ויקישיתוף:פאנארט

Shortcut

• COM:FAN

תמונת פאנארט מותרת של הארי פוטר שאינה נראית כאילו נגזרה בצורה כלשהי מהמחשה ספציפית של הדמות באיורי עטיפות הספרים, הסרטים או משחקי הווידאו והמחשב. ראו כמה דוגמאות מייקומו הבדיוני של הארי פוטר למטה.

פאנארט הוא מונח שפירושו ייצוגים אומנותיים בלתי רשמיים של מרכיבים או דמויות ביצירה ספרותית מקורית, הנוצרים לרוב על ידי חובבים בלתי מקצועיים להנאת עצמם. פאנארט נוצרת על ידי מי שאינו בעל הזכויות על היצירה המקורית או בעל היתר רשמי לשימוש בה. היצירה הספרותית היא לרוב ספר, חוברת קומיקס/רומן ויזואלי, סרט, תוכנית טלוויזיה או משחק וידאו/מחשב פופולרי.

פאנארט הינה "שדה מוקשים" משפטי, ודף זה אינו יכול לתת מעבר להנחיות כלליות. יש להתייחס לכל קובץ פאנארט בנפרד לגופו.

הקדמה

The rights owner (usually a company such as a movie company that has purchased the rights to the work of fiction from the author) generally has multiple intellectual property rights available to protect its commercial interests. These will normally include artistic copyrights in any movie/TV show/computer game/comic book drawings/photographs and so on, along with literary copyrights arising from any corresponding textual work such as a novel. Also, the rights owner often has trademark protection and moral rights, along with other rights to prevent unauthorised copying in some countries. In Common Law countries, the law of passing off is available; in Civil Law countries, there are rules restraining unfair competition.

Taken together, these rights are strong in most countries that respect intellectual property, with the result that it would be extremely unwise for a commercial competitor to attempt to copy elements or characters from the original work of fiction, in any form.

פאנארט בוויקישיתוף

האם פאנארט תתקבל בוויקישיתוף? זה לא מחקר מקורי?

Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not need to comply with the no original research requirements imposed by many of the WMF Wikipedia sites. It is true that original art may not be usable on some Wikipedia sites, but the aims of Commons are broader than merely hosting content for such sites.

However, our project scope requires that files uploaded to Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Image collections of personal interest only, self-created artwork without such educational purpose, and images of low quality that do not provide anything educationally different from the images already held may be deleted even if they have been made available under a free licence. For example, an original artwork that places Uncle Sam inside the Trumbull's Declaration of Independence would not violate anyone's copyright and may be licenced by its author as desired, but it could hardly be said to have any realistic educational purpose. The image File:P Harry Potter.png, on the other hand, is educationally useful, as may be seen from the fact that it is used as an icon on multiple wikis.

Commons is not a free web host, and we cannot accept collections of original art whose purpose is merely to showcase the talents of the artist (unless the artist is a notable figure in which case we will host them).

כללי

So far as Commons is concerned, we will host fan art provided that:

• It is realistically useful for an educational purpose, as required by our project scope (note that "self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is specifically excluded);
• It does not breach any copyright owned by the rights owner; and
• It has been released by the fan art creator under a permitted free licence.

Note that the fan art creator must release the fan art under a free licence that allows commercial use. Provided that the fan art does not infringe any copyrights of the rights owner, it does not matter that the rights owner may have additional rights in some countries to restrain re-use such as trademark protection, or the law of passing off or unfair competition. Such non-copyright restrictions that affect only the re-users of our content can normally be ignored when considering whether a file may be hosted here.

האם פאנארט יכולה להיחשב שימוש הוגן?

Sometimes, yes, but that is of no assistance here since Commons never accepts fair use uploads.

שיקולים פרקטיים

As explained in more detail below, certain types of fan art are in principle allowed provided they do not copy any creative element of the original work of fiction. However, in practice it is often very difficult to tell whether the fan art has been made by copying, or whether it is an independent work of art which merely shares with the original work of fiction some basic non-copyrightable aspects or features. This is where common sense and judgement have to be applied.

