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:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg

I'm not sure the licensing of File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg is correct but would like some other opinions. The source provided for the file doesn't indicate (at least anywhere that I can see) that even the book (let alone its cover) has been released under the type of license used by the uploader; there is, in fact, a visible copyright "© 2013" symbol right next to the cover image on said site. It's possible that the original work itself is within the public domain (it looks kind of old), but I'm not sure how to assess that. Can Commons keep this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a book cover, a derivative work of the original illustration. It clearly requires the copyright of that cover to be available to us, which I'm not convinced that it is (or even that it's useful to us).

I cannot justify the licence tag claimed on the upload by @Peanutpress101: .

This would be simple fair use for an article on the book, not the topic. But we don't have such an article, and that's a Wikipedia issue, not Commons.

There is an argument often made (not locally though) as to book covers being treated like their titles and assumed to not be as fully protected as their content. Again, not something I think Commons can use.

The source image would be useful to us, and to that WP article, and obviously OOC, if we can source it. That's the real solution here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The illustration is apparently from 1671, and can be found here, so it is PD. Nothing else on that book cover is eligible for copyright (all below TOO) so the whole thing is PD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it, that solves all the problem.

I'd still delete the book cover. I've no fondness at all for the argument, "The author and rights holder think they own this and want to own this, but we're the almighty Wikipedia and we're going to exploit the most tenuous loophole to grab it, just because we think we can." Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not tenuous, and this seems like a weird hill to stop in. A cheap book cover with the title tossed on PD art, versus some very expensive reproductions of paintings done at great expense by museums. PD-Art has been policy as long as Commons has existed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not tenuous. What part of the cover can be copyrighted? If I put the word "the" on top of an engraving from 1600 have I created a new copyright? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The overall design of the cover certainly looks copyrightable to me (even if each individual element isn't copyrightable by itself). I've nominated it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

A red stripe and a title is not copyrightable whether in isolation or if added to another free work. If you replaced it with another element it would not have any claim. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Logos uploaded as own work

I am concerned about the licensing for some of the files uploaded by March8613.

All of these are logos of US brands/stores, but they were uploaded as "own work" which clearly isn't the case. I don't know how many of these are copyright issues, and if some are trademarked. The uploader has some files that are properly licensed and attributed, like File:Jupiter Discount Stores Final Logo.png or File:Kresge's Discount Store Final Logo.png, which have the proper author and are licensed as both "PD-textlogo" and "trademarked". Unfortunately, that cannot be said about the files below:

All of these were uploaded between and 7 October 2024 and 17 October 2024. I say this because, on 21 October 2024, the uploader was notified by GreenLipstickLesbian about the issue, and what needs to be done to avoid deletion of those files ("Now, the good news is that many of these logos will not be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. You'll need to look at those, and then change to license to Template:PD-textlogo. If a logo was produced for an American company, and it's only made up of shapes and simple text, you'll use that template. The others, unfortunately, may have to be deleted"). March8613 then asked about how to resolve the issue ("How would I apply the Templates to the files? I'd like to get things right asap"), but got no response. On 22 October, they nominated some of their own files for deletion, out of copyright concerns. As far as I can tell, all of these were kept, but the license was changed from "self|cc-zero" to "PD-textlogo" in the process (without addressing the issue that "own work" is still wrong):

It seems that March8613, maybe unaware of the option to combine these all into a mass deletion request, nominated all of them separately (example), but stopped after number 57 for no apparent reason other than that they may have become exhausted. They have not uploaded any new files since. Their 8 uploads since 22 October 2024 are new versions of old files.

That leaves 260 files to be re-licensed, or to be deleted; and to change authorship for all 317 files to the owner of the brand/store. I'm bringing these files up here because I hope that deletion won't be necessary, at least for most of them. Renerpho (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am trying my best to fix all these issues. I was overwhelmed at the time and didn't have time back then to figure out how to fix them March8613 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@March8613: I'm sure we'll get it sorted out. Renerpho (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment "Own work" is wrong if these files were copied from somewhere. But if they were recreated from scratch, it is fine. And the issue is that for PD-textlogo logos we can't distinguish between both cases. Yann (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I spent days fixing them. How do they look now? I think I did it correctly. Even checked every one of them with the USA trademark office to see the status and matk accordingly if they are still active. March8613 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking better :) Renerpho (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :) March8613 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Does PD-USGov really apply to this file?

