=|website=LexJuris (Leyes y Jurisprudencia) de Puerto Rico|language=es|archive-url=|archive-date=2020-11-01|access-date=2021-02-19|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Unorganized territory#United States|US organized territories]]<ref name="Compendium313.6C1">{{cite web|date=December 22, 2014|title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.6(C)(1)|url=|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|page=36|archive-url=|archive-date=December 8, 2016|accessdate=November 8, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>—are not eligible for copyright protection, although the federal government can "receiv[e] and hold[] copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise".<ref name="17 USC 105">{{USC2|17|105|Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works}}</ref> It is not clear whether this applies world-wide.<ref>See the [ CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.7] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2009-03-04}} and a discussion on that at the [ LibraryLaw Blog] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2021-02-19}}</ref> The US government themselves state that they "may assert copyright outside of the United States for U.S. government works".<ref name="usgov">US Government: ''[ Copyright and Other Rights Pertaining to U.S. Government Works] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2021-02-19}}'', retrieved 2010-10-14.</ref>
In practice, this means that ''much'' material on <code>*.gov</code> and <code>*.mil</code>, as well as material on some <code>*.us</code> web sites (such as the sites of the [[US Forest Service]]), are in the public domain. Please note that not ''all'' such material is in the public domain, though:
* US governmental web sites may use copyrighted works, too; either by having licensed them or under a "fair use" provision. In general, such copyrighted works on web sites of the US federal government and its agencies are indicated by appropriate bylines. An example are "visitor image galleries" on [[National Park Service|US National Park Service]] websites: unless these have some indication that the photographs are placed in the public domain by publishing them on that NPS web site, these images are copyrighted by their photographers, who are visitors of national parks, not employees of the NPS. According to the [[CENDI]] FAQ on "Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright", "Copyrighted works that are not owned by the Government should be included on government web sites only with permission of the copyright owner and should include an appropriate copyright notice."<ref>{{cite web|date=October 8, 2008|title=Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright, "3.1.9 Are Government websites provided copyright protection?"|url=|publisher=[[CENDI]]|archive-url=|archive-date=March 4, 2009|accessdate=December 29, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Some US ''state and local'' governments also have web sites in the <code>*.gov</code> domain. '''State and local governments''' usually ''do'' retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places ''federal'' documents in the public domain.<ref name="state_pubs">Publications of US ''state'', district, county, or municipal agencies are eligible for copyright. Only works of ''federal'' agencies are exempt from copyright; see [ Radcliffe & Brinson: ''Copyright Law''] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2006-06-21}}, or the [ CENDI Copyright FAQ list, 3.1.3].</ref> However, laws and/or court decisions in some states may place their work in the public domain. See, for example, {{tl|PD-CAGov}} and {{tl|PD-FLGov}}.
* Works produced under a commission from the US government by a contractor ''are'' most likely copyrighted. This typically includes any documents from research labs. The [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]], for instance, is operated by a contractor for the [[US Department of Energy]], but that does not mean the works it produces are "works of the federal government". ORNL works ''are'' copyrighted, and the US government is granted a non-exclusive license to use, publish, and allow republication of such works. The precise terms vary from one lab to the next, but in general, commercial re-use of their works is prohibited.<ref name="contractors">[ CENDI Copyright FAQ list, section 4.0] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2009-03-04}}, and [ 17 USC 105] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2017-12-25}}.</ref> This also applies to works authored by ''independent contractors'' or ''freelance writers or artists'', even when their works are commissioned by some US government agency.<ref name="gorman_govt">Gorman, R.&nbsp;A.: ''[ Copyright Law, 2nd ed.] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2017-10-06}}'', US [[Federal Judicial Center]], June 19, 2006, section "Government works" on pp.&nbsp;52&#x2013;54. URL last accessed 2018-10-20.</ref><ref>See [[Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case]].</ref>
* Even the US federal government may hold copyrights, if the original copyright holder assigns or transfers the copyright to the US government. A notable example of this is the obverse of the [[Sacagawea dollar]] coin, which its designer [[Glenna Goodacre]] claimed copyright of before she transferred the design and copyright to the [[United States Mint]].<ref name="sacagawea">See "Intellectual Property Rights" in the US Mint website's privacy policy [] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2007-02-05}}.</ref> When a US government agency holds such a transferred copyright, it may declare the work to be in the public domain (or not).<ref name="gorman_govt" />
