FoP in Bangladesh

বাংলা: সারাংশ সিদ্ধান্ত

আইনি সারাংশ বাংলাদেশে নির্মিত স্থাপনার ক্ষেত্রে কর্ম Threshold of originality উদাহরণ আপলোড মেয়াদ ও মন্তব্য দালান / ইমারত / অবকাঠামোর ফটোগ্রাফ প্রযোজ্য নয় OK ছবিটি সম্পূর্ণ মুক্ত ও আপলোডযোগ্য। তবে কিছু কমন্স নীতিমালার সাথে সংগতিপূর্ণ কপিরাইট-বহির্ভূত বিধিনিষেধ রয়েছে। বিস্তারিত জানতে সংগতি অংশ দেখুন। দালান / ইমারত / অবকাঠামোর নকশা (ফ্লোর প্লান) ও রেপ্লিকা মডেল এবং এর ছবি শুধুমাত্র শৈল্পিক অংশের উপর কপিরাইট প্রযোজ্য[a] ২০২৩-০৯-১৮ এর আগে প্রকাশিত ছবি: OK ২০২৩-০৯-১৮ এর পরে প্রকাশিত ছবি:  Not OK[b] ("প্রকাশিত", ছবি তোলার সময় নয়) মূল মাতৃ স্থাপনার কপিরাইটের মালিকের মৃত্যু + কপিরাইট মেয়াদ কেউ কোনো স্থাপনার নকশা ফ্লোর প্ল্যান, আর্কিটেকচারাল ড্রয়িং বা রেপ্লিকা মডেল নির্মাণ করলে, সেই কর্মের মালিক মূল মাতৃ স্থাপনার কপিরাইট অধিকারী। মডেল নির্মাতা বা নকশাকারক নয়। ফলে মেয়াদ পার হয়ে যাওয়া বা মুক্ত যেকোনো স্থাপনার যেকোনো নকশা ফ্লোর প্ল্যান, আর্কিটেকচারাল ড্রয়িং বা রেপ্লিকা মডেল বাংলাদেশে পাবলিক ডোমেইন। খোদাই করা অথবা ছাঁচে বানানো ভাস্কর্য এবং এর ফটোগ্রাফ[c] শিল্পগুণ থাকা না থাকার উপর নির্ভর করে না[a] খোদাই করা অথবা ছাঁচে "না" বানানো ভাস্কর্য এবং এর ফটোগ্রাফ[c] প্রযোজ্য নয় OK প্রযোজ্য নয় যেকোনো নির্মাণকাজ বা কন্সট্রাকশনের ছবি প্রযোজ্য নয় OK প্রযোজ্য নয় 1 2 ২০২৬ সাল পর্যন্ত শৈল্পিক বৈশিষ্ট্য বলতে কি বোঝায় তার কোনো ব্যাখ্যা বাংলাদেশের কোনো আইন বা আদালত দেয়নি ↑ আপলোডকারী নিজেই মূল মাতৃ স্থাপত্য/ ভাস্কর্যের কপিরাইট অধিকারী হলে অথবা কপিরাইট অধিকারী স্বত্বত্যাগ করলে অথবা মূল মাতৃ স্থাপত্য/ ভাস্কর্য পাবলিক ডোমেইন হলে আপলোড করা যাবে। 1 2 খোদাই ও ছাঁচ দ্বারা কী বোঝায় তা নিচে ভাস্কর্য অংশে দেওয়া আছে।

English: Summary decision

Legal Summary For structures made in Bangladesh Work Threshold of Originality Example Upload Term & Notes Photograph of a building / structure / infrastructure Not applicable OK The photograph is entirely free and uploadable. However, there are some compliant Non-copyright restrictions. To learn more, see the compatibility section. Design (floor plan) or replica scale model of a building / structure / infrastructure, and photographs thereof Copyright applies only to the artistic elements[a] Photos published before 18 September 2023: OK Photos published after 18 September 2023:  Not OK[b] ("published" refers to the date of publication, not when the photo was taken) Death of the copyright owner of the original parent structure + copyright term If someone creates a floor plan, architectural drawings or replica scale model of a structure, the copyright in that model or plan belongs to the copyright owner of the original parent structure; not to the model-maker or draughtsperson. Therefore, any floor plan, architectural drawings or replica model of any structure whose copyright has expired or been waived is in the public domain in Bangladesh. Carved or mould-cast sculptures, and photographs thereof[c] Does not depend on whether artistic merit is present[a] Sculptures and monuments that are not carved or mould-cast, and photographs thereof[c] Not applicable OK Not applicable Photographs of any construction work or building under construction Not applicable OK Not applicable 1 2 As of 2026, no Bangladeshi law or court has defined what constitutes an "artistic feature" in this context. ↑ Uploadable if the uploader is the copyright holder of the original parent architecture/sculpture, or if the copyright holder has waived their rights, or if the original parent architecture/sculpture is in the public domain. 1 2 The meanings of "carving" and "casting in a mould" are explained below in the Sculpture section.

Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Strong support: I Don't think it is a loophole rather a design of the law. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Support উপরের সবকিছু অনুযায়ী ঠিকই মনে হচ্ছে। Mehedi Abedin 22:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• While I appreciate the extensive effort in the process of making of this proposal, I have serious concern with the motion. We were working on the copyright act since it surfaced couple of years ago. Unlike other rules and policies on Commons (which are decided by the community), FoP is a legal issue and requires legal interpretations by the court rather than presumptions. We do not have a legal translation of this act available online, which is the biggest problem here. It should exist somewhere but we do not have it. Until we find one, it is safe to assume "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" and "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" refer to the same "architectural works" in English and is protected under 14(1)(c). Section 2(40) and 2(51) only define the terms and defining 2(51) does not necessarily exclude architectural works from 2(40) artistic works. Also, I agree with JWilz12345's statements below. However, if I, anyhow, assume architectural works and artistic architectural works are different by quote-unquote "design of the law", 14(5) dictates that copyright for artistic architectural works encompasses both artistic features and design (শৈল্পিক বৈশিষ্ট্য ও নকশা) and design (নকশা) includes not only technical designs such as floorplan, HVAC, etc., but also may include exterior and interior designs (artistic features/শৈল্পিক বৈশিষ্ট্য) of a building, therefore negating the FoP claim for all architectural works. For sculptures, I am not sure how "ordinary construction process (without molding and casting)" is defined as ordinary construction process is, in fact, molding and casting. (Shaheed Minar is a group of RCC pillars. RCC pillars, beams, etc. are casted in wooden or steal molds.) I appreciate this effort. I really do. Unfortunately I have to  Oppose to this proposal. It would've been a really good thing for Bangladeshi Commons community to have FoP in the new law, like that in the US, even if is through a loophole, but this has to be done through a legal battle, not by establishing consensus in a Wikimedia community. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 09:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: Thank you reading all of these text. While I have labeled it as FoP, FoP is a consequence of the law. The main proposal of this text is if "architectural work" is protected by copyright or not. The law does not have FoP. But you can take pictures of any work that is not protected by copyright. The main body of the text does not deal with FoP, rather with the main question.

I don't know why you are asking for English translation here. Under the Bengali Language Introduction Act, 1987 and Section 128 of the Copyright Act, 2023, the Bengali text is the only legally authoritative version, so any legal interpretation or decision should be based on that. If there is conflict with English and Bengali version of the law, Bengali version will get priority. Any decision has to be made from the Bengali version of the law. As you are a native speaker, I advice you to not read or make any decision from even a single English word. Since 2017-ish every gazette of Bangladesh has been published on http://dpp.gov.bd. If government has not issued a gazette, any translation does not hold any legal authority. You cannot create a translation and make decisions from it.

স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম has the word শিল্প in it. You cannot just exclude শিল্প from the translation. "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" and "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" is clearly defined by the law. You cannot assume they are the same. According to The General Clauses Act, 1897 and existing precedents of Bangladeshi law, you cannot assume something is protected by saying, "law does not say, it is unprotected". The law cannot list every type of unprotectable work, and say these are unprotected. 2(40) artistic work is clearly defined in 2(40), itself. 2(40) does not include architectural work. Same way you say that "does not necessarily exclude architectural works", I can say, "does not necessarily include architectural works". Let's say, the law says you cannot enter military compound. By your logic, I can enter any house regardless of being private property. The law works both ways, it doesn't matter if you think that is right or wrong.

14(5) deals with architectural artistic work. It does not deal with "artistic work", it specifically dictates architectural artistic work. It does not say architectural and artistic work. If someone say salt water, you do not assume he is talking about water also or salt + water. 2(40) says শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন স্থাপত্য বা নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের মডেল বা নকশা; important distinction here is "বা" vs "অথবা", if you read the law carefully, also any Bangladeshi law, the law uses "বা" for combining two words and "অথবা" for combining two sentences or clauses. 2(40) - শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন (স্থাপত্য বা নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের) (মডেল বা নকশা); it is not (শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন স্থাপত্য) বা (নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের মডেল) বা (নকশা).

I am not making a claim that there is FoP in Bangladesh. I am claiming that Bangladeshi law does not protect architectural work.

For sculptures, if a sculpture is made with bricks, it is not a sculpture by Bangladeshi law.

I am not trying to establish a consensus here. I am explaining the law here and the consensus should be reached about whether to implement the explanation to commons.

The law is clear in this regard.

Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state "no copyright exists" for each.

আপনি ক তে কলিকাতা বানাতে পারেন। But you should not tackle the discussion with "Bangladesh has no FoP" and I am trying to change that situation. Rather you should tackle the discussion with, "this is an explanation of the law" Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 10:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tausheef Hassan, Thank you for your prompt reply. But, I believe, this is a technical misinterpretation of both law and engineering.

