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)

Is this image alright to upload?

I stumbled upon this image of Norwegian author Frid Ingulstad Image on My News Desk which appears to be the original authors of the image and uploaded it under "License: Creative Commons attribution". Since it's under this license by the original authors/owners of the photograph, does this mean it's good to upload here? Sorry if it's a dumb/obvious question and answer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: presuming "Creative Commons navngivelse" means "CC-BY", it is lacking a license version number. Does it clarify anywhere else on that site which version they mean when they write that? Lacking that, I think you'd need to get hold of them and ask them to clarify (hopefully on the site rather than make you go through VRT!). But someone else may see this differently than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Is a version number really needed though? I came across the same file via en:Special:NewFiles and queried TDKR Chicago 101 about their choice to license the file as non-free. While I'm aware that there are "CC-BY" licenses like "CC-BY-NC" and "CC-BY-ND" which are more restrictive than requiring attribution only, it would seem that the copyright holder needs be explicit about such restrictions if they want to release their content as such. Should a simple "CC-BY" license with no version number automatically be assumed to be most restrictive type of CC-BY license by default? This Springer webpage and this Creative Commons webpage seem to imply that might not need to be the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: that is not the issue. The issue is that there are at least five numbered versions of CC-BY, which differ in their terms. I'm pretty sure we can't accept just "CC-BY" without a version number as a valid license. They can be quite different from one another in anything other than their broad intent. If you doubt that, compare https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode.en and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en. - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If I released a work under a license with the condition that "you must provide attribution that simultaneously complies with CC-BY 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0", I believe that the work would still be a free cultural work, and hence I think that "CC-BY" licenses should be accepted. prospectprospekt (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

CC licenses (except CC0) requires provide either text of license or link to it, if exact version isn't known, to which we shall refer? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

They all only require a URI, which can just be the abbreviated name of the license. Thus, I could say something like "released under CC-BY 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 or 4.0". prospectprospekt (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

First, valid URI contains version number, such as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en. Second, combined license wouldn't be Creative Commons license, it would be custom license. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you view source on the page it links to version 3.0 although I am Not sure if this is really the original source of the photo 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 21:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

US defective notice? Barnett Newman's Stations of the Cross

Quick defective copyright notice question, wanted to double check my logic here before making any changes. @Ribowall and @Toohool uploaded images of Barnett Newman's Stations of the Cross series of paintings, held by the National Gallery in Washington. The paintings were first exhibited in 1966 at the Guggenheim in New York, and a fully illustrated catalogue was published the same year. The catalogue, as noted in the file pages, did not include a copyright notice, presumably putting these paintings in the public domain (the paintings themselves also bear no notice). But the catalogue does contain what is essentially a defective notice - "Published by The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, 1966 – All Rights Reserved".

Wondering if anyone can confirm that these paintings seem PD based on this logic. And does the Template:PD-US-defective notice make more sense for these files instead of PD-US No Notice? (not questioning Toohool or Ribowall's logic, just want another set of eyes on this). Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Any takers? 19h00s (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• This is pretty clearly defective—“All Rights Reserved” doesn’t count as “Copyright” (or the other options), so this is not a real copyright notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery sourced photo from 1863

en:File:Walter Richard Cassels.jpg was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license because the source of the photo (the en:National Portrait Gallery, London) is claiming it's the copyright holder of the photo (or at least its digitalized version of the photo). I know the WMF has had issues with the NPG and en:copyfraud going all the way back to en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, but it's hard to believe that a photo taken/published in 1863 by someone who died in 1910 would still be under copyright protection. I pointed this out to the uploader at en:User talk:Muzilon#File:Walter Richard Cassels.jpg, but they're concerned about the copyright laws where they live and about possibly being held liable in some way if they upload the file to Commons. This file should be OK for Commons, right? It can just be relicensed and tagged for a move to Commons if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the scenario {{PD-Art}} is meant to cover. Yes, the NPG continues to make this claim, and I guess it helps them collect some money by having people pay for high-res versions rather than take any risks at all over copyright, but I'd say there is a pretty good reason they have not filed suit against a single one of the reusers who has simply ignored them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

They are claiming copyright on the digitization, which even under current EU law I don't think they can do. I can't remember if the UK applied that new provision to their law before leaving the EU. But there is no penalty for trying to claim copyright.

