• Deutsch
• English
• Esperanto
• Nederlands
• español
• français
• occitan
• polski
• sicilianu
• suomi
• македонски
• русский
• українська
• עברית
• العربية
• ગુજરાતી
• 中文
• 日本語

This page provides an overview ofcopyright rules of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (including itsnon-European parts) relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons.Note that any work originating in theNetherlands must be in the public domain, or available under a free licence, in both the Netherlands and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from the Netherlands, refer to the relevant legislation for clarification.

The Netherlands has been a member of theBerne Convention since 1 November 1912, theWorld Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and theWIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.

As of 2018 theWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listedAct of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017) as the main copyright code enacted by the legislature of the Netherlands.^[1]WIPO holds the text of this Act in theirWIPO Lex database.^[2]Wikisource holds a version of the1912 Act as valid on 1 January 2005.

Official Dutch sources also provide the text of the Copyright Act and Related Rights Act in Dutch and English.

Under theAct of September 23, 1912 as amended up to September 1, 2017),

• Works of individual authors enjoy copyright protection until 70 years after the 1st of January following the author's death.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37(1)]}
• Posthumously published works before 1995 have a copyright until 50 years after publication (pre-1995 Act's term), or 70 years after the death of the author (post-1995 Act's term), whichever duration is the longest.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37, 51]} This clause was used to restore the copyright on portions of Anne Frank's diary that were unpublished until 1984.

• The duration of the copyright belonging jointly to two or more persons in their capacity as co-authors of a work shall be calculated from 1 January of the year following the year of the death of the last surviving co-author.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37(2)]}
• The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.^{[1912-2017 Art. 38(1)]}

• This also applies to the works of a public institution, association, foundation or corporation that is regarded as the creator, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as such on or in copies of the work which are made public.^{[1912-2017 Art. 38(2)]}
• For works whose term of copyright is not calculated according to the provisions of Article 37, copyright expires within 70 years after creation if not lawfully disclosed in this period.^{[1912-2017 Art. 39]}

• Copyright in a cinematographic work expires 70 years from 1 January of the year following the year of death of the last of the following persons: the principal director, the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the author of music made for the film.^{[1912-2017 Art. 40]}
• If in a musical composition with words the copyrights on the music and on the words are held by different individuals, copyright expires 70 years from 1 January of the year of death of the last survivor.^{[1912-2017 Art. 40a]}

Poza Europą

Before World War II, the Netherlands colonies in the Caribbean were administered as theNetherlands Antilles, which includedAruba,Curaçao,Bonaire,Sint Eustatius,Sint Maarten andSaba. Copyright legislation was defined by theauteursverordening 1913.In 1948 the Netherlands Antilles was given considerable autonomy, and on 15 December 1954 it became an equal partner to the Netherlands in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. On 1 January 1986 Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles and became a country of theKingdom of the Netherlands.

In 2010 the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba became special municipalities of the Netherlands, while Curaçao and Sint Maarten became countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.According to Article 39 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, "civil and commercial law, the law of civil procedure, criminal law, the law of criminal procedure,copyright, industrial property, the office of notary, and provisions concerning weights and measures shall be regulated as far as possible in a similar manner in the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten".

• The relevant legislation in Aruba is the 2003Auteursverordening (Aruba).
• For Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, the operative legislation is theAuteurswet BES, with a copyright duration of 50 years after the death of the author.^[7] This Act is based on the corresponding Act of the Netherlands Antilles.
• In Curaçao the law is similar.
• The law in Sint Maarten isAuteursverordening.

Dutch legislation and legal judgements are completely free of copyright (Article 11 ofDutch Copyright Act of 1912).

In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) may be freely distributed (this includes modifications and derivatives) in the Netherlands unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. This is regulated in (Article 15b ofDutch Copyright Act of 1912). Entities like the Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation can also be regarded as public authorities (AbRS 30 November 1995, JB 1995/337). This might imply that their publications are not automatically copyright protected. This arrest does not contain references to the copyright of such organisations; in addition, it is generally criticised by prof. mr. SE Zijlstra in anote to the arrest.

Oznaczenia licencji

• {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}} – for coats of arms of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
• {{PD-NL-gemeentevlag}} – for flags of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself

Waluta

 Nie OK: Guilder banknotes are subject to copyright 70 years after the first publication. De Nederlandsche Bank has been contacted and they state that the introduction of the Euro does not change this.