Without wishing to denigrate the skill of any individual artist, experience teaches that many creators of fan art find it easier to copy than to create wholly original works of their own. Images that at first sight appear original are often found on investigation to have been copied from, say, a copyrighted representation of a character in a movie or a computer game. For that reason, all fan art uploaded to Commons should be evaluated critically. It may be relevant to consider the apparent skill of the artist and whether any other uploads can be shown to have been copied from a known source. Where there is real doubt the precautionary principle should be applied and the image deleted.

שימוש בתבנית {{Fan art}}

Where a fan art file is eligible to be hosted on Commons, please consider tagging it with the {{Fan art}} template. This warns re-users of the file that the rights owner may in some countries have additional non-copyright protections which may restrict the file’s re-use. The template is a warning and not a copyright tag, and use of the tag has no bearing on whether or not the file is allowed to be hosted here.

זכויות יוצרים בפאנארט

Although rights owners in practice often have plenty of rights to prevent almost any reuse for commercial purposes of any character or element within the universe of the original work of fiction, when we consider copyright alone their protections are rather less extensive.

ציור מחדש אינו מונע הפרת זכויות יוצרים

It is important to understand that you do not avoid copyright infringement merely by re-drawing an existing copyright work, even if you introduce artistic additions or embellishments of your own. For example, if you redraw the map illustrations depicted in the novel The Lord of the Rings you infringe their copyright just as certainly as if you had photocopied them. You will also infringe the copyright in a movie if you copy creative elements or characters from the story in a manner similar to the way in which those elements or characters are presented on screen.

בעלות פיזית אינה מעניקה היתר

The fact that you may physically own a DVD, computer game or comic book does not provide you with any authorisation to create your own fan art copied from what is shown. Ownership of the physical article may rest with you, but ownership of the copyright does not. Whether or not such articles are explicitly labelled as copyright-protected is irrelevant.

זכויות יוצרים אינן מגינות על רעיון

רעיון אינו ראוי לזכויות יוצרים, במקרה זה השילוב בין שוט לבין כובע. העובדה כי רוב הצופים יזהו את הרמיזה לדמותו הבדיונית של אינדיאנה ג'ונס אינה משנה.

The title above is a gross oversimplification, but generally there is no copyright in an abstract idea or concept as such. Copyright is not a monopoly right that protects each and every type of creative content, even at the highest conceptual level; it simply restricts copying of the specific realization that the author has used, in words, images or sound. US courts distinguish between an uncopyrightable "idea" and a copyrightable "expression".

Thus, in order to establish a copyright violation the copyright owner has to be able to point to some original and creative specific realization (or expression) that has been copied, either directly or indirectly, exactly or inexactly, and either with or without additional artistic embellishments. The specific realization is typically some graphic work such as an illustration in a book, or a visual representation in a movie or computer game.

The difficulty, of course, is to decide what level of generalization is considered to be a non-copyrightable abstract idea, and what a copyrightable specific realization. The courts have much trouble with this, and there is no “bright line” rule that provides an easy answer.

Where the specific realization is an illustration or a depiction of a creative graphic element within a movie, comic book, computer game or the like, copyright will typically be infringed if the fan art drawing has copied that original creative element.

זכויות יוצרים ספרותיות

The legal situation can get much more complicated where the fan art drawing is a representation based solely on the descriptive text of a literary work such as a novel. Although the novel's author will have literary copyright in the actual words used, the US courts, in particular, have been rather reluctant to uphold broad copyright protection for characters within the novel. Although literary characters are clearly creative, they are often seen by the courts as being no more than abstract ideas that are too generic to attract independent copyright protection.

US case law is not consistent, but it is clear that "the less developed the characters the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for making them too indistinct". In order to warrant copyright protection, a literary character must be both "specifically described" and "distinctively delineated" (or "fully developed"). Other cases have granted protection only to a character within a work who constitutes the “story being told”

The courts have refused protection for characters that are of no more than a particular "character type". Similarly, the courts will not grant protection where the material copied is standard or common to the particular subject or topic. Thus, a stereotypical fictional character, unless one copied the exact word portrait of that character, is not likely to be copyright protected. For example, it is unlikely that a court would uphold infringement of the text of a mystery novel based on the fact that both the original character and the alleged copy smoked a cigar and spoke with a New York accent. It is likely that the court would hold both of these characteristics to be standard or common to the mystery genre.

The courts in England have been even more reluctant to accept character copyrights based on literary works, and the general view is that English law does not recognise the concept of copyright in literary fictional characters at all.