File:Official Arrest Photo of Cole Tomas Allen.jpg Trade (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Archived link here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260428040819/https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/26/us/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooter-teacher-invs/

@Trade- At the source webpage, the photo's attribution states, "(Obtained by CNN)".

It does not disclose the photographer of this photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that it almost certainly is some kind of PD. It can't be a press photo because CNN would definitely give it more proper attribution. If it came from social media, then, again, proper attribution would be expected. There's no reason to believe anyone other than a police officer (which would fall under {{PD-DCGov}}) or a member of the Secret Service could get close enough post-arrest to get this photo. Based5290 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 Where is the source link the "DCGov" is the source of this photograph?

@PublicDomainFan08, you recently updated the file to "PD-DCGov" but, can you provide any source link supporting the fact that the "DCGov" is the source of this photograph? -- Ooligan (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

authorities in Washington DC and/or Secret Service clearly took the picture, they were the ones that arrested him, investigated him, and took him into custody. Therefore, it's under that license. It doesn't say it was taken by CNN, just obtained by. Therefore, it was either taken by Washington DC authorities, or Secret Service, both make it public domain. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Signatures

Hello, I recently uploaded some vectorized signatures. Some people raised concerns about compliance with copyright law. If someone with authority on this matter could comment to dispel any doubts. Thanks

Bastruk (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bastruk: All looks fine to me. There are few places in the world where you can copyright a normal signature. (There are some East Asian countries where sufficiently elaborate calligraphy can be copyrighted, not applicable here; there are some exceptions if your signature is more of a drawing only loosely related to your name; I didn't look at all of these, but presumably not applicable here.) Assuming the "some people" were users here on Commons, you would do well to ping them and/or link their remarks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel People were from en.wikipedia, not from commons. "Beyond privacy and verification and copyvio concerns". Bastruk (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Simplistic WMF logos

I know this has been sporadically discussed here and there, but nobody has really pushed the issue, presumably due to apathy. The issue I'm talking about pushing is the fact that a lot of WMF logos, including the Wikimedia Commons logo itself, are tagged as CC-SA, despite it seeming totally implausible that they would be copyrightable due to the threshold of originality requirement. For example, I can't imagine the Wikivoyage logo being eligible for copyright; it's pretty much a textbook example of not reaching the threshold of originality. So, shouldn't we change the documentation of files like this to reflect that? And if you're wondering: yes, this actually does have real effects. -- Maltazarian (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

They may be copyrightable in some jurisdictions. Some countries have no known threshold of originality, and a few have one so low that the Wikivoyage example you give might be a problem (because all they ask for is "creativity"). It would probably be reasonable to add {{PD-ineligible}}, but any time we also have a license offered, and it is offered by the entity that clearly would hold the copyright if there is one, it's probably worth having as a fallback for anyone who is worried about using the image in some jurisdiction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Some other's, like the Wikiquote logo and the Wikidata logo have been tagged as ineligible, which is why I'm even asking because clearly there is the option to change them if they're too simple. Maltazarian (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that to be safe, they should be tagged as {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} and {{PD-textlogo}} so that people can choose the former if their jurisdiction doesn't allow the latter. HyperAnd [talk] 02:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I note that applying both of those tags would apply metadata indicating that licensetpl_link_req and licensetpl_attr_req are both true and false. It would be less confusing for programs reading the metadata if you would apply a tag that does something like what {{PD-ineligible|CC-BY-SA-3.0}} would do to indicate the fallback. Anomie (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Didn't know that! Though, I wish it would embed the fallback license like {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. HyperAnd [talk] 00:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

{{Licensed-PD-Art}} has the same sort of metadata issue. See File:The Wounded Angel - Hugo Simberg.jpg, for example, which has licensetpl_link_req and licensetpl_attr_req each three times, twice "false" ({{PD-old-100-expired}} emits metadata twice 🤷) and once "true" (from {{Cc-by-4.0}}). Further, the intended interpretation of {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired|Cc-by-4.0}} (both licenses apply) is different from {{PD-ineligible|CC-BY-SA-3.0}} (only one applies, depending on jurisdiction), but the metadata format has no way to express that. Anomie (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