That said, there are a number of NPG images that come from negatives they got as an archive, and if those were not published for a very long time, there could be a valid copyright still existing. That one thought says it was a print, meaning it was published around the time of creation, and no way could a copyright still exist on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Compilations et indexes

Hi, Are these files OK for Commons, or should they be moved to Wikisource?

• File:Gide - Anthologie de la poésie francaise, NRF, 1949.djvu by André Gide (1869–1951). This is in the public domain in France, as Gallica confirms. It is a compilation of poems, which are all in the public domain.
• File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 98.djvu
• File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 98.djvu

These 2 files are in the public domain in India. These 2 volumes are indexes of subjects and people, i.e. just lists of names. Do they get a copyright in USA? If yes, proofreading will have to wait for a couple of decades. Thanks for your input. Yann (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You can get a selection and arrangement copyright separate from the contained works, yes. They are termed "collective works" in U.S. copyright law. A newspaper or periodical would be some examples, as would the above items. So the anthology of poems from 1949 would still have had a French copyright in 1996, thus I think would have a U.S. copyright until 2045. If there is no creativity (or not enough) in the selection or arrangement, then those may not have a copyright. In the most famous example, the Feist v. Rural case was about the copyrightability of a phone book (it was not). If an anthology is *all* works from an author, ordered chronologically, then there isn't much creativity there. It's hard work finding all those works, but there would seem to be no selection criteria to omit some. An index might have a copyright separate from the work it's indexing -- there may be a selection copyright on what elements to include in the index, or maybe something in its arrangement. That particular one has a foreword and notes, which of course are copyrightable as text. I'm not sure what exactly makes an obvious index, but I could see there being enough creative choices for it to have a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks Carl. I deleted these files. Yann (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 98.djvu and File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 99.djvu are both indexes—of subjects and persons, respectively. If they are above the threshold of originality in the United States, then they are copyrighted and need to be deleted. What is the threshold of originality for indexes? I can’t easily find any authority, so I thought I’d bring the question here before sending them on for deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I already asked above. Yann (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Life Magazine International vs. US edition

Hi there,

I tried to check the archived discussions, but didn't find anything. Apologies if this has been discussed already. I've been looking at old Life Magazines and checked the copyright for some of them. Targeting issues published in 1956 (and specifically an issue published 9/24/1956) I did this search for renewals and it seems that only the International edition for that period was renewed. So while the American edition was published weekly as Volume 41 (e.g. 9/24/1956 was Vol. 41, issue 13), the international edition was published every two weeks as Volume 21. They were registered separately and it appears that, for subsequent years, both international and US editions were renewed separately.

Basically, my question is whether, with no renewal of the US edition, those issues are in the public domain. It seems that straightforwardly, the 9/24/1956 was not properly renewed in the time period and therefore would be. But I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Separately is the question of common material. If a picture was published in 9/24/1956, non renewed (PD) American edition and then republished in the subsequent international edition that is properly copyrighted and non-free, what does that mean? Does being published first grant it anything? Does the existence of the original registration of the US edition without renewal do anything? I assume that items only published in the US version would stand on their own, but this would be for the overlapping material. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The renewal should cover everything that was published close enough together (Within 1 year or the same calendar year, it changed at different times) 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 13:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the the reply. So you think that the failure to renew the US edition would be irrelevant as long as they did renew the international edition? For clarity, each issue is different and registered/renewed separately, which can result in individual issues not being covered by copyright (e.g. Category:Time (magazine)). My understanding is that this would treat each entry as its own being. Registering or failing to register a given issue doesn't add or take away from the issues of the week before or the week after. For Time, for example, the Commons says that Issue 1 of a given volume in 1963 was not properly renewed and is therefore PD, but issues 2-26 were renewed and are not PD. I'm curious about the case here for Life, where the weekly US edition was not properly renewed for a short period of time, but the biweekly international edition (a different magazine with, at minimum, a different set of covers) was.