In practice literary copyright is not in any event typically of great importance, since most fan art is based on characters that are known in graphic form from spin-offs such as movies, comic books or computer games. Where a novel has become popular enough to generate commercial spin-offs, it is the graphic representations that are more likely to have been copied than the original literary description.

שמות אינם ראויים לזכויות יוצרים

בדרך כלל, לא ניתן להגן על שם בודד בזכויות יוצרים, כגון "הארי פוטר", גם אם שם זה הוא יצירה מקורית של מחבר: שמות כשלעצמם הם בדרך כלל זעירים מדי להגנה בזכויות יוצרים. כמובן, הביטוי "הארי פוטר" מוגן כסימן מסחרי רשום במדינות רבות, מה שימנע את מרבית סוגי השימוש החוזר המסחרי, אם כי הגנה על סימן מסחרי אינה מהווה מחסום לאחסון תמונה בוויקישיתוף, מאחר והחזקתה בשרת WMF בדרך כלל לא תפר זכויות מסחריות כלשהן.

זכויות יוצרים אינן מגינות על רמיזה בודדת

תמונת פאנארט מקורית שבסך הכל מתייחסת אל היצירה המקורית אינה הפרת זכויות יוצרים, בתנאי שלא נלקח מרכיב יצירתי מקורי כלשהו. העובדה כי שמה של תמונה מבהיר מי או מה היא אמורה להציג אינה בעייתית כשלעצמה.

There is no copyright in a commonplace pre-existing element

An allowable fan art image that consists of a commonplace element (two books) plus a non-copyrightable mere allusion to Harry Potter.

Where the work of fiction makes use of commonplace pre-existing elements, taking one of those elements and imaginatively recreating it as an original work of fan art does not infringe any copyright, even if the recreation would clearly be understood to relate to the fictional universe created by the original author. The original author can have no copyright in a commonplace pre-existing element, as such, since the element was not itself generated by the author’s creativity.

ניתן לצייר תמונה של אסטון מרטין בלי שהיא תהייה כפופה לזכויות היוצרים של סרטי "ג'יימס בונד", אבל הבאטמוביל מ-"באטמן חוזר" היא יצירה מקורית ופאנארט שלה הייתה מפרה את זכויות היוצרים המקוריות של הסרט.

זכויות יוצרים אינן מגינות על דמותו של שחקן

Movie-derived fan art often includes drawings of an actor in character. There is no copyright in an individual’s likeness, e.g. in their natural facial features, and if the fan art drawing is a wholly new creative representation showing the actor’s natural likeness plus some non-creative allusion to the original work, it can be accepted. However, it is a copyright violation to copy creative elements from the movie, and many fan art drawings will fail on that basis. A drawing that closely replicates what is shown in the movie will infringe the movie copyright in the same way as would a photograph directly taken from the screen.

Out of copyright and freely licensed works

Fan art depicting public domain characters is allowed on Commons

Fan art which depicts material that is in the public domain or which has been released under a permissible free license by the original rights owner is allowed. Note, however, that the original work the character appears in must be public domain or freely licensed in order for derivative representations of the character to be free.

• See also Commons:Character

Freedom of panorama

Photographs which fall under freedom of panorama of the country in which they are taken are allowed. If a sculpture of the Batmobile from Batman Returns were permanently installed in a public park in, say, the UK, then a photograph of it would not infringe any copyright, and neither would a drawing copied directly from that photograph. However, that does not mean that all representations of the Batmobile thereby become free; only those that are based solely on the photograph to which Freedom of Panorama applies.

The rules differ from country to country. Note that the freedom to photograph works of creative art, such as sculptures, which are permanently located in a public place does not apply in the US.

דוגמאות מהייקום הבדיוני של הארי פוטר

למידע נוסף, ראו הארי פוטר.

• ציור של ילד עם שיער שחור ומשקפיים. מותר בתור אלמנט שגרתי קיים, בתנאי כי מדובר בציור של ילד גנרי, ושהוא לא מעתיק את הדימויים הספציפיים מאיורי עטיפות הספרים, הסרטים, או משחקי הווידאו/מחשב.

• ציור של ילד עם שיער שחור ומשקפיים עם התיוג "הארי פוטר". מותר תחת אותם התנאים הנ"ל. הוספת המילים "הארי פוטר" בלבד אינה הופכת ייצוג גנרי להעתקה מפרת. אין זכויות יוצרים על רמיזה בודדת.