• In your opinion, there are slight differences among the jargons "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" (architectural works), "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" (artistic architectural works) and "স্থাপত্য" (architecture). Among them, only "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" (artistic architectural works) are protected by the sections 14(2)(c) and 14(5). Laws don't work like that. Bangladesh uses "harmonious construction" to avoid any part of the statute being redundant. According to you, "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" is excluded from the copyright laws rendering section 2(51) redundant. This is not possible as the legislature will never write any redundant clause.
• According to section 2(7):

“কপিরাইট” অর্থ কোনো কর্ম বা কর্মের গুরুত্বপূর্ণ অংশের বিষয়ে নিম্নবর্ণিত কোনো কিছু করা বা করিবার ক্ষমতা অর্পণ করা, এবং কোনো সম্পৃক্ত অধিকারও (related rights) ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে, যথা :-
     (গ) শিল্পকর্মের ক্ষেত্রে,-
          (অ) কোনো একমাত্রিক কর্মকে অন্য মাত্রিক (দ্বিমাত্রিক, ত্রিমাত্রিক, চতুর্থ মাত্রিক, ইত্যাদি) কর্মে রূপান্তরসহ যে কোনো আঙ্গিকে কর্মটি পুনরুৎপাদন করা;
          (আ) কর্মটি জনগণের মধ্যে প্রচার করা;

which roughly translates to:

"Copyright" means the right to do or to grant the right to do any of the following in respect of a work or substantial part of a work, and shall also include any related rights, such as:
     (c) for artworks,-
          (i) to reproduce a one-dimensional work in any form, including converting it into another dimensional (two-dimensional, three-dimensional, fourth-dimensional, etc.) work;
          (ii) to distribute the works among the public;

Therefore any form of reproduction, including a model and a building (which, from the engineering perspective, is a *life-size 3D model*) from an architectural design will be subjected to copyright. Also Section 2(51) defines "architectural works" as "any building, structure or infrastructure possessing artistic character or incorporating design, or any model of such building, structure or infrastructure", which clearly overlaps with the section 2(7)(c), therefore both "architectural works" and so-called "artistic architectural works" must be protected as "artistic works" under section 14(1)(c).

• For sculptures, yes, we can make brick sculptures without carving, casting or molding. But how are bricks made? With molds, of course. This also applies to another form of assembling type of sculptures where we assemble cement blocks or RCC blocks or metal plates, which are previously casted in a mold before assembling. The proposal relating to sculptures totally misunderstand the engineeing processes, for both sculptures and construction.
• As per JWilz12345, the claimed "design choice" totally strips away the copyright from an entire professional class, the architects, which is a serious violation of the international law as a signatory of Berne Convention. The court, if presented, will always prefer an interpretation that will uphold the treaty obligations. (Again, per Kaim Amin, this is a legal process, not linguistic analysis.) Also, this rejects the "fair use regime" intended by the new Bangladeshi copyright law. Last but not the least, if this "loophole" is rejected by any court in Bangladesh, the Wikimedia community has to face the liabilities. Refusal to wait for judicial clarification or professional legal guidance in favor is a failure of archival responsibility.

— Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: ভাই, প্রথমত ভাষ্কর্যের ক্ষেত্রে আপনি লজিক্যাল ফ্যালাসিতে ভুগছেন। Reductio ad absurdum! আইনে ভষ্কর্যের নির্মাণপদ্ধতি নিয়ে আলোচনা করা হয়েছে। ভাস্কর্য কী কী দিয়ে তৈরি, সেটার নির্মাণ পদ্ধতি না। আর আগের মন্তব্যে বলা কলাম বা বিমের ঢালাইয়ের Structural formwork-কেও যদি ছাঁচের আওতায় নিয়ে আসেন, তাহলে পৃথিবীর যেকোনও কনক্রিটের স্থাপনা অর্থাৎ, বিল্ডিং তো বটেই, ব্রিজ-কালভার্টও আইনের চোখে 'ভাস্কর্য' হয়ে যাবে! 

দ্বিতীয়ত, ২(৫১) মোটেও অপ্রয়োজনীয় না। মূল প্রস্তাবনায় ইতোমধ্যে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, আইনের ৩(৩) ও ৩(৪)(গ) ধারায় কোনো দালানের প্রকাশকাল নির্ধারণের জন্য "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" কথাটি সংজ্ঞায়িত করা জরুরি ছিল। যদি কোনো দালানের (স্থাপত্যকর্ম) গায়ে কোনো শিল্পকর্ম (যেমন: ম্যুরাল, ফ্রেস্কো) আঁকা থাকে, তবে দালানের নির্মাণ শেষ হওয়ার দিনটিই হবে ওই শিল্পকর্মের প্রকাশকাল। কারণ খেয়াল করুন, আইনে বলা আছে,  ৩(৩) ও স্থাপত্য কর্ম ও ভাস্কর্যের ক্ষেত্রে, স্থাপনা বা উহাতে অন্তর্ভুক্ত শিল্পকর্মসহ উহার নির্মাণ সম্পন্ন হইবার পর কর্মটি প্রকাশিত বলিয়া গণ্য হইবে।" তাই দালানে কোনও শিল্পকর্ম থাকলে সেটার প্রকাশ সাল নির্ণয় করা জরুরি, এজন্য দালানকে সংজ্ঞায়ন করাও জরুরি। এছাড়াও, ২(৪০) ধারায় থাকা "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম"র (2D নকশা/3D মডেল) সঙ্গে বাস্তব দালানের পার্থক্য পরিষ্কার করার জন্যেও দুটোর আলাদা সংজ্ঞায়ন জরুরি।

তৃতীয়ত, ২(৭)(গ)(অ) অনুসারে আপনি বলেছেন তাই দালান নিজেই নকশার 3D মডেল বলে যে ছবি তোলা যাবে না যুক্তি দিয়েছেন, এই বিষয়ে মূল প্রস্তাবনাতেই যথেষ্ট আলোচনা করা হয়েছে। মূল নকশা ধরে হুবুহু আরেকটি ভবন নির্মাণ অবশ্যই বেআইনি। কিন্তু স্থপতির মূল কাগজের বা ডিজিটাল নকশাটি কপিরাইটযুক্ত হওয়ার মানে এই নয় যে, রাস্তায় দাঁড়িয়ে থাকা আস্ত ভৌত দালানটি নিজে একটি স্বাধীন "শিল্পকর্ম" হিসেবে গণ্য হবে এবং তার ছবি তোলা যাবে না।  কারণ একটা দালানের দুই-চারটা অ্যাঙ্গেলের ছবি দেখেই দেখেই (নকশা ছাড়া) হুবুহু একটা ভবন নির্মাণ করে মূল নকশাগুলোর শতভাগ অনুকরণে ভবন নির্মাণ করে ফেলা সম্ভব নয়!

এরপর আসি বার্ন কনভেনশনের বিষয়ে। ভবনের চবি তোলার সুযোগ দেওয়া মানে স্থপতির কপিরাইট কেড়ে নেওয়া নয়। কপিরাইট আইনের ১৪(৫) ধারা অনুযায়ী স্থপতির ২ডি নকশার অধিকার পুরোপুরি সংরক্ষিত। কেউ ওই দালানের হুবহু রেপ্লিকা বা নকশা চুরি করতে পারবে না। কিন্তু স্থাপনার ছবি তোলা মানেই বার্ন কনভেনশনের লঙ্ঘন হলে পৃথিবীর যেসব দেশে স্পষ্টভাবে FoP আছে, সেসব দেশে স্থপতির অধিকার নষ্ট হচ্ছে না? এক্ষেত্রে কী বলবেন?  বার্ন কনভেনশনের ৯(২) অনুচ্ছেদে (Three-step test) কিছু "certain special cases”-এ সদস্য দেশগুলোকে তাদের নিজস্ব কপিরাইট আইনে 'ব্যতিক্রম ও সীমাবদ্ধতা' রাখার অনুমতি দিয়েছে। বিভিন্ন দেশে FoP থাকার মতো করেই বাংলাদেশের আইনে ভৌত স্থাপনার কপিরাইট না থাকা বার্ন কনভেনশনের অনুমোদিত ব্যতিক্রম।

তাছাড়া, আমাদের সামনে সুস্পষ্ট আইন থাকতে কোর্টের অপেক্ষায় কেন থাকব! কমন্সের নীতিমালা তো সংশ্লিষ্ট দেশগুলোর লিখিত আইনের ভিত্তিতেই তৈরি। ইতোমধ্যে আলাদালতের কোনও রায় থাকলে, কিংবা প্রচলিত নিয়মের বিপরীতে নতুন কোনও রায় এলে তখন আদালতের রায় অনুসরণ করা হয়। কিন্তু এই মুহূর্তে কোনও কনফিউশন হলে, কবে আলাদালতের টনক নড়বে, তারপর আলাদতে সেটার সওয়াল হবে, রায় আসবে সেটার অপেক্ষা করে থাকার তো কোনও যুক্তি নেই। যদি ভবিষ্যতে বাংলাদেশের কোনো আদালত এই আইনের ভিন্ন কোনো ব্যাখ্যা দেয়, তখন কমন্স নীতিমালা আপডেট করা যাবে। অন্যান্য দেশের ক্ষেত্রেও তা করা হয়। কিন্তু ভবিষ্যতের কোনও রায়ের আগপর্যন্ত বর্তমান লিখিত আইনই আমাদের একমাত্র মানদণ্ড।

AI Translationː First of all, regarding the issue of sculptures, you are suffering from a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum! The law discusses the construction method of a sculpture, not the manufacturing process of the materials it is made of. And if you bring the "structural formwork" of casting columns or beams (which you mentioned in your previous comment) under the definition of a "mold", then any concrete structure in the world—not just buildings, but even bridges and culverts—would become a "sculpture" in the eyes of the law!

Secondly, Section 2(51) is not redundant at all. As already mentioned in the main proposal, it was necessary to define the term "architectural work" to determine the publication date of a building under Sections 3(3) and 3(4)(c). If an artwork (e.g., mural, fresco) is painted on a building (architectural work), the date of completion of the building's construction will be considered the date of publication of that artwork. Because, please note, the law states in Section 3(3): "In the case of an architectural work and a sculpture, the work shall be deemed to be published after the completion of its construction, including the structure or the artistic work incorporated therein." Therefore, if there is an artwork on a building, it is necessary to determine its publication year, which makes defining the building itself essential. Furthermore, separate definitions are required to clearly distinguish between an "architectural artistic work" (2D design/3D scale model) under Section 2(40) and an actual physical building.

Thirdly, regarding your argument based on Section 2(7)(c)(i) that a building itself is a 3D model of the design and therefore cannot be photographed—this has already been sufficiently addressed in the main proposal. Constructing an identical building based on the original design is certainly illegal. But the fact that the architect's original paper or digital design is copyrighted does not mean that the entire physical building standing on the street will be considered an independent "artistic work" itself, forbidding anyone from taking a picture of it. This is because it is practically impossible to construct a building that is a 100% exact replica of the original designs just by looking at photographs from a few angles (without the actual architectural plans)!