State/local parks & trail signage

Howdy! I intend to take pictures of the signs/information posts on trails located within state or local parks. I am aware that national parks are public domain, but I'm unsure about those located more locally. Does anyone have any info on this? TranqyPoo (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the country you are talking about. If there is freedom of panorama for 2D works, this should be fine. GPSLeo (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo: National parks might be "public land" but that's not what "public domain" means, at least not when it comes to copyright law. There's some information on this in COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, but a lot depends on the actual sign itself. It's possible that a sign could be eligible for copyright protection with respect to both its text and its imagery; so, any photograph you take of it would be considered a derivative work. Under US copyright law, for example, there is no unrestricted freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D graphic works like signs and noticeboards, but certain US states like Florida and California do have laws which place some works created by state, county and municipal employees within the public domain: meaning such works have no copyright to worry about infringing upon. So, at least within the US, a lot depends where (which state) the park is in addition to the complexity of the sign (text and images). Other countries have different laws and you'll need to figure out how their copyright laws might apply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo: I'm guessing from your wording that you are talking U.S. (but it probably would have been good to specify that, at least GPSLeo seems not to have picked up on it).

In most U.S. states, work by the state government is the same for copyright purposes as work by a private corporation. Exceptions: Florida largely follows the federal-government approach in making their works PD, broadly enough to cover this; many other states put some of their work in the public domain, but not usually things like signs. See en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States for excruciating detail. If it is below TOO, it's PD. If it's no later than 28 February 1989 and lacks a copyright notice, it is most likely PD. Conversely, if it incorporates (for example) copyrighted photographs or extensive text not created by a government employee, then it is likely that you are dealing with a multi-level derivative work situation, and not only is it copyrighted but multiple copyrights involved.

Typically, signs without pictures and without a ton of text will be OK; so will things like the profile of George Washington used by the state of Washington, or international standard prohibition symbols, etc., but often "welcome" signs will be too complex, and most maps will be copyrighted unless they are old. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

What is this image's copyright?

I found an image of the NK-9 at , but I don't know the licensing. Help, please? AZenit3 (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3: is there any reason to think the answer is anything other than "copyrighted, with all rights reserved"? - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really know. I just wanted a nice photo of the NK-9 for article I made on it, and I found this one, so... AZenit3 (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Figures for new "Phytochrome" article

I want to use Figure 2 from a review that I recently co-authored and was published with open access. I uploaded the file to Wikimedia a couple of months ago but it was deleted because parts of the figure had been published elsewhere earlier and, despite permission, were not covered by open access. Valerie Dennis (Annual Reviews Inc.; vdennis@annualreviews.org), the editor handling the review, wrote:

I'm sorry that Wikipedia is pushing back on the copyright for that figure! Here is the link to our copyright policy for AR Authors (at the bottom of the page, under "Annual Reviews Authors"): https://www.annualreviews.org/page/about/copyright-and-permissions. I have not heard of past instances where Wikipedia did not accept our copyright policy. Let me know if you have other questions or if there is anything else I can help with. Best wishes, Valerie

I am completely out of my depth in this, so it would be really good if someone with broad experience in these matters could help.

Best

jon, aka Photochrom (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

What you encountered is called a "derivative work", that is, a work that contains other works. Notice that the figure contains images that are made by other people who are not the authors of the Annual Reviews and thus does not fall under the CC BY 4.0 license (Person A can't license something person B owns!). This means that we need a free license from whom the Annual Reviews paper took the images from. See that figure 2c is OK because it is already under CC BY 2.0 which is a free license. Meanwhile, figure 2a, 2b, and 2d are  Not OK because they aren't given free licenses by their respective authors and are thus all rights reserved, which Commons doesn't accept. If you want the image to be undeleted, you will need the authors of figure 2a, 2b, and 2d to release a free license via email to Commons:Volunteer Response Team, our permission archive. Detailed instructions are stated on that link. Commons:Uploading works by a third party might also interest you. HyperAnd [talk] 21:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, that's just the kind of help i was hoping for! many thanks... j.Photochrom (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo slides acquired from EBay ineligible for Commons usage?