 Question Guilder coins may be OK to reproduce, since they are subject to Article 15b of theAuteurswet. Works published by or on behalf of the government can be reproduced, unless copyright has been reserved explicitly by the government at the time of publication. However, even if no reservation was made, only the author has the right to have those works published in a collection.

 Not OK National sides of the Euro coins are subject to copyright as well. Although they are subject to Article 15b, an express reservation of rights has been made by the Dutch government.

Dutch legislation contains an article that relates to situations in which copyright is not or hardly relevant. This is referred to asde minimis orbagatel. Based on this article, it is permitted to incorporate works by others into one's own work, but only if they are incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or lessby chance. Ofminor significance means the copyrighted work constitutes a small part of the work.

Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:

The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.

Sources

• Auteurswet art. 18a
• Lexology.com
• Understanding intellectual property (In Dutch)

Wolność panoramy

  for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
 Nie OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:^[10]

• it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work,as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included
• [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
• [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences.

Article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18.Photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

“Public place” in Article 18 of the Dutch Copyright Act not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly constitutes a public building is not defined in Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this Article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria for determining whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of Article 18, Parliament stated that the building must be freely accessible to the general public and then listed two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee is charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.)

Parliament and the literature explicitly state that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums arenot public places for the purpose of Article 18, but that railway stations are.

Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of theJohan Cruijff ArenA was deemed not to be a public place.^[14]In a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered to be covered by Article 18 because the building was visible from public land.

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in Article 18 as encompassing both works on open-air roads and squares and works that are visible from there, as long as they are located outside.

It also includes works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, and (covered) car parks. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls.

It probably does not apply within the shops in such a mall. In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally created to be permanently displayed in public spaces. The literature states that this would also apply to graffiti, even though these are normally removed rather quickly.^[13] This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explainedhere; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18.

Dutch legislature seems to favour a strict interpretation of theBerne three-step test.Parliament stated that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) is not permitted.

Images without evidence of original authorship can be used with a public domain licence.

The most common example is photographs intended for use in a passport or identity card. These are taken in a prescribed manner by a photographer or in automatic photo machine. From 1 October 2006, theRegeling eisen pasfoto’s (Regulations governing passport photographs) and thePaspoortuitvoeringsregeling Nederland 2001 (Passport Implementation Regulations Netherlands 2001) exactly prescribe therequirements for these photographs. The main requirements are:

• Complete view of the face, centred on the image
• Front view of the face
• Head and shoulders straight
• Neutral expression, mouth closed
• Both eyes visible; also in case of glasses
• No shadows or reflections in face or background
• Plain background
• Colour image

Previous to these regulations, other requirements were valid for ID photos. In particular, the photo should be taken in a 3/4 view, while one of the ears should be visible and the photo should be black and white. This isdescribed here.

According to legal interpretations, such as1 or2, these images are not eligible for copyright.

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. Whether something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgement "Van Dale v. Romme". In this judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that:^[19]

• In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright Act (Auteurswet), it is required to have its own, original character and bear the personal mark of the maker.

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgement "Endstra-tapes":^[20]

• The product must bear its own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product must bear the personal mark of the maker means that there must be a shape that is the result of creative human labour and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal that one cannot show any creative labour behind it of any kind whatsoever.

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgement on Stokke v. Fikszo that:^[21]

• For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has its own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

Znaczki pocztowe

Seenl:Wikipedia:Beleid voor gebruik van media/Postzegels (In Dutch).

Prior to 1 January 1989, the government-owned corporation PTT considered Dutch stamps as being created by the PTT company and as such was considered their author. In The Netherlands, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. With stamps issued prior to 1989, copyright expires 70 years after publication.

From 1 January 1989 onwards, the PTT became the private company TNT Post. The rules are sometimes different compared to the period before 01-01-1989, for example, when there is more than one author of a stamp.

As of 2025 Dutch stamps created in the period 1852–1954 are considered to be Public Domain.