Now coming to the issue of the Berne Convention. Allowing photographs of a building to be taken does not mean stripping away the architect's copyright. Under Section 14(5) of the Copyright Act, the architect's rights to their 2D design are fully protected. No one can steal the design or build an exact replica of that building. If photographing a structure meant violating the Berne Convention, wouldn't the rights of architects be compromised in countries around the world that explicitly have Freedom of Panorama (FoP)? What would you say in that case? Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention (the "Three-step test") allows member countries to introduce "exceptions and limitations" in their own copyright laws in "certain special cases". Just like having FoP in various countries, the exclusion of physical structures from copyright protection in Bangladeshi law is a permitted exception under the Berne Convention.

Moreover, why should we wait for the court when we have a clear written law in front of us! Commons policies are built upon the written statutory laws of the respective countries. If there is already a court ruling, or if a new ruling is issued that contradicts established norms, then the court's ruling is followed. But right now, there is no logic in waiting around wondering when the court will take notice, when the matter will be litigated, and when a verdict will finally be delivered. If any Bangladeshi court provides a different interpretation of this law in the future, the Commons policy can be updated at that time. This is exactly what is done for other countries as well. But until any future ruling arrives, the current written law is our only standard. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 22:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017 ভাই, সম্পূরক উত্তর:

বার্ন কনভেনশন অনুযায়ী কর্ম সৃজনের সাথে সাথেই স্বয়ংক্রিয় কপিরাইট তৈরি হয় ঠিকই, তবে আইনি সুরক্ষার জন্য যেকোনো প্রণেতা চাইলে নিজ দেশে এর লাইসেন্স রেজিস্টার করতে পারে। আর আপনি তো আইনের ব্যাখ্যার জন্য কোনও একটা কাল্পনিক মামলায় কোর্টের রায়ের অপেক্ষায় আছেন; তবে আমরা এখন এত বেশি অনিশ্চিত ভবিষ্যতের দিকে না তাকিয়ে আপাতত বাংলাদেশের কপিরাইট অফিসের ইন্টারপ্রিটেশনে আসি। এখানে শিল্পকর্ম ক্যাটাগরিতে ভাস্কর্য, রেখাচিত্র নকশা, খোদাই, স্থাপত্যের নকশা ইত্যাদি আছে। কিন্তু আস্ত ভবন রেজিস্ট্রেশনের কোনও অপশন সেখানে নেই। পাশাপাশি হোম পেইজে বাকি যেসব ক্যাটাগরি আছে, সেগুলোর কোনোটাই স্থাপত্যকর্মের সঙ্গে প্রাসঙ্গিক নয়। আইনের আপনাদের ব্যাখ্যা অনুযায়ী ভৌত দালান বা "স্থাপত্য" যদি কপিরাইটযুক্ত হতো, তবে বাংলাদেশ কপিরাইট অফিসের ওয়েবসাইটে আস্ত স্থাপনা রেজিস্টার করার সুযোগ থাকত। (এই পয়েন্টের উত্তর দেওয়ার অনুরোধ রইল!)

যদি দাবি করেন, নকশা সুরক্ষিত থাকলে দালানও সুরক্ষিত হতে বাধ্য, তাহলে খেয়াল করে দেখুন, ১৯৯০ সালের ১ ডিসেম্বরের আগে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের কপিরাইট আইন অনেকটা বর্তমান বাংলাদেশের আইনের মতোই ছিল! তখন কেবল architectural drawings, blueprints, plans এসব কপিরাইটেড ছিল। কিন্তু তারপরেও কমন্সে {{PD-US-architecture}} লাইসেন্সের আওতায় ৭৫০+ ছবি আছে। আপনার যুক্তি অনুসারে সেই ভবনগুলো কেন দ্বিমাত্রিক নকশার কপিরাইটেড ত্রিমাত্রিক অভিযোজন নয়? হলে তো অবিলম্বে সেগুলো ডিলেট করা উচিত।

তারপর, বাংলাদেশে অসংখ্য সাধারণ ভবন কোনো পেশাদার স্থপতির নকশা ছাড়াই কেবল স্থানীয় রাজমিস্ত্রিদের দ্বারা নির্মিত হয়। যে ভবনের কোনো 'স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম' (2D Design) আদতেই নেই, সেগুলোর ক্ষেত্রে আপনারা কার নকশার কপিরাইট দাবি করবেন? কোন ভবনের নকশা আছে, কোন ভবনের নকশা নেই, সেটা কীভাবে ডিফাইন করবেন? (করতে পারলেও যে কপিরাইটেড না, সেটা আগেই ব্যাখ্যা করেছি)।

এছাড়া, ১৪(৫) ধারা অনুযায়ী কেবল নকশার শৈল্পিক অংশের কপিরাইট থাকে। আর কোনো ভবনের গায়ে যদি নির্দিষ্ট কোনো শিল্পকর্ম (যেমন: ম্যুরাল, খোদাইকর্ম ইত্যাদি) থাকে এবং কেউ যদি পুরো ভবনে ছবি তোলে, যেখানে ওই শিল্পকর্মটা মাইনর সাবজেক্ট, তবুও তো সেটা COM:De minimis নীতি অনুযায়ী সম্পূর্ণ বৈধ এবং কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন নয়।

এবার আপনার ছাঁচ-দালান-ভাস্কর্য প্রসঙ্গে আসি। আপনার যুক্তি অনুসারে যেকোনো আধুনিক প্লাস্টিক সামগ্রী কিংবা আপনি যে চশমাটি পরে আছেন, তার ফ্রেমটিও কোনো না কোনো মোল্ড বা ছাঁচে তৈরি। তাহলে প্লাস্টিকের বালতি (আরেকটা বহুল ব্যবহৃত প্লাস্টিক-দ্রব্যের নাম মনে মনে পড়ুন) কিংবা চশমার ফ্রেমটিও একটি 'ভাস্কর্য'! তাহলে কি এখন কমন্সে বালতি, চশমার ছবি বা আপনার চশমা চোখে ছবি আপলোড করাও কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন হবে?

আমাদের সামনে বাংলাদেশের সুস্পষ্ট লিখিত আইন রয়েছে যা ভৌত দালানকে কপিরাইটমুক্ত রেখেছে। একে জোর করে কপিরাইটযুক্ত প্রমাণ করার চেষ্টা করাটা আইনের আক্ষরিক ব্যাখ্যার পরিপন্থী বলেই প্রতীয়মান হচ্ছে আমার কাছে।

AI translation: While it is true that copyright automatically subsists upon the creation of a work according to the Berne Convention, any creator can register its license in their own country for legal protection. And you are waiting for a court ruling in some hypothetical case for the interpretation of the law; rather than looking toward such an uncertain future, let's look at the interpretation of the Bangladesh Copyright Office for now. Here, under the Artistic Works category, there are sculptures, line drawing designs, engravings, architectural designs, etc. But there is absolutely no option to register an entire building there. Besides, none of the other categories on the homepage are relevant to architectural works. If physical buildings or "architecture" were copyrighted according to your interpretation of the law, then there would have been an opportunity to register the entire physical structure on the website of the Bangladesh Copyright Office. (I request an answer to this point!)
If you claim that if the design is protected, the building must also be protected, then take note that before December 1, 1990, the copyright law of the United States was much like the current law of Bangladesh! At that time, only architectural drawings, blueprints, and plans were copyrighted. But despite that, there more than 750 images on Commons under the {{PD-US-architecture}} license. According to your logic, why aren't those buildings considered copyrighted three-dimensional adaptations of two-dimensional designs? If they are, then they should be deleted immediately.
Then, numerous ordinary buildings in Bangladesh are constructed solely by local masons without any professional architect's design. For buildings that have no 'architectural artistic work' (2D Design) at all, whose design copyright will you claim? How will you define which building has a design and which building does not? (Even if you could, I have already explained that it is not copyrighted).
Besides, according to Section 14(5), only the artistic part of the design has copyright. And if there is any specific artwork (e.g., murals, engravings, etc.) on a building and someone takes a picture of the entire building, where that artwork is a minor subject, it is still completely legal and not a copyright violation according to the COM:De minimis policy.
Now let's come to your mold-building-sculpture topic. According to your logic, any modern plastic item or the frame of the glasses you are wearing is made in some sort of mold or cast. Then a plastic bucket (also insert a certain widely used "bengali" plastic item here) or the frame of your glasses is also a 'sculpture'! So will uploading pictures of buckets, glasses, or a picture of you wearing glasses on Commons now be a copyright violation?
We have the clear written law of Bangladesh in front of us, which has kept physical buildings copyright-free. Trying to forcefully prove them copyrighted appears to me to be contrary to the literal interpretation of the law. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 17:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017 ভাই, প্রসঙ্গত, COM:De minimis বুঝতে এই দুটো ছবি দেখুন: File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg, File:Louvre at night centered.jpg। এখানে একটি শিল্পকর্ম ছবির একদম কেন্দ্রে থাকা সত্ত্বেও অধিকাংশ এলিমেন্ট কপিরাইটমুক্ত হওয়ায় কমন্সে গ্রহণযোগ্য হয়েছে।

AI translation: BTW, to understand COM:De minimis, please see these two images: File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg, File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. Here, even though an artwork is right in the center of the image, it has been accepted on Commons because the majority of the elements are copyright-free. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 12:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@MS Sakib, I don't think you actually read through article 9(2). It states, "… to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases …". Here the word “reproduction” refers to the actual Freedom of Panaroma. The Berne Convention allows each country to enact Freedom of Panorama laws that comply with the Three-Step Test. However, it absolutely does not authorize a state to declare an entire mandatory class of subject matter (as explicitly defined in article 2(1)) to be totally uncopyrightable, as it would be a absolute denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the treaty.

As you mentioned the US copyright law, yes it did not have protection for buildings until 1990. This is when the US joined the Berne Convention and were legally required to protect physical structures to remain compliant.

ছবি দেখেই দেখেই (নকশা ছাড়া) হুবুহু একটা ভবন নির্মাণ করে মূল নকশাগুলোর শতভাগ অনুকরণে ভবন নির্মাণ করে ফেলা সম্ভব নয়!

Of course it's possible. If one engineer can build a building based on architect's design, why another engineer or architect won't be able to build another with the same exterior. This is the reason why copyright laws exist.

Also, Bangladesh Copyright Office has no rights to explain copyright, it simply just registers them. Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention explicitly states that copyright “shall not be subject to any formality”. The structural limitations, digital menus, or administrative workflows of a national copyright office's website possess zero legislative authority, and the absence of a web form does not nullify a statutory right.