I believe I just found myself in a bit of a fiasco, if anyone here is willing to look into it.

So I have a small private collection of slides I acquired from EBay, and I uploaded a small portion of it on Commons Wikimedia to add EV to certain pages. Here is a list of my last 100 uploads over there that should list all the slides I'm referring to. And then I nominated one of them for Featured Image status, and then I spoke with one of the users there, who pointed out that the slides may be ineligible to be publicly uploaded. There could be a loophole for those that have existed prior to 1987 without actual copyright protection, but that user wasn't sure and suggested that I speak with someone much more knowledgeable in the copyright field, and that brought me here.

Could anyone explain this to me? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: Owning the physical media of slides (or photos, or a painting, or any other work) is not the same as owning the copyright. The copyright is still retained by the photographer, until and unless the photographer transfers the copyright.

Copyright laws vary by year and country, but Commons:Hirtle chart provides a decision tree which can determine the copyright for most submissions here. It seems that your photo is 1983, in the United States, with a known photographer, never before published.

Likely options are 1) either get copyright permission from the photographer or 2) upload in 2103, which is 120 years from date of photo and the soonest it can go into the public domain. Other options include researching if the photographer is living, and getting permission from their heirs or getting evidence of the photographer's death to reduce the wait to 70 years from that point.

Wikimedia Commons follows the rules, but it does not make them.

If the family of the person sold you the slides, then perhaps they could give consent. It takes 2 minutes to give consent but most people are baffled to get a copyright release request and there is no easy way to explain it. Commons:Email templates/Consent. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

So basically, in order for those files to remain on Commons, I would have to contact the real copyright holders, and if they're unattainable, the uploads would have to be deleted? I'm guessing those EBay sellers, as they had to have known who took those photographs or who owned the media. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: Pretty much. I strongly recommend reading COM:THIRD, it will save you a lot of grief on several different fronts. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: It almost never works out, but if the person has passed, and you can find their children or grandchildren online, and you can can explain to them that 1) they could have inherited the copyright 2) casually (there is no formal process) determine that they are the copyright holder 3) they can donate photos to Wikipedia, then that works as a process. With your photos being from the 1980s the photographer may have passed. I saw that you did name the photographer in the metadata - perhaps you have a lead somehow? The pictures are great. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: please, especially when writing to new/inexperienced users, don't say, "donate photos to Wikipedia." That is absolutely not what we need them to do, we need them to offer a free license that Wikipedia, among others, can use. Permission just for Wikipedia is useless, even to Wikipedia. We often end up with some user with this misunderstanding having to go back (embarrassingly) to the same rights-holder a second time because of just such a misunderstanding; it has happened often enough that Commons:Uploading works by a third party#What not to do is about exactly this issue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry @Jmabel So one of the EBay sellers, Slidetownusa, I messaged has come back to me, and he said, and I quote,

No copyright and ownership are two different things. With the exception of it being stated in the listing which is extremely rare. That happens when the estate itself or photographer is selling them directly and no longer wants right to it. Ownership doesn't allow you to duplicate it in any form except personal use. It is the same with most media. A DVD or magazine, pretty much everything. Some exceptions would be nonprofessional stuff or say the company who owned it went bankrupt. Also, there is an expiration on it which is 70 years after the person passes. Hope that helps some.

So I guess that means that every single slide I acquired from him and have uploaded here on Commons may have to be deleted altogether, since I have no way of contacting any of the original photographers or their families.

I'll save y'all the trouble and list the slides I acquired from Slidetown, in particular.