Here's the October 1, 1956 US edition and the October 1, 1956 Intl edition. They have different covers (the international edition uses the cover from the 9/3/1956 edition), different layouts and different contents. The Intl picks and chooses from the US edition, theoretically leaving PD content that was not covered in Intl edition. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the domestic and international editions are different by virtue of different creative choices as to layout and content. The registration or renewal should only apply to items which were identical (i.e. 1 registration for 1 distinct work). (If I understand correctly, the same year isn't really relevant; it's publication in the U.S. within 30 days of the actual first publication anywhere that would set the date of first publication for U.S. copyright purposes.)

As for works within the magazine (particularly works not for hire), if it appears that they were published by Life with permission, then that would count as publication for their own independent registration purposes. I think there is administrative law suggesting that the copyright statement, if any, printed in the magazine applies to all content published with permission within it, except for advertisements (there was a reason, but I recall it had to do with the esoterica of how 20th century magazines were conventionally produced). TheFeds 23:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding media to Wikipedia Page in Spanish

Hello, I have a question because this It'll be the first time I want to upload something to Wikimedia (hence Wikipedia), The thing is there's a TV Channel in Chile which is required to stay off the air as sanctions (They lost the license to transmit). The channel in question is "Telecanal" [note: the page is in Spanish]. The thing is I have an actual picture of how the channel looks like right now taken from my own PC. The thing is: Can I upload it to Wikimedia and insert it on the spanish page. Or will I be have to attire on specific rules? since this screen is literally the logo of the channel with the text below "FUERA DEL AIRE DESDE PROVEEDOR" (out of air from feed).

I hope I made the thing clear because this pic has more of an informative or documental meaning rather than a mere screen.

KrokOne (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@KrokOne: Screenshots are usually not OK for Commons (see Commons:Screenshots), but if it is literally just the logo and text (no picture), then that is probably OK. Credit the station, not yourself, as author; probably use {{PD-textlogo}} in lieu of a license (I can't think of anything more specific); definitely add {{Trademarked}} for the logo. Someone else may have further thoughts on additional tags. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. It’s just the Station Logo with the text mentioned under it. Blue background nothing else. So that’s why I was asking. I’ll follow your advice and see if it’s ok. KrokOne (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Armando Bó e Isabel Sarli.jpg

No information why this shot from Argentinian film (1964) is PD in US, the copyright definitely isn't expired, but perhaps isn't renewed ? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo: 1964 is one year too late for renewal ever to come into play. Please DR it (I'm on my way out the door right now, or I would). - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Due to en:Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights Argentina is member of Buenos Aires Convention from 1950, it constitutes "copyright relations"? If answer is "yes" then the work is protected under US copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you getting that from en:Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#Subsisting copyrights? That doesn't create a copyright, it just indicates that it is possible that the work was registered for copyright in the U.S. at its time of creation. I have no idea whether it was. I suspect the photo was not, but the film might have been, and I'm not sure whether the status of the film would be relevant if this was separately published.

What I didn't work out in the minute or so I gave this before: a photo from Argentina in 1964 would only have had 20 years of copyright protection. However, if this is an actual still from the movie (as against a separately posed photo on set), I have no idea whether that would apply to this. 20 years from 1964 only brings us down to 1984, so if that is all the protection this got, then it was already in the public domain in its original country of publication in 1996, and the URAA restoration is irrelevant.