Under US law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. The US Supreme Court has held that judicial opinions of both federal and state judges—being a form of case law—cannot be copyrighted.<ref>See ''[[Wheaton v. Peters]]'' (1834)(opinions of US Supreme Court) and ''[[Banks v. Manchester]]'' (1888)(applying same principle to state judicial records).</ref> It has never addressed whether copyright can be claimed in other forms of law, such as [[Statute|statutes]], [[Code of law|legal codes]], or [[Municipal ordinance|municipal ordinances]]. Lower federal and state courts have varied on whether other forms of law, beyond judicial decisions, can be copyrighted.<ref>In ''[[Banks v. Manchester]]'', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 128|128]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] [ 244] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2018-10-25}} (1888), the US Supreme Court cited a Massachusetts court's opinion in its reasoning that state court judicial opinions cannot be copyrighted: "The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute." However, it ruled in a case later that year that a state-employed court reporter that compiled cases and law reports of the Illinois Supreme Court could copyright the portion of the compilations "which is the result of his intellectual labor", but reiterated its previous decisions that "there can be no copyright in the opinions of the judges of a court, or in the work done by them in their official capacity as judges." ''[[Callaghan v. Myers]]'', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 128|128]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] [ 617] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2018-12-30}} (1888). The US Supreme Court has not addressed the intersection of copyright protection for law since then. Lower courts have differed in deciding whether copyright can be claimed in works created by third parties and incorporated into state law/regulations or municipal ordinances (e.g. annotated codes, building codes). See ''[ Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2018-10-19}}'', slip opinion at 13-26 (2018), ''Id''. at 19 (listing cases in various circuits).</ref><ref name="gorman_govt" /> The position of the US Copyright Office is that all "edicts of government", both domestic and foreign, cannot be copyrighted and won't register such works.<ref name="Compendium313.6C2">{{cite web|date=December 22, 2014|title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.6(C)(2) ("Government Edicts")|url=|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|page=37–38|archive-url=|archive-date=December 8, 2016|accessdate=November 8, 2016|quote=As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.... A work that does not constitute a government edict may be registered, even if it was prepared by an officer or employee of a state, local, territorial, or foreign government while acting within the course of his or her official duties.|url-status=dead}}</ref> Since copyright protection is automatic and doesn't require registration with the Copyright Office, their position may not be authoritative in a court of law, so the copyright status of laws (including laws incorporating copyrighted works by third-parties, e.g. building codes) remains unclear until settled by the US Supreme Court.
The [[United States Copyright Office]], in its ''[[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices]]'', has stated its position that works of the [[US Postal Service]] are ''not'' "works of the U.S. government" and thus ''are'' subject to copyright.<ref name="Compendium313.6C1" /> Works of the [[United States Post Office Department]] before the formation of the US Postal Service are still considered government works and are in the public domain.{{fact|date=September 2014}}
Most other countries’ governments do hold copyrights, and their works are copyright protected. At the same time, many countries declare their edicts, as well as those of other countries, such as laws and court decisions, to be exempt from copyright. Such exemptions are typically narrowly defined and ''cannot'' be construed to mean “any publication by a government office”.
Works of the [[United Nations]] or its agencies or of the [[Organization of American States|OAS]] are subject to copyright.<ref name="Compendium313.6C2" /> Some UN documents ''are'' in the public domain; see [[wikipedia:Domain_publik#Works_of_the_United_Nations|Works of the United Nations]].
=== Karya yang tidak kreatif ===
: '''Singkatnya: Tidak ada hak cipta atas ide yang tidak mewujud, fakta-fakta umum, belum diwujudkan dalam bentuk nyata, atau berupa alat, benda, atau produk yang diciptakan hanya untuk menyelesaikan masalah teknis atau yang bentuknya hanya ditujukan untuk kebutuhan fungsional.'''
A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the [[threshold of originality]]. In the US, the classic example is a telephone directory. The names and numbers therein are, in the doctrine of case law (e.g. ''[[Feist v. Rural]]''), "facts that were discovered", rather than the result of a creative expression or judgment. The US has explicitly rejected the position that the amount of effort involved in the discovery of a fact can justify its protection. As a result of this doctrine, addresses, phone numbers, most scientific data, sports scores, the results of polls, and similar facts are exempt from copyright.