Zobacz też

Przypisy

1. ↑^abNetherlands Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on2018-11-13.
2. ↑Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017). Netherlands (2017). Retrieved on2018-11-13.
3. ↑The Dutch copyright act
4. ↑Official English version of the copyright act fromrijksoverheid.nl.
5. ↑Official English version of the related rights act fromrijksoverheid.nl
6. ↑Marco Caspers (Institute for Information Law) (20 January 2016).The role of Anne Frank’s diary and academic freedom for text & data mining. Retrieved on2019-03-28.
7. ↑Auteurswet BES(in Dutch).Overheid.nl. Ministry of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations. Retrieved on2019-03-28.
8. ↑Auteursverordening(in Dutch).overheid.nl. Retrieved on 201903-28.
9. ↑Jacob Hendrik Spoor, D. W. F. Verkade, D. J. G. Visser (2005).Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht(in Dutch) 146. Kluwer. Retrieved on2019-03-28. "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een door of vanwege de openbare macht openbaar gemaakt werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, waarvan de openbare macht de maker of rechtverkrijgende is, wordt niet beschouwd verdere openbaarmaking of verveelvoudiging daarvan, tenzij het auteursrecht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Ook als een zodanig voorbehoud niet is gemaakt, behoudt de maker echter het uitsluitend recht, zijn werken, die door of vanwege de openbare macht zijn openbaar gemaakt, in een bundel verenigd te doen verschijnen"
10. ↑Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°[1], of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.
    • [1] teeken-, schilder-, bouw- en beeldhouwwerken, lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken;
    • [2] ontwerpen, schetsen en plastische werken, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde, de aardrijkskunde, de plaatsbeschrijving of andere wetenschappen;
11. ↑Dutch parliament:Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-8,Nota n.a.v. het nadere verslag, p. 15.
12. ↑^abDutch parliament:Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-5,Nota n.a.v. het verslag, pp.36-37.
13. ↑^abcSpoor, J.H; Verkade, D.W.F.; Visser, D.J.G.:Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht, 3. Ed., Kluwer 2004,ISBN 90-268-3637-4 Invalid ISBN; in particular p. 290.
14. ↑Wonende te Amsterdam v. CODEMASTERS B.V. publisher=Rechtenmedia(in Dutch). Retrieved on2019-03-28.
15. ↑DE GROENE LEGUAAN v. FRIESLAND BANK N.V.(in Dutch). Retrieved on2019-03-28.
16. ↑Dutch parliament:Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-3,Memorie van Toelichting, p. 52
17. ↑De Zwaan, M.:Geen beelden geen nieuws, Cramwinkel 2003,ISBN 90-75727-844; pp. 185-188.
18. ↑^abEngelfriet, A.:Fotograferen van kunst op openbare plaatsen:Openbare plaatsen zijn bijvoorbeeld plaatsen langs de openbare weg, maar ook stationshallen of winkelcentra.
19. ↑(HR 04-01-1991,NJ 1991, 608) "Bij de beoordeling van het middel moet worden vooropgesteld dat, wil een voortbrengsel kunnen worden beschouwd als een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst als bedoeld in art. 1 in verbinding met art. 10 Aw, vereist is dat het een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt.
20. ↑(NJ 2008, 556): [D]at het voortbrengsel een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter moet bezitten, houdt, kort gezegd, in datde vorm niet ontleend mag zijn aan die van een ander werk (vgl. art. 13 Aw). De eis dat het voortbrengsel het persoonlijk stempel van de maker moet dragen betekent dat sprake moet zijn van een vorm die het resultaat is van scheppende menselijke arbeid en dus van creatieve keuzes, en die aldus voortbrengsel is van de menselijke geest. Daarbuiten valt in elk geval al hetgeen een vorm heeft die zo banaal of triviaal is, dat daarachter geen creatieve arbeid van welke aard ook valt te aan te wijzen.
21. ↑Stokke/Fikszo(in Dutch).de Rechtspraak. Retrieved on2019-03-28. "Om voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming in aanmerking te komen, is vereist dat het desbetreffende werk een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt (vgl. HR 30 mei 2008, LJN BC2153, NJ 2008/556 (E)). Het HvJEU heeft de maatstaf aldus geformuleerd dat het moet gaan om "een eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur van het werk" (HvJEU 16 juli 2009, nr. C-5/08, LJN BJ3749, NJ 2011/288 (Infopaq I))"