I leave it to someone more expert than I am to say whether this would have had more than 20 years protection in Argentina. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, work wasn't published without copyright notice (or with defective notice) never falled in PD, and URAA is irrelevant. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The protection in Argentina isn't issue, but protection in US is; because this film was published after date when copyright relations were established (by virtue Buenos Aires Convention, and maybe also UCC), and no evidence why this shot (or the film in general) is in PD, because copyright wasn't expired under normal term (95 years since first publication), renewal requirements isn't applicable, so sole possibility for PD is publication without proper copyright notice. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Question: subsisting copyright required formal registration in USPTO? If answer is "yes", then perhaps film wasn't registered because cost and little benefit. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Question 2: if foreign work was first published and the copyright term was expired in source country before 1989 (since 1989 copyright is valid without registration), and such work wasn't registered in the United States, does it mean that US copyright never existed? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

In other words, when US join Berne Convention in 1989, copyright was granted to already published, but not registered works? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If subsisting copyright is possible only after registration, then work that meets all following criteria are PD in the United States: (1) was first published outside the United States before 1 March 1989, and was not published within the United States in following 30 days; and (2) was not registered for copyright in the United States; and (3) was in PD in source country at URAA date. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If Commons:Subsisting copyright is correct, copyright registration not matters, and if work has been published with proper copyright notice, it still under US copyright and URAA not applicable at all. The file has been tagged for deletion. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Eric Garcetti photos

It's possible that an error was made when assessing the licensing of File:Eric Garcetti official mayoral portrait.jpg, File:Eric Garcetti official mayoral portrait (cropped).jpg, and File:Eric_Garcetti_official_mayoral_portrait_(cropped).jpg because the Flickr source provided for the photos is a NC-ND license. I know a Flickr licesne sometimes changes after a file has been uploaded to Commons, but I'm not find a "License history" which indicates that. Perhaps someone else could take a look at these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The uncropped image File:Eric Garcetti official mayoral portrait.jpg was indeed under a CC-BY 2.0-license between 31. January 2014 and 7. February 2017. The license had been changed 2 times. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on this Túrelio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Should I crop the image to exclude a character?

So I want to upload this image (Warning: NSFW, scat) to Commons to illustrate the extent of the MLP clop art on Wikipedia's Clop page, since it can be pretty weird sometimes, and the info is also sourced by Buzzfeed. The image was uploaded under CC BY 3.0 on Newgrounds, but although the black character is an OC, the upper character seems to be Filthy Rich, an actual character from MLP. Now his design is not that original, as it's mostly a recolored regular pony (aside from the tie that is not visible on the above image), but I still want to know if I should crop him out or leave him. It mostly comes down if his design is original enough or not. The good thing is that cropping him wouldn't destroy the actual message of the image, so if the consensus is to crop, then it wouldn't be that much of a compromize. I could also remove specific elements myself (such as cutiemark) to avoid infringing on specific elements that could be deemed copyrightable.

Once again, it mostly boils down to whether or not Filthy Rich's design is original enough (i.e. distinct enough from a generic pony design) and how much original elements are present in the fan art. The options are: Crop (so that Filthy isn't seen), Keep (upload as is), Remove elements (specified which ones). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 13:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hungarian government poster

So I'd like to upload this image, but I have two questions about its copyright. Firstly, would this be exempt under COM:NOP Hungary as "official or other official communications"? Now, these posters were de facto campaign ads by the ruling party, but the government claimed they were only "informing" citizens with these. However, reading the official Hungarian version of the copyright law, a better translation might be "authorities' or other official announcements/statements", and I don't think this would count as one. Secondly, would this meet COM:TOO Hungary? I think there's nothing original enough that would meet TOO (considering, for example, the linked example), so uploading it should be fine. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The poster likely below TOO, only text and official symbol (which is out of copyright). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Simple text, so likely to be Ineligible for copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

AI generated images such as File:Arol Wolford.jpg

I think this is an unsourced derivative work, so I have flagged it as such. Is this the correct approach?