While the facts themselves are exempt, other creative elements in a compilation of facts may warrant copyright protection. For example, ''Eckes v. Card Prices Update'' established that the specific selection of which facts to include in a list, when done as the result of a creative act, merits protection even when the individual elements do not. (See also [ 17 USC 103(b)].) The [[WIPO Copyright Treaty]] is an international treaty that follows this concept; it has been adopted also by the [[European Union]] (EU) in its [[EU Database Directive]], a ''[[sui generis]]'' protection that prohibits any significant "extraction" or "re-utilization" of information from a database created by significant effort. In all these cases, the copyright is on the database as a whole, i.e. the selection of the collection. The individual items in such databases still have their own copyright, which may have expired.
Similarly, though scientific data are usually exempt from copyright, the specific figures and styles of presentation used to present that data will in most cases merit copyright protection. Also, in some cases facts that are exempt from copyright may still be protected as a result of patent law.
[[Berkas:Chimpanzee_congo_painting.jpg|jmpl|This painting was produced by the chimpanzee "[[Congo (chimpanzee)|Congo]]" and is therefore not copyrighted. The photo of the painting is not copyrightable per the [[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.|''Bridgeman v. Corel'' ruling.]]]]
Another class of uncreative works which are unable to claim copyright protection in the US are those resulting from mechanical reproduction. Following ''[[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.]]'', a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. Many other countries (but not all!) recognize a similar ineligibility for copyright for reproductive photographs of two-dimensional public domain works.
Common to all these cases is that only works created by a [[human]] are eligible for copyright.<ref name="Compendium313.2">{{cite web|date=December 22, 2014|title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2|url=|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|page=22|archive-url=|archive-date=December 23, 2014|quote=To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings.... Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.}}{{dead link|date=June 2015}} The Compendium lists several examples of such ineligible works, including "a photograph taken by a monkey" and "a mural painted by an elephant".</ref>
Works created by non-human animals (such as a photograph produced by a [[chimpanzee]])<ref name="Compendium313.2" /> or machines<ref name="Compendium313.2" /> are not copyrightable, although in the case of drawings produced by a [[computer program]], the program itself of course may be copyrighted. In certain cases, even graphics produced by computer programs may be copyrightable; see e.g. ''[[Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman]]''.
Descriptions (including diagrams) in [[patent]] applications in the US are "published into the public domain" by the [[US Patent and Trademark Office]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Archived copy|url=|archive-url=|archive-date=2009-09-25|access-date=2005-11-22|url-status=live}}</ref> Portions may contain the non-obligatory notice of copyright © or [[mask work]] Ⓜ protection, but the patent applicant must state in the text of the description that the owner of the rights in the protected part agrees to allow anyone to make [[facsimile]] reproductions of those portions of the description, but otherwise reserves all rights [ 37 CFR § 1.71(e)].
Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph.<ref>Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff‟d on reh‟g, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).</ref> If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images.
It should also be noted that the exemption of reproduction photographs extends only to ''two-dimensional'' artwork in the US. A photograph of a three dimensional statue may acquire copyright protection even if the statue itself belongs to the public domain. Such rights derive from the creativity involved in the positioning of camera, lighting, and other variables.
In the US, the ''[ Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices]'' of the [[US Copyright Office]] gives some concrete examples and hints at under what conditions a work is sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright.
=== Rupa huruf ===
: '''Singkatnya: Fon dapat ''dihakciptakan'' sebagai program komputer; rupa huruf (''apa yang tercetak di atas kertas''), biasanya dilindungi paten desain, atau sangat sedikit negara, oleh hak cipta; tetapi ''penggunaan aktual'' rupa huruf itu tidak dilarang, bahkan bila fon tersebut diunduh dari penyedia ilegal sekali pun.'''
Rupa huruf (''typeface'') menurut UUHC Amerika Serikat dianggap sebuah "alat yang digunakan untuk menyelesaikan masalah praktis" dan bukan merupakan apresiasi kreatif. Oleh karena itu, rupa huruf tidak memenuhi syarat hak cipta (CFR, [ Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e)]; ''Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer''). Namun persoalan ini memiliki batasan menurut ''[[Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.]]'', yang menghasilkan putusan bahwa fon, yang merupakan instruksi yang dibutuhkan untuk menghasilkan suatu rupa huruf, dianggap sebagai "Program Komputer", dan dapat berhak cipta. Oleh karena itu, berkas-berkas fon dapat dihakciptakan meski desain karakternya tidak.