Anyway, as long as Bangladesh is a signatory of the Berne Convention, there is no reason to carry on these arguments. Kaim (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You seem to lack a proper understanding of international and domestic statutes, as well as Commons policy. An international treaty like the Berne Convention is a promise made between governments; however, for that promise to be binding for individual citizens and organizations, a country must "translate" those rules into its own domestic law. In Bangladesh, you do not go to court for "violating the Berne Convention"; you go for violating the Copyright Act, 2023.

As pointed out by খাত্তাব হাসান below. "It is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Commons community to act as an international tribunal to decide whether a nation's written law violates an international treaty or not." Per COM:Licensing, works must be free in both the United States and the source country of the work. As Prosfilaes noted below, we can use the Berne Convention for context, but it is not directly binding. To avoid these issues, the Commons community assumes treaty compliance by the sovereign state. I will say this again: "The Berne Convention is not legally binding in Bangladesh or on Wikimedia Commons."

Until a legal verdict is given by Bangladeshi courts, we must assume treaty compliance. Whether the Copyright Act, 2023 is compliant with the Berne Convention is a separate topic entirely. The convention is used only for context on Commons and is not legally binding in Bangladesh or the USA. Since Commons is not an international tribunal, debating compliance is a waste of time and energy. I advise you not to waste your time or the community's time in this regard.

Regarding compliance with Commons policy under our current logic, User:MS Sakib has already pointed out several precedents and discussions. If you disagree with those, please address every specific point of disagreement rather than cherry-picking minor details to support your agenda. Address the strongest points first. Furthermore, Commons already supports this exact situation via {{PD-US-architecture}}; if you believe these should be restricted, please start a separate thread to have those files deleted. If they are successfully deleted, then rejoin this thread regarding that point of disagreement.

As for the Copyright Office: while it is true the office does not have the authority to interpret the law, it is the body that implements it. We can argue for days about the text of the law, but the Copyright Office’s implementation serves as the practical example of what the law mandates. By looking at their requirements for registration, you can deduce that the law does not mandate the registration of physical structures as copyrightable works.

Your argument against this proposal seems to rely on cherry-picking unnecessary fine details while ignoring the "elephants in the room." Please present your arguments against the core pillars of the proposal, not the fine print. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 11:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, JWilz12345, can you help clarify whether Bangladesh or Commons policy is obligated to comply with the Berne Convention or not? Thanks. Kaim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Strong support চমৎকার ও নিখুঁত আইনি বিশ্লেষণের জন্য ধন্যবাদ। প্রস্তাবিত এই ব্যাখ্যার সাথে আমি সম্পূর্ণ একমত। কপিরাইট আইন ২০২৩-এর ১৪নং ধারায় কপিরাইটযোগ্য কর্মের তালিকায় ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম'-কে রাখা হয়নি এবং ২নং ধারায় এর সংজ্ঞায়ন অত্যন্ত স্পষ্ট। প্রস্তাবনাটিতে খুব সুন্দরভাবে দেখানো হয়েছে যে, আইন অনুযায়ী ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম' এবং 'স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম' সম্পূর্ণ আলাদা বিষয়। যেহেতু বাংলা পাঠই এ আইনের একমাত্র আইনি বৈধ সংস্করণ, তাই অনুবাদের অভাবে অনুমানের ভিত্তিতে দুটি সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন শব্দকে এক করে ফেলার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। এছাড়া, সাধারণ প্রকৌশলগত ঢালাই বা নির্মাণ কাঠামোও কোনোভাবেই আইনের সংজ্ঞায় "ভাস্কর্য" নয়। যেহেতু ভৌত দালান আইনের সংজ্ঞায় সরাসরি কপিরাইটযোগ্য "কর্ম"-এর অন্তর্ভুক্ত নয়, তাই বাংলাদেশের উন্মুক্ত স্থানে অবস্থিত সাধারণ স্থাপনার ছবি প্রকাশ করা কোনোভাবেই কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘনের আওতায় পড়ে না এবং কমন্সে এগুলো আপলোড করা সম্পূর্ণ বৈধ। বিষয়টি কমন্সের বৈশ্বিক নীতিমালার সাথেও পুরোপুরি সামঞ্জস্যপূর্ণ হওয়ায় আমি এই প্রস্তাবনার পক্ষে পূর্ণ সমর্থন জানাচ্ছি।
  [English Translation]: Thanks for the excellent and precise legal analysis. I completely agree with this proposed interpretation. Physical 'architectural works' are not included in the list of copyrightable works under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 2023, and the definition in Section 2 is exceptionally clear. The proposal beautifully demonstrates that, according to the law, physical 'architectural works' and 'architectural artistic works' are two entirely distinct concepts. Since the Bengali text is the sole legally authoritative version, there is no room to conflate these two distinct legal terms based on assumptions or the lack of an official English translation. Furthermore, ordinary structural construction or engineering casting cannot be categorized under the legal definition of a "sculpture". Since physical buildings do not fall under the direct legal definition of a copyrightable "work", publishing photographs of ordinary structures located in public spaces in Bangladesh does not constitute copyright infringement in any way, making it completely legal to upload them to Commons. As this conclusion is also fully consistent with the global policies of Wikimedia Commons, I express my full support for this proposal. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Thank you for the thorough analysis and explanation. I strongly  Support this proposal. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I acknowledge all the efforts Tausheef Hasan has put into his thorough analysis. However, following all the discussions here and previously, I do not believe this community can or should allow images based on the above explanation, given that we can already see how vague this issue is. I agree with Meghmollar that we should wait for a court ruling or any other definitive, reliable interpretation. Copyright is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis. Kaim (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Section 300 of the Penal Code states that murder is illegal. By your logic:

We should wait for a court ruling or another definitive, reliable interpretation to determine what “murder” is. Murder is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis.

Therefore, your objection does not meaningfully address the issue. Please specify what exactly you disagree with. The law is clear on this point.

Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state “no copyright exists” for each.

There is little room for ambiguity here. The text already covers all aspects relevant to architecture under Bangladeshi law, which is why the explanation is necessarily detailed. If you have read the full text, it should not appear vague. Please state clearly which part you disagree with and explain why you believe it is ambiguous. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tausheef Hassan, I don’t see any way the Penal Code of murder is relevant in this discussion. We want to have a constructive discussion and hope to obtain a fruitful outcome from this. Bringing unnecessary arguments makes this discussion pointless.

Your reasoning mostly consists of linguistic interpretation of words. It can create many problems and vagueness in the matter. For example, you claimed that architectural works (স্থাপত্য কর্ম) are not copyrightable by law, and it is different from architectural artistic work (স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম). But section 14 (6) states:

(৬) নিম্নবর্ণিত ক্ষেত্রে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকিবে না, যথা:- … (গ) কোনো স্থাপত্য কর্মের ক্ষেত্রে, যদি কর্মটি বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত না হয়।
(Copyright shall not subsist in the following cases, namely: … In the case of any architectural work, if the work is not located in Bangladesh.)

So what about architectural works inside Bangladesh? I believe every sentence of the Act has a purpose, and this is not just a Fallacy of the Inverse. This could only imply one of the following:

1. Architectural works inside Bangladesh are, in fact, copyrightable by law.
2. The terms Architectural works and Architectural artistic works refer to the same thing, and are used in the act interchangeably.

If either of these is true, then it voids your whole argument. Of course, analysing the law with the meaning of words can cause such confusion and is bound to create contradictions.

Still, your claim of architectural works not being copyrightable is pretty extreme, and I don’t believe any other major nation has given such a generous liberty. Given this, we should not consider implementing this speculation, and the fact that Bangladesh would be breaching the Berne Convention if your claim were true makes this discussion kinda redundant. Kaim (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

আমার প্রস্তাবনার প্রাথমিক অংশে এই একই প্রশ্নের উত্তর ছিল। পরে ফরম্যাটিং করতে গিয়ে সম্ভবত হারিয়ে গেছে। যাইহোক, আপনি আইনে উল্লেখিত ধারার বাহিরে যাচ্ছেন। আইনে ধারা ২ এর সজ্ঞার বাহিরে যাওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই আমাদের। ধারা ২ তে স্থাপত্য কর্ম শব্দদ্বয় উদ্ধৃতির মধ্যে থাকা অবস্থায় সংজ্ঞায়িত। এই সজ্ঞার বাহিরের কোনো কিছু ঢোকানো সোজা বাংলায় আইনের লঙ্ঘন। ধারা ২তেই শিল্পকর্ম উদ্ধিতির মধ্যে সংজ্ঞায়িত আছে। শিল্পকর্মের এই সংজ্ঞার বাহিরে যেকোনো কিছুকে কপিরাইট আইনে শিল্পকর্ম বলা, আইনের পরিপন্থী এবং স্পষ্ট লঙ্ঘন। ধারা ২ আছেই যাতে ভাষাগত বিরোধ না হয়। এই ধারা ২ই স্পষ্ট করে যে ভৌত দালান শিল্পকর্ম না। এটাই আইনে সরাসরি আছে। এর বাদে শিল্পকর্মের মধ্যে কিছু ঢোকানোর সুযোগ নেই। ধারা ২ নিজেই ভাষাগত বিশ্লেষণ। আইন মূলত এখানে স্পষ্ট। আর বাংলাদেশি আইনে যাকে সুরক্ষা দেওয়া হয়নি, তাকে সুরক্ষা আছে বলার সুযোগ নেই। এই যুক্তিতে কমন্সের বেশিরভাগ pd ineligible বাংলাদেশে বৈধ নয়। আমার যুক্তি শুধু যুক্তি নয় বরং ব্যাখ্যা। আপনি আমাকে এই প্রশ্নসমূহের উত্তর দেন।

1. আইনের কোন ধারার ভিত্তিতে আপনি বলছেন যে স্থাপত্য ও স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম একই? আশা করি আপনি কোনো speculation দেবেন না। বরং আমার মতো যুক্তি দেবেন ।
2. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন ধারা ২ এর সংজ্ঞার বাহিরে আপনি গিয়ে কোনো কিছু যোগ করতে পারবেন। কেননা আপনার মতামত বলছে যে আপনি পারবেন।
3. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন যে আইন যদি সরাসরি না বলে যে "সুরক্ষা নেই", তাহলে সেটি সুরক্ষিত? কেননা তা হলে কমন্সের অনেক লাইসেন্স বাংলাদেশে অবৈধ বলে বিবেচিত হবে। যেমন নৃত্য, ফন্ট, সাধারণ লেখা, সাধারণ পতাকা ইত্যাদি।
4. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন যে ধারা ১৪(১) বাদে অন্য কোনো ধারা সুরক্ষা দেওয়ার ক্ষমতা রাখে? কারণ আইন সম্পূর্ণ দাঁড়িয়ে আছে ধারা ১৪ কে বিশ্লেষণ ও পরিণাম বর্ণনা করার জন্য।
5. ধারা ২ এর কর্ম এর সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে ভৌত দালান নেই। তাহলে কপিরাইট প্রসঙ্গে ভৌত দালান আসে কিভাবে?