It is stated to be Claude created, and the subject is still living, thus the work from which Claude derived it must be a copyright work. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Commons:AI images of identifiable people#Original images supports your tagging in several ways. Nakonana (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hello, I would like to publish the coat of arms of the municipality of Canatlán, according to this law: el artículo 14, caso 7 y 8:" Derecho de Autor no se aplicará a los escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política; o nombres de , Siglas, símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales, gubernamentales, o cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente. Las medidas legislativas, reglamentarias, administrativas o judiciales, así como su traducción oficial. " I can publish it under the public domain, but I am not exactly sure which template to use. ಠ ಠ 00:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vaquita marina: As long as it is your own rendering of the coat of arms, then it should be fine. The blazon cannot be copyrighted, but the emblazon (see same article) can be. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation - reunification of Moldova and Romania

Contexts: w:en:Unification of Moldova and Romania and this Deutsche Welle article via Philippine Daily Inquirer website.

Also: COM:FOP Moldova and COM:FOP Romania.

Hypothetical scenario. Assuming both Moldova and Romania successfully reunites as a single country, what would be the implications on the copyright rules? While both countries provide identical rules on copyright terms (70 years p.m.a., not an issue), both provide different rules on public place exemptions (Freedom of Panorama). Moldova has a more lenient FoP rule, notwithstanding the Berne three-step test implementation. Romanian FoP does not permit commercial use of public landmarks, in addition to the Berne three-step test implementation. I would suspect the Romanian copyright rules might prevail, considering the better economic standing of Romania as opposed to Moldova.

The implications would be greater for images of Moldovan landmarks (by designers who died less than 70 years ago) taken or published on Wikimedia Commons before the impending reunification. It would be more so if Moldovan copyright rules are repealed and replaced by stricter (and not Wikimedia-friendly) Romanian copyright rules.

This is just a question on a hypothetical scenario. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It isn't makes sense to discuss pure hypothetical things seriously, because reunification is extremely unlikely, if even in this case, the photos can be grandfathered (otherwise it would affect not only Wikimedia), for example, when FoP in Vietnam has been reduced (to non-commercial only), existed photos still free. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Evelino Ucelo grandfathering old files becomes ineffective if all Moldovan laws would be abolished in favor of laws from the more economically advanced Romania, assuming a total unification succeeds. In such cases, any image of Moldovan landmarks before unification would be treated as if those were taken within the Romanian territory, hence such images might need to be deleted (including every one of the undeleted images, provided that the designer [architect or sculptor] of the pictured landmark has not yet died for more than 70 years).

Do note that both the leaders of two countries are simultaneously pro-unification for the first time in history. According to the DW report (via PDI Online): "for the first time ever, Romania and Moldova are simultaneously governed by leaders who support reunification. Previously, all Moldovan leaders had rejected rejoining Romania. In Romania, only former President Traian Basescu, in power from 2004 to 2014, favored the step." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

First, the reunification still theoretical. Second, on moment then photo has been taken, it has been taken under Moldavan law, so likely applicability of Romaian law will not be retroactive. It was clear? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: could you please put away the crystal ball? In the event of unification, there will be some reconciling of laws, and either it will or will not have retroactive effect. I'm certain that this is not a problem that will arise in the next year, and possily not in our lifetime. - 02:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Darkening of PD image

en:File:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png shows a Time magazine cover with a darkened version of the mug shot of O.J. Simpson. The original mug shot is public domain as a work of LAPD, but how about the Time cover? The text and layout are probably not copyrightable, but does the darkening of the mug shot make it a derivative work of the mug shot with its own separate copyright? Based5290 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Simple change of colours is below TOO. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

en:Matt Mahurin says that the Time cover had more edits that I initially thought: an altered mugshot which removed the photograph's color saturation (inadvertently making Simpson's skin darker), burned the corners, and reduced the size of the prisoner ID number. Do these edits still fall below ToO? Based5290 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Porträt von Roberto Lerco

Portrait of Roberto Lerco from CAI 1954

I would like to upload a portrait of Roberto Lerco to Wikimedia Commons. The portrait appears in the Rivista Mensile del Club Alpino Italiano, vol. LXXIII, no. 12, December 1954. The image plate identifies the portrait as Roberto Lerco. The publication is from the Club Alpino Italiano. The photographer is not credited.