Versi ''[[Gambar bitmap|bitmap]]'' dari suatu fon tidak memenuhi syarat hak cipta di Amerika Serikat. Sesuai dengan ''[[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices]]'', [[tipografi]] sederhana dan [[kaligrafi]] tidak dapat dihakciptakan di Amerika Serikat.<ref name="Compendium313.3D">{{cite web|date=December 22, 2014|title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.3(D) ("Typeface and Mere Variations of Typographic Ornamentation")|url=|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|page=25|archive-url=|archive-date=December 23, 2014|accessdate=December 22, 2014|quote=The copyright law does not protect typeface or mere variations of typographic ornamentation or lettering.|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Compendium906.4">{{cite web|date=December 22, 2014|title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 906.4 ("Typeface, Typefont, Lettering, Calligraphy, and Typographic Ornamentation")|url=|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|page=13|archive-url=|archive-date=December 23, 2014|accessdate=December 22, 2014|quote=As a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable.|url-status=dead}}</ref> Perlakuan hak cipta atas fon saat ini sangat janggal dengan hukum internasional, dan banyak yurisdiksi lainnya tidak mempertimbangkan fon sebagai ciptaan yang dilindungi (kecuali Britania Raya, yang juga ikut melindungi rupa huruf termasuk contohnya, dan bukannya penggunaan aktual<ref>{{Cite web|title=Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), section 54|url=|archive-url=|archive-date=2019-10-26|access-date=2011-03-10|url-status=live}}</ref>). Namun, rupa huruf dapat saja dilindungi [[paten desain]] (bisa otomatis, dicatatkan, atau dua-duanya). Contohnya di Uni Eropa,<ref>{{Cite web|title=OAMI-ONLINE - The Community Design in Practice<!-- Bot generated title -->|url=|archive-url=|archive-date=2011-04-06|access-date=2006-09-10|url-status=dead}}</ref> yang pelindungan otomatisnya berlangsung selama 3 tahun, lalu diperpanjang sampai 25 tahun dengan pencatatan.<ref>{{Cite web|title=OAMI-ONLINE - The Community Design in Practice<!-- Bot generated title -->|url=|archive-url=|archive-date=2011-04-06|access-date=2006-09-10|url-status=dead}}</ref>
=== Aspek internasional ===
: '''Singkatnya: [[Ambang batas orisinalitas]] dari setiap ciptaan dapat beragam di beberapa negara. Bahkan ada yang mendekati NOL.'''
Seperti halnya [[wikipedia:Domain_publik#Tanggal kedaluwarsa hak cipta|tanggal kedaluwarsa hak cipta]], penentuan layak tidaknya suatu ciptaan dapat diatur menurut peraturan perundang-undangan. [ Konvensi Bern, §5(2)] berbunyi:
: ''The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights'' [i.e., copyrights] ''shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of'' [copyright] ''protection in the country of origin of the work.''
: Pelindungan dan pelaksanaan hak-hak ini [hak cipta] tidak tunduk berdasarkan formalitas apa pun; pelindungan dan pelaksanaan tersebut tidak bergantung pada keberadaan perlindungan [hak cipta] di negara asal ciptaan.
Dengan kata lain: ciptaan yang tidak memenuhi syarat hak cipta di suatu negara (termasuk negara asalnya), masih dapat saja berhak cipta di negara lain. Contohnya, [[:en:File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg|File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg]] (gambar di Wikipedia bahasa Inggris): gambar ini tidak memenuhi syarat hak cipta di negara asalnya (Swiss) berdasarkan putusan Mahkamah Agung Federal Swiss.<ref>[ 130 III 714 S. 714] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2015-06-05}}. URL last accessed 2015-01-27</ref> Namun ini telah memenuhi syarat orisinalitas di Amerika Serikat, dan kemungkinan layak untuk dihakciptakan di Uni Eropa.
Ide, prosedur, sistem, metode, konsep, prinsip, temuan, atau data walaupun telah diungkapkan, dinyatakan, digambarkan, dijelaskan, atau digabungkan dalam sebuah Ciptaan juga tidak memenuhi syarat hak cipta berdasarkan Pasal 2 [[Traktat Hak Cipta WIPO]].<ref name="wct">[ WIPO Copyright Treaty] {{Webarchive|url=|date=2006-06-24}}, article 2: ''Scope of Copyright Protection''. URL last accessed June 21, 2006.</ref>
== Lihat pula ==