আইন এখানে স্পষ্ট, আইনে সরাসরি স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা দেওয়া হয়নি। ধারা ১৪(১) এ নেই, মানে নেই। ১৪(১) এর বাহিরে কারো যাওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্সের পূর্ববর্তী প্রাকটিস যা বলে সেটা হলো যে, বর্তমানে স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা নেই। যতক্ষণ না পর্যন্ত কোন আদালত বলছে যে "আছে", ততক্ষণ পর্যন্ত ধরে নিতে হবে যে সুরক্ষা নেই। পরবর্তীতে আদালত বিশ্লেষণ দিলে, কমন্সের ডিলিট করার নজির অনেক। কারণ আইনের বর্তমান ব্যাখ্যা হলো "সুরক্ষা নেই" ধারা ১৪ ও ২ এতে স্পষ্ট। আদালত ভিন্ন ব্যাখ্যা দিলে, ব্যাখ্যার আগে ছবি হস্ট করার জন্য কমন্স কোন শাস্তির শিকার হবে না, এবং কমন্স আগের ছবি ডিলিট করে দিবে। বৈশ্বিক ও বাংলাদেশি প্রাকটিস তাই বলে। আমার ১৪ ও ২, ঠিকই আছে। বর্তমান অবস্থায় আদালতের ব্যাখ্যার প্রয়োজন নেই। বরং, স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা প্রদান করতে আদালতের বিশ্লেষণ প্রয়োজন।

বাংলাদেশ কপিরাইট অফিসের কাজ কপিরাইট রেজিস্টার করা। বার্ন এর মতে কর্ম অটো সুরক্ষা পায়। কিন্তু তারই সাথে অফিসিয়ালি কপিরাইট রেজিস্টার করারও উপায় থাকতে হবে। কপিরাইট অফিসের আইনের ব্যাখ্যা দেওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। তবে তারা আইনের প্রয়োগ করে। শেষবার যখন গেছিলাম তারা সংবাদপত্রকে সংবাদপত্র হিসেবে রেজিস্টার করেন না। সংবাদপত্র তাদের মতে NC-ND। তারা স্থাপত্যকেও রেজিস্টার করেন না। বাংলাদেশের সরকারি কর্মকর্তা কর্মচারীদের কাছে লিখিত চাওয়া নেহাত বোকামি ছাড়া কিছুই না। তাই এই জিনিসটা আমি আমার মূল প্রস্তাবনায় অন্তর্ভুক্ত করিনি। তার বদলে প্রমাণ হিসেবে কপিরাইট অফিসের online register পদ্ধতি দেখুব । এখানে ভৌত দালানকে অফিসিয়ালি রেজিস্টার করারই সুযোগ নেই। যেখানে রেজিস্টারই করার সুযোগ নেই সেখানে কপিরাইট আছে বলা হাস্যকর।

বর্তমান প্রয়োগ দেখায় যে, স্থাপত্য সুরক্ষিত নয়। একে সুরক্ষিত দাবি করার জন্য, আদালতের ব্যাখ্যা লাগবে। কমন্সের সাধারণ চর্চা অনুযায়ী এই ব্যাখ্যা না আসা পর্যন্ত ছবি পাবলিশ করা যাবে। আর বিপক্ষে রায় এলেও, কমন্সের দায় থাকবে না এবং ডিলিট করে ফেলার নজিরও অনেক আছে এবং এটি সাধারণ চর্চা।

আর বার্ন এর বিষয়টা উপরে MS Sakib ভাই ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন। আমি যদি আরও বলি, বর্তমান ব্যাখ্যায় আমি বলেছি যে, যেহেতু আইনে স্থাপত্যকে কর্ম হিসেবে দেখে না, তাই কোনো বাধা, non-copyright বাধা। আবার এইভাবেও বলা যায় যে, এই বাধা যেহেতু কপিরাইট আইনে আছে, তাই এটি কপিরাইট বাধা (সুরক্ষা নয়)। কোনো আদালত চাইলে এই ব্যাখ্যাকে আন্তর্জাতিক আইন এর সামঞ্জস্যতার জন্য বলতে পারে যে এটি কপিরাইট বাধা এবং তাই এটি আন্তর্জাতিক আইনের সাথে সামাঞ্জস্য রাখে। কমন্সে এরূপ কপিরাইট? বাধা সত্ত্বেও ছবি হোস্ট করা হচ্ছে, যা আমি মূল প্রস্তাবনায় রেখেছি।

আর আপনার মূল প্রশ্নের উত্তর আমি খানকিটা এইভাবে রেখেছিলাম খসড়া অংশে

প্রশ্ন ৪) ধারা ৩(৩) - "কোনো কর্মের প্রকাশনা এবং বাণিজ্যিক প্রকাশনা " অংশে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর প্রকাশকাল নিয়ে নির্দিষ্ট করে উল্লেখ করা কেনো আছে? কপিরাইটযোগ্য না হলে তা তো উল্লেখ করার প্রয়োজনীতা ছিল না। ধারা ১৪(৬) - কপিরাইট থাকে এইরূপ কর্ম এর (গ) অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" বাংলাদেশে না হলে তার কপিরাইট বহাল থাকবে না। তাহলে বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত হলে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকবে?

উঃ প্রথমেই বলি ধারা ১৪(১) এর বাহিরে যাওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। আমার ধারণা "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" বা "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর উপর কোনো "শিল্পকর্ম" অঙ্কিত থাকলে তাকে সজ্ঞায়িত করার জন্য তা দেওয়া হয়েছে। কপিরাইটযোগ্য না হলেও "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর 2D রূপান্তর "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" কপিরাইটভুক্ত। তাই "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর কপিরাইট না থাকলেও আইনের দ্বারা indirect কিছু সুরক্ষা আছে। তাই এসব বিষয়কে সংজ্ঞায়িত করার প্রয়োজনীয়তা আছে।

মূলত আমার ব্যাখ্যা আইনের সাথে আক্ষরিক। এবং আপনার ব্যাখ্যা প্রমাণের জন্য আদালতের রায় প্রয়োজন। আশা করি আপনি শুধুমাত্র বিরোধিতা করার লক্ষ্যে বিরোধিতা করছেন না।

Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 15:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support This interpretation appears consistent with the structure of the Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023.

Section 14 lists the categories of works in which copyright subsists, and physical buildings are not included in that list. In addition, Section 2(11) defines “work” (কর্ম) to include architectural designs or models, but not the constructed building itself. Section 2(40) similarly treats the design or model (নকশা) of architecture as an artistic work (শিল্প কর্ম).

Taken together, these provisions suggest that the law protects the architect's designs and models, while the completed physical structure itself may not constitute a copyrightable work. Therefore, photographs of ordinary buildings would not reproduce a protected work and should generally be acceptable on Commons. — Delwar • 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Physical buildings can be treated as an exception under current law. I don’t see any issues with this, and we can allow them on commons.  Support —MdsShakil (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Support It took more than two days to read all of the above with my current busy schedule but I tried. Whatever, I strongly support the proposal here.

First of all, the argument that interpreting the law literally would mean Bangladesh is breaching the Berne Convention is entirely misplaced here. As someone above also mentioned, Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention clearly allows member countries to introduce "exceptions and limitations" in certain special cases. And, It is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Commons community to act as an international tribunal to decide whether a nation's written law violates an international treaty or not. Commons policies should be strictly guided by the written copyright laws of the respective countries. If the written law of Bangladesh currently excludes physical buildings from copyright, Commons must follow that reality, rather than policing treaty compliance.

Secondly, if we look at the legally binding Bengali text, it clearly separates the 2D design ("স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম") from the physical structure ("স্থাপত্য কর্ম"). We can't just merge two entirely different legal terms based on assumptions or rough translations.

Furthermore, as above mentioned, the practical reality is that the Bangladesh Copyright Office doesn't even allow the registration of physical buildings. We have to follow the written law exactly as it stands today, rather than blocking images based on the fear of some hypothetical court ruling in the future.

Again, As MS Sakib also mentioned, We cannot just sit around waiting for a court decision. If a court gives a different interpretation in the future, policies can be updated accordingly. For now, we must prioritize the current written law. খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Legally, we don't have to host anything. We have no obligation to accept any file whether or not Bangladesh considers it a copyright infringement. We can certainly take into context the Berne Convention and other laws. I'm more inclined to accept this because the US (for WMF) and so many countries have exceptions for photos of buildings, but we're generally going to assume that a country's laws are compliant with Berne, just to simplify these types of problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support বিস্তারিত প্রস্তাবনা আনার জন্য ধন্যবাদ ও সমর্থন জানাই। আইনে যে জিনিস কপিরাইটমুক্ত রাখা হয়েছে তাতে কপিরাইটযুক্ত করে রাখার কারণ দেখি না। বিস্তারিত কিছু লিখছি না, আমার মনে হয় না আমার নতুন করে অতিরিক্ত কিছু যোগ করার আছে। -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support I support the proposed interpretation regarding the situation in Bangladesh after the enactment of the Copyright Act, 2023 (Bangladesh).

A careful reading of the law suggests that ordinary architectural structures are excluded among the categories of protected artistic works. While architectural drawings, models, and certain sculptural works may be protected, the law does not explicitly extend copyright protection to the physical buildings themselves. If that interpretation is correct, photographs of buildings located in public places should not constitute copyright infringement.

In practice, treating Bangladesh as a strict “no Freedom of Panorama” jurisdiction may therefore be overly restrictive. Bangladesh has a large amount of culturally and historically significant architecture documented by contributors on Wikimedia Commons, and a blanket prohibition on photographs of buildings could unnecessarily limit the documentation of the country’s built heritage.