The photograph itself shows a historical Italian mountaineer from the 19th / early 20th century, so the original photograph may be much older than the 1954 publication. However, I am not sure which public-domain rationale would be correct for Commons.

Would this be acceptable on Commons, and if yes, which license template should be used? Would {{PD-Italy}}, {{PD-ItalyGov}} together with {{PD-1996}}, or another template be appropriate?

Source: https://tecadigitale.cai.it/periodici/PDF/Rivista%20mensile/CAI_Rivista%20mensile%20del%20CAI_073_012_1954.pdf

Additional note: I would like to use the image in the German Wikipedia article about Roberto Lerco, so I am also unsure whether there are any problems with using it in German-language Wikimedia projects.

Natan Maffeo (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The copyright has been renewed? If answer is "yes", photo still under US copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise use {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-US-1996}}. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not found any evidence that the photograph was renewed or separately registered for copyright in the United States. It was published in Italy in the Rivista Mensile del Club Alpino Italiano in December 1954, and the photographer is not credited. I would therefore treat it as a simple Italian photograph published before 1978 and use

	The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation.
	This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if: wasn't in copyright in the United States due to being registered for copyright there (see Commons:Copyright tags#United States for most cases) and was created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978 — then it was out-of-copyright in Italy on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996) (17 U.S.C. § 104A) (in most cases; for all cases, see Template:PD-Italy/US). If so, please add {{PD-1996}} in addition to this copyright tag. If the image was created after 1975 or was published after 1977, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

together with

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements: it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States, it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.

, unless there is a specific reason not to. Does that sound correct? Natan Maffeo (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes Evelino Ucelo (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Derivatives of Swiss Coats of arms?

Hey, I'm wondering what the rules are for things with the {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} tag? Because any emblazonment of that arms would be the same heraldicly speaking. If I extract an asset from one of these, am I allowed to reüse it in my own work, presuming I got it from the official emblazonment?

Thanks, Self-described Sophist (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Actor in costume?

Hello! I uploaded this picture recently of an actress in costume, taken during the 'bows' after a play. I received a question on my talk page on en-wiki about removing the picture, as the costumes are original to the play. Can anyone advise on how this intersects with COM:COSTUME? The character the actor was playing is clearly in the public domain, but I'm not certain how that impacts the costumes. Thanks. I previously asked this at the help desk and there was some disagreement, plus a recommendation to consult here. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Should be OK, per COM:CLOTHING. Since beginning to look into these matters, I've learned that depictions of costumes and cosplays become an issue when (parts of) them are more sculptural than clothing. A "sculptural" cosplay could involve props likes full-face masks or complex hats affixed to the cosplayer, anything that could work like a wardrobe piece independently from the actual cosplay (like a dress that is Elvish in Middle Earth context, but could also be worn elsewhere) is fine. IIRC, the borderline sits around the case of full-size mascot costumes (like those seen on Disney parades in amusement parks or at soccer matches). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is mostly untested in court, because fashion design is relatively unenforceable. w:Fashion design copyright in the United States you only get a three year design right. And I think people in the theatre world are more 'chill' with photos of their copyrighted work, as photos generally do not affect their primary source of income from the play or associated merchandise.

But if someone makes a unique costume design of a copyrighted comic character (say a cosplay), and someone else starts selling photographs of this (technically a permission you grant re-users with CC-by-sa), in my opinion, both the cosplay designer and the comics publisher have relevant copyright claims to a level that a judge might hear their case. That is not that different from the example of a picture from a play from last week.

I do think this is a costume design in this case, there is a lot of very deliberate accessorizing, fabric and color choice going on here. It's just badly enforceable, and difficult to exploit in real world scenarios via photography. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Videos from Iran not eligible for copyright?