• File:CB&Q 4960 in storage at Casad Industrial Park in New Haven, Indiana, on March 29, 1986.jpg
• File:CNW 1385 bridge (1).jpg
• File:CNW 1385 bridge (2).jpg
• File:CNW 1385, June 1983.jpg (the nominated one)
• File:CNW 1385, July 1983.jpg
• File:CNW 1385, June 1985.jpg
• File:WC&C 1 at North Freedom, Wisconsin.jpg
• File:M&HM 23 in storage in Marquette, Michigan.jpg
• File:CPR 1278 waiting to depart Rutland, Vermont.jpg
• File:CPR 1278 and 1246 doubleheader.jpg
• File:Gettysburg Railroad U30B 28.jpg
• File:RDG 2102 operating near Cohoes, New York, while masquerading as D&H 302.jpg

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing:  Comment I get from this and this that your pictures are from the US. So by chance, they may be in the public domain for being published without a copyright notice. You need to check the front and the back, and they have to be published before 1989. Here the first seems OK, but the second has a mention "(c) 1986 by Richard E. Cox", so not OK without a permission from the copyright holder. But at least you get his name. Yann (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: Besides Yann's question, I see some of these are attributed to "Don Reck". I'm guessing it is unlikely he would still be alive, though it is possible. If not, does he have a known death date? - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yann That postcard may have to be deleted as well, since I have no way of contacting Cox, and even if I do, he'd probably say no. It would be upsetting for the Southern Railway 1380 page though, since the only reason I bought and scanned that postcard was for that page to have a decent image to show the subject. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: Yes, for the second, it is certainly difficult to get a release. But what is the front of File:Norfolk & Western Dry Fork Branch (postcard (back).jpg? Yann (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: Is it File:Norfolk & Western Dry Fork Branch (postcard).jpg? Renerpho (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yann @Renerpho Yes, that is the front of that first postcard. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

ApertureScience.png licensing

File:ApertureScience.png is listed as having a CC Attribution 4.0 license, which is almost certainly incorrect. Other Aperture Science logos (File:Aperture Science.svg, File:Aperture Science Logo.svg) are uploaded as public domain, under the rationale that it is a logo image consisting only of simple geometric shapes or text, which seems reasonable to me. However, the file in question is taken directly from Portal 2's game files, according to the file summary. Is changing the file to public domain appropriate, or should the file be deleted due to being non-free? Not Invisible (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the license to {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Something about Template:PD-MO-old-photo

I have a question regarding the former Article 155 of Macau copyright law.

Before its repeal in 2012, Article 155 stated that copyright in photographic works expired 25 years after creation, even if unpublished.

Suppose a photograph created in Macau had already entered the public domain under this rule before the 2012 amendment repealed Article 155. Would the photograph remain public domain afterwards, or did the amendment restore copyright protection?

I could not find any transitional provision explicitly restoring copyright for already-expired works.

Any insight would be appreciated. JaydenChao (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Licensing a cropped version of a CC-BY-SA 4.0 picture

I uploaded File:Madeline Woo outside WMOH 29 April 7.jpg under CC-BY-SA 4.0. @Iseult: then made a cropped version of it, File:Madeline Woo outside WMOH 29 April 7 cropped.jpg, and I'm really thankful they did, but they did not initially license it appropriately. I changed the license from CC0 to CC-BY-SA 4.0 since I didn't want the hassle of deleting it and reuploading over this technicality, but it's not clear how Iseult should attribute me. They changed the author field from them to me, but I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, since they cropped it and thus are the author of the cropped version. How should I be attributed in a clean way? Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 18:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please help :) I'm happy with the license change, if my consent is needed for that. Iseult (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult: Author may be credited as "Jasper Deng" (if you are both agreeable) or "Jasper Deng photo cropped by Iseult". the license offered by Jasper Deng means you can do the latter without consultation, as long as you offer the same license. You cannot offer a different license without Jasper's consent: that is what the "SA" means. Also, in the example I gave there is nothing magic about crediting yourself as "Iseult": you can credit yourself however you prefer, as long as it remains clear you are not Jasper. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the second option, Jmabel and Jasper Deng, allows for minimal confusion over upload history and edits in the future. I'm very clear on the license differentials. I had not checked them last night owing to 12am reasons. Iseult (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult FYI, if you are looking to make a quick crop of an image, just use CropTool. It's much quicker, easier, and retains all the correct authorship, licensing, and links to the original image. PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

But, sadly, it doesn't overtly indicate who did the crop (just relies on file upload history for that), which can be a problem if the original author doesn't want to be responsible for the crop. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Iseult deserves to be given credit for the cropping. Maybe the second option above? The first option is what we currently have (me as sole author), but I feel that it's only right for Iseult to get due credit as well. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 02:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Per the license; “You must give appropriate credit… and indicate if changes were made.” To me this implies you only need to mention it was cropped, not provide credit to whomever cropped it.