At the same time, the distinction highlighted in the proposal allowing photographs of buildings and infrastructure while remaining cautious about sculptures created through carving or mould-casting appears to be a reasonable and legally cautious approach based on the wording of the law.

Given the current ambiguity in the legislation, adopting this interpretation would allow Commons to remain consistent with the law while avoiding unnecessarily restrictive deletions of architectural photographs from Bangladesh.--ROCKY (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:PAF label CMYK.jpg

Hat diese

Kombination aus dem Stadtwappen, Schrift, einer geometrischen Form und einem Schatten schon Schöpfungshöhe? Sie wird heute noch auf der Webseite der Stadt verwendet, siehe https://pfaffenhofen.de/. GerritR (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Da befunden wurde, dass dieses Logo unterhalb der Schöpfungshöhe ist, und das PAF Label mMn ähnlich ist, würde ich sagen, dass das PAF Label ebenfalls unterhalb der Schöpfungshöhe ist. Nakonana (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ist das Stadtwappen sowieso nicht ein amtliches Werk und damit gemeinfrei? (Template:PD-Coa-Germany). Und die Kombination aus dem ganzen Konglomerat ist auch für mich nicht ausreichend schützenswert. Grüße! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed flags of Lombardy

During the 2010's there were several projects for a flag of Lombardy (region in Northern Italy), until the official adoption of the green flag with a rosa camuna in 2019. Some have been uploaded on Commons, other have been uploaded locally on it.wiki in low resolution because of purported "copyright infringement":

• 
  (unclear) 2011 proposal
• 
  official 2011 proposal #1 (it.wiki)
• 
  official 2011 proposal #2 (it.wiki)
• 
  official 2011 proposal #3 (it.wiki)
• 
  official 2011 proposal #4 (it.wiki)
• 
  official 2011 proposal #5 (it.wiki)
• 
  official 2011 proposal #6; the only one uploaded on Commons
• 
  2015 proposal

But do they really infringe copyright? Aren't they {{PD-simple}}? -- Carnby (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

COM:TOO Italy seems to be rather high. Nakonana (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nakonana, it's very likely that they are all under the threshold of originality in Italy. I suggest using Template:TOO-Italy though instead of PD-simple.

The rosa camuna design could also be under Template:PD-ItalyGov if it was commissioned by the Region, but we'd need a source telling us that. Friniate (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Poster on bus

file:Solaris Urbino 18 III Hybrid, -8398, MZA Warszawa (15899736086).jpg Photo of bus with advertising on back, it is good visible, but not primary subject (subject is bus). I am not sure about COM:DEMINIMIS, but FoP isn't relevant, because objects is movable (or it isn't really matter?). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: I would recommend covering the human figures in the ad with a Gaussian blur, overwriting, and then revdel'ing the original. Pretty much the same thing I did at File:14th St 6th Av td (2018-03-22) 09 - IND.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a copyright-based rationale for blurring like that? Is there a principle, common to the United States and Poland, that suggests it would be necessary to blur copyrighted depictions of humans, but not other forms of copyrightable works (if any), particularly given that there is a likelihood that the individual copyrightable works within the photo support a contention of de minimis usage? TheFeds 19:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

In these particular cases posters contain human figures (copyrightable photos) and simple text (ineligible for copyright), reason for blur is COM:PCP, because the posters are good visible. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: do you see any other elements besides the human figures that you believe rise above the threshold of originality? - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to be pedantic about it, because ultimately my feeling is that the image clearly depicts a scene with elements that were intentionally exhibited to the public (an advertisement and the livery of the bus) whose use is de minimis because the photograph captures the bus from a perspective related to its utilitarian purpose and doesn't duplicate those elements in their bare form or in a way that facilitates reuse of those elements. The human figures are probably real photographs. The blue geometric background is probably an artistic work intended to evoke architecture, and as such has a fair claim to originality. The logos (sponsors, marathon, bus company) could be copyrightable if the threshold of originality is actually as low as Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland suggests (though reading between the lines, that could also suggest a copyright system that doesn't have a low threshold per se, but rather depends substantially on judicial discretion). The bus livery looks like it is a depiction of the skyline reflected on water, and although very simple, I could see a low threshold of originality protecting it too. I don't think the text is copyrightable under any theory. I don't think any FoP theory applies, assuming that the bus is stored overnight in a secluded place like a bus garage (as is often done in places where it snows). (And yes, I'm aware that FoP is usually not for moving objects, but my point is that based only on the short summary, I don't know that the Polish law is written with that specific caveat.) TheFeds 18:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds: I agree that the bus livery could also be an issue, I hadn't noticed that. Otherwise: my main concern was the license allowing derivative works. If you cropped to just the poster on the back of the bus, it would be a problem. Once you remove/blur the human figures, I'm pretty confident it would not be. I'm not worried about the logos (though maybe the Orlen one could be an issue) because they are so low-res and slightly out of focus that I couldn't imagine anyone cropping to that.

FWIW, I almost always favor the minimum amount of blurring/concealment to get back to where it's an image we wouldn't think twice about. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say that we ought to evaluate the image based on whether its existence on Commons would be contrary to applicable law, e.g. contributory copyright infringement. How a downstream reuser acts isn't exactly our responsibility.

I would first apply the law (copyright and otherwise) of the United States, and Florida, because that is to my knowledge where the image hosting occurs. Commons policy is to also apply the copyright law of the source country as to whether it is eligible to post—but that is distinct from whether that country actually has jurisdiction over any specific legal entity. I don't think hosting this would be actually contrary to law, and the image as presented and without blur would seem to be within both U.S. and Polish copyright law.

If a downstream reuser made a tight crop and reproduced a copyrightable element that was de minimis in the whole photo, that would be their choice and their risk. The same as if they did so on hundreds of thousands of other photos of streetscapes on Commons. We also can't prevent a downstream reuser from using an image for defamation or misrepresentation, even though those acts could equally give rise to civil liability for them.

An example of where creation of a derivative tight crop probably wouldn't be infringement would be in academic research related to comparative features of transit advertisements. There is a strong fair use argument, whether under the specific doctrine of that name, or under parallel principles that may or may not be fully fleshed out in the law of any given country. The fact that Commons, by policy, prevents us from hosting an image predicated on our use being fair, doesn't mean that downstream reusers are themselves precluded from claiming fair use for their own distinct purposes. And by placing the blur, we would be diminishing the utility of the image for that purpose. TheFeds 19:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The physical image hosting happens on several servers, not all in the U.S. However, Commons' legal location is the U.S.; I'm not sure it's still Florida, but that's not relevant here. The decision to also abide by the laws of the country of origin is just some mix of ethical and pragmatic (files are most likely to be reused there). There is very little chance of Commons (or, more properly, WMF, since Commons isn't a legal entity) being sued over copyright, I don't think it has ever happened. I'm sure this is in part because, as an educational entity, we have such latitude for fair use. A lot of our policies on this are driven by the fact that the licenses allow commercial and derivative works, and we try pretty hard to make sure reusers won't get in trouble that way. (If we were only concerned with our own, inherently non-commercial, use, there would be a lot more countries where we could allow Freedom of Panorama, because they provide it for non-commercial use.) - Jmabel ! talk 12:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

As a practical matter, what should be the principle for what to blur in an image, when, and to protect whose interests? And how should that be reconciled with the majority of existing Commons images that do not appear to follow such a principle? TheFeds 17:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The majority of existing Commons images do not in any way raise this issue. I'd guess if you hit "random file" 15 or 20 times, you wouldn't usually find more than one where an issue like this even begins to enter the picture.

I'm not going to go deep into theory here, but my approach is usually that if there is a concern of something being a derivative work that is not de minimis, we should blur or otherwise remove roughly the minimum amount that we have to to get it into the range where there those involved agree that the issue is addressed. Because of different thresholds of originality in various countries, that can vary quite bit. Category:Gaussian blurs to avoid copyright infringement and its subcats contain a lot of potentially interesting, and varied, examples.

By the way, on the bus livery mentioned earlier: we usually follow the U.S. principle that if the photo is basically of a vehicle, then that vehicle qualifies as a "functional object" and the fact that there is permanent or quasi-permanent decoration as part of that doesn't matter (different for a temporary ad, though). Since that applies even to things like a bottle with a logo on it, a bus livery seems to be a safe bet. However, I'm aware that other countries can have different interpretations of that; I have little idea for Poland. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

My point was that most images on Commons bear no evidence of having actually been scrutinized according to a principle such as the one you've suggested is "usually follow[ed]", and the community seems to have allowed that to persist. Specifically, of the minority of files where someone might legitimately raise the issue, a huge majority are not blurred.

And that's why I'm asking for a statement of principle. I accept that maybe we need to do better. But if so, precisely why? Commons' hosting of the image is probably not tortious. I don't think there's any reason to believe that almost any reuser's use of the image could be tortious either—in the case of this picture, even a commercial reuser would have to go to almost farcical lengths to incontrovertibly infringe. There's no reasonable economic incentive for them to do that given the plethora of alternatives. Are we being super-careful lest someone misunderstand their own (almost trivial) responsibility? And if they're a bad actor, we can't save the world from them. Moreover there is a very real problem that the law of copyright de minimis is half-baked and subjective, which limits our ability to draw clear lines.

Regarding the livery vs. the advertisement, that's one possible argument and it isn't ridiculous. But what's our burden to know how long the advertisement was scheduled to run, or whether the bus livery was for a special occasion? To what extent should Commons users engage in that judgment in the absence of objective facts, and is it sufficiently generalizable to be usefully applicable project-wide? What would be the implications for what could and couldn't be hosted?

That category is a fascinating artifact, and I think its objectives merit discussion, maybe on its talk page or in a different thread here. TheFeds 00:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds one more interesting "artifact": Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP. It includes countries that do indeed have Commons-compatible FoP rules (like Austria, Belgium, and UK) but were intentionally blurred either to demonstrate the effects of lack of FoP or to protest substantial policy changes (notably the 2015 discourse on FoP in which a French MEP tried to revoke FoP within the entire European Union, only to fail, but this discourse reverberated throughout the Wikimedia and photographers' communities in that Continent). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If I uploaded A Corny Concerto (1943), could the file be hidden until it's respective characters enter the public domain?