• ציור של ילד בכובע ובגלימות קוסם, בין עם התיוג "הארי פוטר" ובין אם בלי. מותר בתור אלמנט שגרתי קיים, בתנאי כי מדובר בציור של ילד קוסם גנרי, ושהוא לא מעתיק את הדימויים הספציפיים מאיורי עטיפות הספרים, הסרטים, או משחקי הווידאו/מחשב.

• ציור של ילד עם שיער שחור ומשקפיים, עם צלקת בצורת זיג-זג על מצחו, בין עם התיוג "הארי פוטר" ובין אם בלי. כאן, שילוב המאפיינים שנלקחו עשוי להיות ייחודי לדמות בספרים של ג'יי. קיי. רולינג, אבל ייתכן כי עצם שילוב שכזה עשוי להיחשב לרעיון עליו לא ניתן להגן בזכויות יוצרים בבתי המשפט האמריקאיים. כמו כן, כנ"ל, בתי המשפט האנגליים אינם מכירים ברעיון של זכויות יוצרים על דמות ספרותית בכלל. אי לכך, יש להתיר את הדבר, בתנאי שהיצירה אינה מעתיקה את הדימויים הספציפיים מאיורי עטיפות הספרים, הסרטים, או משחקי הווידאו/מחשב. אולם, יש לסקור היטב ציורים המכילים כמות כל כך גדולה של פירוט ג'יי. קיי. רולינג או יותר על מנת לוודא שהם לא באמת הועתקו מייצוג על גבי מסך. במקרה של ספק יש לנקוט בעקרון הזהירות המונעת.

• ציור של דניאל רדקליף, בין עם התיוג "הארי פוטר" ובין אם בלי. מותר אך ורק בתנאי שמדובר בציור חדש ומקורי לגמרי של השחקן אשר לא הועתק בצורה כלשהי מיצירה קיימת המוגנת בזכויות יוצרים כגון צילום או הייצוג הספציפי בסרטים. אין זכויות יוצרים על דמותו של שחקן.

• ציור של דניאל רדקליף בכובע ובגלימות קוסם, בין עם התיוג "הארי פוטר" ובין אם בלי. הדבר מסובך יותר. בעיקרון הדבר מותר בתנאי שהציור חדש ומקורי לגמרי ואינו מעתיק ייצוג ספציפי מהסרטים בצורה כלשהי. אולם, בפועל סביר יותר להניח כי ציור שכזה הועתק מייצוג על גבי מסך מאשר שהוא מקורי לחלוטין. במקרה של ספק יש לנקוט בעקרון הזהירות המונעת.

• צילום של ילד עם שיער שחור ומשקפיים, עם צלקת בצורת זיג-זג על מצחו, בכובע ובגלימות קוסם, שחלקים ממנו הגיעו בתחפושת ליל כל הקדושים/פורים מורשית עם התיוג "הארי פוטר". תחפושות מהוות בעייה מסובכת. ראו Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes_and_cosplay.

Non-copyright restrictions and reuse

The manner in which an image is reused is of great importance in practice, even where there may be no copyright problem. If you create a new and original drawing of a black-haired boy with glasses, and label it "Harry Potter" you should be OK so far as copyright is concerned, and such a generic drawing can if suitably educational be hosted here. Non-copyright restrictions on reuse are not normally a bar to a file being hosted here, unless they are restrictions which would make it unlawful for the WMF to act as the host under US law.

But re-use of such an image may be much more difficult. If for example you use the fan art drawing as the basis for a commercial computer game of your own, or use it as a cover illustration for your book, you will be in deep trouble. In the UK, US and other Common-law countries, you may be committing the tort of passing off by putting into the marketplace articles which might well be bought by unsuspecting purchasers who incorrectly think you are associated with J.K. Rowling in some way, e.g. that you have been licensed by her or her company. In France and other Civil-law countries you may fall foul of a variety of unfair competition laws.

You might also have to worry about libel, especially if your drawing could be considered derogatory and damaging to J.K. Rowling's reputation.

As always, as a downloader and re-user of our content, it is your responsibility to satisfy yourself that any use you make of one of our files is acceptable under your own national law; see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.