While technically a derivative work, a simple crop involves minimal creative input. The file history is more than sufficient to show who made the crop IMO. PascalHD (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a licensing requirement, but one I feel is only the right thing to do, to give the cropper some credit. Then comes the question of what someone making a derivative of the cropper version would attribute. As far as I can tell, that would be the cropper. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 18:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Cropping an image isn't a creative act and does not in itself generate a new copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Correct, and it would be OK not to name the person who cropped it, but if the work is used under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, then unless you have signoff from the author of you should always somehow indicate that it's a crop, or you are violating license terms ("you must indicate if you modified the material"). "cropped" in the filename was probably enough, but I'd probably add any clarification that the original author wanted. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Undelete in 2074

I made a small edit to Category:Undelete in 2074, introducing {{US 1978-2002 undeletion explanation}}. Before I make the analogous edit for 2075-2098, and a slightly different one using a different template for 2098 and later (because U.S. copyright law changed again in 2003), I wanted to give a chance here for anyone to raise any issues with what I just did.

U.S. copyright law changed in 1978, and for works published after that date the 95-year term is the exception rather than the rule. I suspect that many files have been placed in "undeletion" categories by people who did not fully understand the consequences of that change. My suspicion is based on several unlikely inclusions in the undeletion categories. For example, File:Nikolai Vlasov with his parents, 1943.jpg, an anonymous work from 1943, is in Category:Undelete in 2074, but will almost certainly pass out of copyright 1 January 2064. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Since no one is jumping in, I'll go ahead with this. Not the hardest thing in the world to undo if people decided I was wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Now followed through. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

European Parliament licence clarification

I recently wrote to the European Parliament about their licensing of their photos, many of which are hosted on Commons, (with the vast majority under the incorrect {{European Union Government}} template). They responded to me with the below, my question is, does this clarify whether EU Parliament images are eligible to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons? If so, does the {{European Parliament}} template match up with what they've said here?

Thank you for your message.

Please note that, all the translations of the Legal notice displayed on the website in the EU official languages are correct.

The locution utilised in the English version (i.e. “provided that the entire item is reproduced”) and the ones used in the other languages have the same meaning. In fact, many translations utilised a word derived from the latin “integritas” (i.e. wholeness, soundness, completeness) to ultimately indicate that the item needs to be reproduced in its entirety.

Therefore, the following detailed explanation:

In order to provide a complete answer to the query submitted, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant parts of the Legal notice, such as:

“As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it”.

“Any partial reproduction of data or multimedia items from this website must also cite the URL link of the complete item or the web page from which it was sourced. The user undertakes not to delete or change the indications of the author or the source and not to seek to circumvent the technical measures put in place to protect documents and multimedia items, such as print or download restrictions and visible or invisible tagging. Any infringement may lead to civil and criminal proceedings”.

According to the general rule (under point 1), the multimedia items (in this case, the photos) can be reused as long as: The entire item is reproduced. The source is acknowledged. In case of specific conditions (e.g. in individual copyright notices), the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it.

In case of partial reproduction (under point 2), which is also allowed, all the above requirements (under point 1) must be met together with the following additional requirements (under point 2): The URL link of the complete item or the web page from which the item was sourced must be cited. The user must undertake not to change the indications of the author or the source and not to seek to circumvent the technical measures put in place to protect documents and multimedia items, such as print or download restrictions and visible or invisible tagging.

Therefore, derivatives of the EU Multimedia Centre photos (such as crops) are permitted provided that all the requirements listed under point 2 are respected.

We trust that the above clarifies the matter.

DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: that is great, and it's particularly great that there is a clear way to do derivative works. Yes, the template should be edited to clarify the requirements for derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)