A Corny Concerto entered the public domain in 1970 because it's copyright was never renewed. However it can't be on Commons because Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and Porky Pig appear in it, who are still copyrighted. I found a really high quality rip of the cartoon via Blu-ray, and I was wondering, if I uploaded it, could it remain hidden until the three mentioned characters enter the public domain, like what happened with Steamboat Willie? Like, we could add the "Out of copyright in (insert year)" category that I've seen on Wikipedia before. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@PublicDomainFan08: It seems unlikely that there will be any difficulty obtaining a copy of that at the time it comes out of copyright. Usually, the only time we deliberately upload, delete, and wait till something comes out of copyright is when we are afraid it will otherwise be lost.

As for what we do about this technically, have a look at Category:Undelete in 2029 or similarly named categories; you'll see two different ways we track these (explicit list on the page, categorization of DRs). - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm just saying I am willing to upload it for all that. I just need permission first before I do it. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@PublicDomainFan08: If you are going to do it in a way that is at all useful, step one is to work out what would be the last character copyright to expire and when. That would probably mean compiling a list for all characters potentially at issue. - Jmabel ! talk 12:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and Porky Pig are the only copyrighted characters in the short. Porky's copyright expires in 2031, stemming from his first appearance in the 1935 short I Haven't Got a Hat. Fudd's and Bugs' expires in 2036. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't upload something to Commons just to have it deleted until it can be undeleted. I'd throw it up on Internet Archive instead (if it's not already there). Qzekrom (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I agree with you about this case, but not about the general principle. As I wrote above, "It seems unlikely that there will be any difficulty obtaining a copy of that at the time it comes out of copyright," and I would consider it a near certainty that someone will notice when this particular work becomes available, but I would not consider that the case for things like photos taken by Commons users of works of art that are not in major museums, especially of works in private collections which may not be available for photography at the time they come out of copyright, and which are likely not to be known to anyone on Commons other than the user who photographed them. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Parchi lazio

The site Parchi Lazio, a public administration, gives a Copyleft license for its contents; is it suitable for commons? If yes, under wich template? mac 06:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"I documenti copyleft appartengono al dominio pubblico, possono essere diffusi, ma non per fini commerciali." This clause suggests "non-commercial license", so their license isn't OK for commons (but OK for Wikipedia under fair use). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Tks for the infos. mac 13:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Luftbild-Datenbank

A user uploaded a whole bunch of aerial photos, apparently from this data bank, so definitely not "own work". I strongly doubt the CC licensing; after all, that's a company that wants to earn money with these images, and they certainly insist on their Urheberrecht. Do we have to mark these individually, or is there a faster process of handling all of these images at once? Thanks, --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case, the uploader admitted that she has bought the usage rights for her book publishing project but apparently did not give any thought to what a CC licensing includes. --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

keep cool and let him speak to his Mentors and Lawers Isderion (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27914-20: Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks!

@Isderion: Sure, if she ever manages to get a mentor. She has now asked her lawyer if she might use the images but apparently forgot to ask the minor detail about the relicensing. (This is information from her German WP user page.) --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright registration numbers?

Is there an accepted way to include US copyright registration numbers on file description pages? Needless to say, the following examples are all under free licenses:

• Get Creative.webm (PA0001221877)
• Reticulum Rex with subtitles - Creative Commons.ogv (PA0001221878)
• Android robot (2014-2019).svg (VA0001789579)
• Logo of Twitter.svg (VA0001950611)

I've mostly been adding the registration numbers as Wikidata properties (US copyright registration number (P9976)) and as free text, but it might also make sense to add an {{Information field}} row or template with a link to the registration record on publicrecords.copyright.gov so users can view additional metadata related to the work. Qzekrom (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Meaning other fields={{InFi|U.S. copyright registration number|PA0001221877}}, etc.? Sounds reasonable to me. Certainly not harmful. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Done! I also updated all the links on COM:TOO US as they linked to the old site (cocatalog.loc.gov) or archive.is. Qzekrom (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright status of two cycling team logos

Hi all. I recently came across File:Logo-cofidis.png and File:Logo Decathlon AG2R.png, which are the logos of cycling teams en:Cofidis (cycling team) and en:Decathlon CMA CGM Team respectively (the latter has since renamed and has a new logo, but the old logo is still used on some non-English Wikipedias). They've been uploaded under CC-BY-SA 4.0 licenses, but I can't see any proof on the page that the teams have licensed it that way. Does anyone know whether the license is correct? Thanks. -- numbermaniac (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If it were a logo from the United States, then at least the first one would be {{PD-textlogo}}, but since they are both from France there's no chance they would qualify for that PD rationale because COM:TOO France is extremely low. They'd need to be deleted if no evidence for a free license is found. The Decathlon website clearly states in their "Intellectual Property" section that the logo is copyrighted and reproduction, usage, etc. are prohibited without authorization. Nakonana (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

And so does Cofidis. Nakonana (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Looks like they'll have to be nominated for deletion. -- numbermaniac (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

PD question

Can someone please check the math on this one: The image was taken or published in 1953. The tag says that it's in public domain in those countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.
According to what I learned in school, 2026 - 70 = 1956.

So, if I get this right, we would need to be sure that the author died within three years of publishing this image. Are we? --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There's {{PD-anon-70-EU}} or {{PD-EU-no-author-disclosure}} but the question would be whether this also applies to Switzerland (=not a EU member) and whether it's safe to assume that the author is unknown. The photographer is definitely not named in the source newspaper (online available here: ). Nakonana (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The US copyright term for any work published before 1978 is always 95 years (17 U.S.C. § 304), so this image is probably still under US copyright. Qzekrom (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the original newspaper. The source given there is "Photopress", some sort of photo pool for newspapers I would assume. So the question is, what does "author unknown" mean? Unknown to us? Yes. Unknown to Photopress? I don't think so. --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The above mentioned URAA issue aside, Photopress Bern employed three photographers: Walter Studer (1918–1986), Ernst Baumann (1928–2018), and Margrit Baumann (née Bäumlin) (1929– ). No matter which of the three took the photo, it would not be in the public domain yet. Nakonana (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing! Thanks for finding out. I let the uploader know on his German WP user page. --~2026-27914-20 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Assistance in reviewing licenses of vintage photos and artworks from the Philippines

Hello. Can anyone review the uploads of Liane777 (talk · contribs), virtually all are vintage photos and artworks that are not really CC-BY-SA as the uploader claims. Note that several of their earlier uploads were deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Liane777.

Possible correct licenses: {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-expired}} (if found to have been first published in the US and not the Philippines), {{PD-US-not renewed}} (if found to have been first published in the US and not the Philippines, with US copyright notice that got expired and left alone before 1978), {{PD-Philippines-1972}} (if first published here without a copyright notice), and {{PD-Philippines}} (if the pre-1972 work was first published in the Philippines with a copyright notice and no renewal before 1972).

Due to the immense number of local enWiki files by Patrickroque01 that I am reviewing as part of importations to Commons at the moment, I cannot handle the review of vintage photo uploads of Liane777.

Mentioning several Pinoy users who may assist in reviewing Liane777 uploads: @Howdy.carabao, Pandakekok9, and Aristorkle: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

CopyRight Status on this image

Hi all.

I recently came across this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legoland_Billlund6.jpg, is an image of the entrance to Legoland.

My first assumption is that this is an image that should be approved to CC0, by the brand behind it. Without a CCO-aprovement from the brand behind it will violate the trademark law or copyright laws But my assumption may be wrong. Does anyone know whether this licence is correct. Thank you very much :) /Gls Gls-schmidt (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Presumably a copyvio. Freedom of Panorama in Denmark is limited to buildings. Certainly no one connected to Legoland granted a CC-0 license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Character's notability

Hi, We need a wider input to this. Please contribute to Commons talk:Character copyrights#Character's notability. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ansel Adams' Moonrise

I hate to be too topical, but I wanted to get other opinions on Ansel Adams' photograph Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. A somewhat restored version is currently a featured picture on Commons and English Wikipedia, and I do not disagree with the overall assessment of the work's copyright status (public domain due to lack of renewal, there's a clear chain of publication history, though more eyes on this are obviously always better). However, Adams famously re-printed this image many times over his career, and he consistently darkened the photograph as he re-printed it. The sky in the original was basically grey, by the final printings the sky had become black. So I guess my question here is like, are the later, darkened versions also public domain by virtue of the original print's public domain status? Or were they essentially new versions that got a new copyright?

Probably a non-issue, but figured I might as well raise it so I know moving forward how to treat prints/photos with multiple printings that changed over time. 19h00s (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Anybody can darken any photograph. This does not produce any new creative expression. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support exactly. Wmbata (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what I assumed, but I know there's some nuance to that in other realms of visual art (b&w vs color reproductions of paintings, etc.), so I figured I'd ask. Thanks for the confirmation! 19h00s (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Moonrise has lots of copyright issues. US Department of the Interior hired Adams in 1941 to photograph its parks and Indian reservations. Adams was returning home from such a shoot when he passed through Hernandez, NM, and took the Moonrise photograph. The Indian reservation photographs he took earlier that day are PD-US (presumably a result of the contract). The Moonrise photograph did not include Department of the Interior lands (Carson National Forest is visible, but it is controlled by the Department of Agriculture), so it could be a photograph taken when Adams was not fulfilling the contract. However, at one point Adams conceded that the negative belonged to the Department of the Interior. If we accept that concession, then any faithful print of the negative is public domain.

That does not answer the question. The Moonrise negative is poor quality, so Adams did a lot of dodging and burning to make a print. That post processing is not a simple darkening. Therefore, the individual dodged and burned prints of Moonrise have their own derivative work copyrights. One needs an individual copyright argument for each print.

Glrx (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This scenario was the one I feared but didn’t think was totally accurate. The versions we have on Commons are mostly from a print made in the ‘70s, sourced from Christie’s, which presumably has a different publication history and copyright circumstances than the original prints (if indeed there was a new derivative work copyright). 19h00s (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/10#File:Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico.jpg

Glrx (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

and ofc per usual, I could've just searched the archive. Thanks for this! 19h00s (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Translation and original copy's usa copyright

if only the translation of a book but not the original is published in usa, and that translation has entered public domain, what about the original? does the original still get protected in usa by uraa? the original is still copyrighted in its origin country by life+70. RoyZuo (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the original is still copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Juraj Vankulič.jpg

I'm not sure about the copyright licensing of File:Juraj Vankulič.jpg. The image is a crop taken from File:Pietní akce a projev solidarity s lgbtqai+ Slovenskem 2022-10-13, svíčky (7299).jpg; while that photo was most likely taken by the uploader of that file, the two photos on the sign were most likely not. Whether the two black-and-whie photos themselves can be argued to be incidental or de minimis to the overall photo as a whole is a bit debatable. Even if they are, the crop of one of them to create a stand-alone image of cs:Juraj Vankulič would not be. Is there anything in COM:Czech Republic, assuming that's the country of first publication, that might apply to both the larger photo and the crop? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the key distinction here is that the original file and the cropped portrait should probably be analyzed separately.

For File:Pietní akce a projev solidarity s lgbtqai+ Slovenskem 2022-10-13, svíčky (7299).jpg, the portraits on the memorial sign are arguably covered by a de minimis/incidental inclusion rationale. They are only one element within a much larger documentary photograph of the vigil scene, and the uploader’s own photograph is clearly the primary subject.

However, for File:Juraj Vankulič.jpg, that argument becomes much weaker because the uploaded file is essentially just a reproduction of one of those portraits. Once the image is cropped down so that the portrait itself becomes the sole or primary subject, it is no longer merely incidental to another work.

There is also a possible country-of-origin issue here. The larger vigil photograph was apparently taken in the Czech Republic, so COM:Czech Republic may be relevant for the original image. But the portrait photograph reproduced on the memorial sign was most likely created and first published in Slovakia, not the Czech Republic. If so, Slovak copyright law (see COM:Slovakia) could apply to the portrait itself and to the cropped version derived from it.

The original portrait also appears to have an identifiable external source. For example, a Slovak news article here:

https://www.sme.sk/domov/c/juraj-vankulic-profil-teplaren-zamocka-vrazda-utok-terorizmus

uses the same portrait and attributes it as “instagram/georg.ev”, which appears to refer to this Instagram account:

https://www.instagram.com/georg.ev

That attribution further suggests that the portrait itself was independently created and published separately from the Czech vigil photograph.

So even if the larger uncropped image is acceptable under a de minimis theory, that would not automatically extend to the standalone crop. Bazi (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Magazine photo copyright

I asked this question at the Teahouse over at: and was told to come here.

I am confused by the copyright claim for this image: Robin Givens. The uploader claims that it is in the Public Domain because: "It can be seen in page 2 that the copyright notice in the magazine is not valid because it does not include a copyright statement or symbol which was required." They then go on to state as a reason: "Although this issue was cover dated March 1989 it was published earlier as it states that the next issue (May 1989) would be on sale on February 14, 1989." Since when does every image in a magazine (or any publication for that matter) need the disclaimer: COPYRIGHT BY or © accompanying every image? I'm quite sure the publication of a magazine (in this case: Boxing Magazine) itself is protected by a "whole package" copyright of everything that is published within it. I've never seen this before. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The assumption that any publication/creation of a creative work is immediately copyrighted stems from the Berne Convention; however, the US is a relative latecomer, only enforcing the Berne Convention on 1 March 1989 (and it wasn't retroactive). This means that works before that time abide to complicated copyright rules relating to publication, copyright disclaimer, renewal, etc., instead of copyright being granted automatically. See Commons:Hirtle chart and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States for example. I'm not that well-versed in US copyright to give a definitive answer about this specific image unfortunately. HyperAnd [talk] 20:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Maineartists The file information does appear to be correct. Because the magazine was published before March 1989 in the United States, it was not "automatically" copyrighted. It needed to satisfy specific requirements at the time to gain copyright, otherwise it would fall into public domain upon publication (the publisher could also retroactively register within 5 years, which doesn't appear to have happened here either). The most important requirement at the time was a formal, valid copyright statement, which needed to contain the word "Copyright" or the © symbol, the year of publication, and the owner of the copyright. The rights statement on page 2 of this magazine says "No part of this magazine may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.", which is not a valid copyright statement; as noted on the file page, the phrase "All rights reserved" and other similar phrases do not satisfy the copyright notice requirement and are considered "defective" copyright notices, meaning they did not have the intended effect of legally copyrighting the work. I'm unable to see the full magazine so I can't say with 100% certainty that there are no valid copyright notices/statements in the magazine. But if the "all rights reserved" language is the extent of what was added to the magazine, then yes, the contents of the magazine are public domain, apart from any material that was first published elsewhere and already under copyright, or material which had its own separate copyright statement within this magazine.

And to answer your original question, it is not the case that every individual photo/article/etc in the magazine needed its own copyright statement; had the magazine added a valid copyright statement for the entire magazine, then all the included material would be considered copyrighted, the "whole package" scenario. But without at least one copyright notice for the total magazine, then, at the time, copyright protection was not actually achieved for the "whole package". --19h00s (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow. That is mind boggling. That a publication can explicitly say in print: "No part of this magazine may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher" and have no meaning, weight or consequences. Copyright aside, that's just what it means; and yet, here we are: doing it. As for "All Rights Reserved" WP has an article about that very thing: All rights reserved. I really think you're way off the mark when it comes to magazine publications; especially this one from the UK pre-March 1989 with this very verbiage. I'm quite sure they are protected under "intellectual property rights". Just a quick search of copyright infringement lawsuits of magazine covers alone rendered hundreds of cases dating pre-1989 with no sign of "copyright" or © (and they won). By your explanation, I should be able to take this image from Life Magazine and use it here. Yes? Recently, an image of Bella MacLean from a magazine that was uploaded at WikiCommons was removed because even though the photographer was credited with no copyright claim, it was stated by an editor that the image must be assumed to be copyrighted by the photographer, at the very least. For a vintage UK magazine, pre-March 1989, stating: "No part of this magazine may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher. All Rights Reserved." was for its time, sufficient copyright protection. Furthermore, I'm quite sure with publication comes copyright; especially with magazines. i.e "Even without a copyright notice, most works are protected from the moment they're in a fixed form." copyrightlaws.com "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work." Copyright.gov Maineartists (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said when you asked as enwiki, the US laws have changed several times, and it is literally true that in certain eras, such as in 1989 prior to March 1, copyright is not automatic upon publication. I also pointed you to en:Copyright notice, where this is all clearly spelled out. There's a mile of precedent regarding items losing protection when they don't have the magic words when the law requires they have a literal phrase and mechanical compliance. As the copyright.gov source cited in that image states, The term “All Rights Reserved” or the like is not an element of the notice prescribed by U.S. law, and it is not an acceptable variant or substitute for the word “copyright” or the abbreviation “Copr. We might not like it or agree with it, and modern laws and standards might not require it, but that's how it is and we can't go back and change it.

The only possible avenues here would be to determine that its publication-date is not "1989 prior to March 1" or that laws more restrictive than US apply (on commons, unlike on enwiki, the image must be free in both the US and the country of origin). Both the page-2 infomation and the back-cover house ad point to US addresses and the third-party ads I see in other issues posted on ebay appear to be US, so it will take some evidence to demonstate non-US publication status of this issue, even if the publisher has a UK base. DMacks (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maineartists You seem to be purposely reading past much of what we've told you. As DMacks said, we might not like the way copyright law developed and was applied historically - and many of us don't like how copyright law works today - but that's just how it is.

You're welcome to read the Hirtle chart, which was linked previously in this discussion and is directly based on US law, and which will hopefully clear up the doubt you seem to have in our explanations. And I would remind you that we are not dealing with something that was published under US copyright law of today, we're talking about a magazine published under historical copyright rules; your links to the US Copyright Office's current practices and standards ("Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.") do not apply to this work, which was published when a different law was in place.

And just to get ahead of the first example you shared: The online listing for that issue of LIFE magazine does not contain a scan/image of the table of contents or masthead, which is almost always where a copyright notice or rights statement is placed in a publication of this type. Without seeing that masthead page we can't say that magazine issue had no copyright notice. (And I happen to know for a fact that LIFE did add copyright notices to their publications from this era. They just weren't on the front cover, which is completely normal.) --19h00s (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Just adding that the US law covering those “certain eras“ is pretty well unique worldwide in this respect (and fairly unusual in establishing copyright on publication rather than merely creation in a fixed form), so neither examples from other countries nor the US government’s current advice can be relevant.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What DMacks says is correct. But to the point of "a publication can explicitly say in print: "No part of this magazine may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher" and have no meaning, weight or consequences": yes. A publication can make whatever claims or demands it wants, and they mean nothing without the law behind them. Fair use permits certain reproductions, and w:First-sale doctrine prevents publishers from saying you can't sell a work in a certain way in the US. A publisher can't demand more than the law gives them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As I stated on the file page 2204.4(C) specifically says “All Rights Reserved” is not a valid notice and that document ch2200 explains the notice requirements from 1978-Feb89 too, one more thing is that copyright was automatic at the time and after publication without notice you had 5 years to register it otherwise you would lose the copyright but it was copyrighted during those 5 years Nimmer On Copyright talks about it in his book so yes there were magazines and newspapers even at that time that never put a copyright notice you had 5 years to register it if you found some value in the image now if you ask me I think the publisher Stanley Weston deliberately did not copyright his magazines because he used to publish them with valid notices and around 1973 he stopped putting valid notices and never put a valid one again or registered any copyrights either way thanks to Mr. Weston for providing many public domain photos

And one more thing about these boxing magazines would someone like to please buy the March 1988 issue of Boxing 88 magazine verify it has no copyright notice and scan and upload it it has one of the most iconic photo of Mike Tyson (this one) you can see it here on page 42 of the magazine but I have not been able to verify whether it has a notice on it or not here is a copy you can buy on Ebay for 3 dollars it would cost a lot more than the magazine in shipping for me to buy it and ship it out the US for me 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-US-dust-jacket}}

Is there any evidence that this is really correct for book dust jackets before 1978? The Copyright Office document for 1978-89 notice requirements says it explicitly but I could not find anywhere for Pre1978 rules that says a notice for the book is not valid for the dust jacket. It says a notice for the dust jacket is not valid for the book but not explicitly the other way around and I couldn't find anywhere in Nimmer on Copyright that talks about it or any court case for it 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Fawcett Publications v. Elliot Pub. Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) says "We are not convinced that the copyright of a book or periodical includes the cover. We can think of no convincing reason why it should or should be intended to do so since the law itself requires the presence of the notice on the title page or the one next to it and since the cover ordinarily has no literary copyrightable matter and, when an individual design is embodied in it, its relation to the copyrighted literary content is remote and its authorship and ownership do not prima facie appear as in the case of the book's contents. We will, therefore, adhere to our earlier decision."--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)