We have 778 videos from Vahid Online who appear to be posting videos made by others, so the CC license isn't worth much.
However, according to the 1970 law protected are "Audio-visual works for stage or screen performances or for broadcasting by radio and television, irrespective of the way they are written, recorded or broadcast."

• These videos are generally not staged.
• They are generally not screen performances.
• They were not recorded to be broadcast by radio and television like nature documentaries or newscasts. Even if they were recorded for social media, "radio and television" ≠ social media.

And the COM:URAA date for Iran is never, so no issues there. Does this mean that we can just tag most of these videos as PD? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no functioning legal system in the Islamic Republic of Iran to properly enforce or follow copyright law. Serious copyright protections are effectively absent in practice. Many videos recorded by Iranian people — including families, friends, and eyewitnesses documenting people being shot in the streets by the Islamic Republic — were created specifically to be shared with the world.

One of the main channels for distributing such material has been platforms like Vahid Online. During periods of repression and internet shutdowns, many Iranians have relied on trusted accounts outside the country to preserve and publish evidence.

If someone inside Iran were to file a copyright complaint against Vahid Online because a video documenting state violence was shared on social media or uploaded to Wikipedia, the consequences could be extremely serious for them. People accused of communicating with foreign media or “enemy” entities have faced severe punishment, unfair trials, and politically motivated charges. Gharouni (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

And the answer is yes they have to be considered Commons:PD files. Gharouni (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If someone inside Iran were to file a copyright complaint against Vahid Online [...] the consequences could be extremely serious for them. That may be the case now, but what about the time once everything is over? We don't expect the situation to remain like it is right now for the rest of the author's life plus for another 70 (?) years after the author's death? If we do expect that, it would mean Iran is going to be in a war-like state for the next 120 years... Nakonana (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana Hi. What do you mean by "everything is over"?

We have 2 options:

a) the regime stays,

b) the regime goes (this to me is everything is over). If the regime stays nothing is over.

If the regime goes, well then would probably be strong copyright laws. But, I do not believe anyone would make any complaint against people who helped the regime brutality known. Gharouni (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is Iran not a "treaty party" under 17 U.S.C. § 101? Qzekrom (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: no, they never became a Berne member. {{Copyright notes}} They have some agreement with Germany, but that's not really relevant for us. In theory, if they ever do become a treaty party the US copyright may get restored for works still under copyright on that date. For this reason Iranian works for which the Iranian copyright hasn't expired yet are not allowed on enwiki as w:Template:PD-USonly. But here it seems that these videos may not be protected at all. @Clindberg: is my reasoning correct here? If the videos aren't eligible for copyright protection under Iranian law, there's no US copyright to restore if they ever join Berne, right? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They are eligible for copyright in Iran as far as their law allows it (and it's enforced), inside Iran. Getting protection in other countries, Iran would have to make an agreement with other countries to get that, usually agreeing to protect that other country's works as well as their own. You can't be lax on enforcement if you do that, though. The Berne Convention was created in the 1880s to provide a somewhat common framework between countries; joining that means you get protection in all other Berne countries (and protect all of their works). The U.S. and many others did not join that, so either created individual treaties with countries, or (starting in the 1950s) joined the Universal Copyright Convention, a separate treaty. The U.S. did not join the Berne Convention until 1989, but I think all UCC countries are now also Berne members no, so it's largely defunct. I don't think Iran joined either treaty though, so there is no official copyright relations between Iran and the U.S. Iranian authors don't get protection in the U.S. (unless they first publish a work in a country which does), and U.S. works don't get protection in Iran. We try to respect the existing copyright law in such countries, as if they join a treaty in the future any works still under their protection likely become enforceable here as well, and we wouldn't want to delete a bunch of works just because that country joined a treaty, but there is no "U.S." portion of copyright to worry about right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved input on SBS Star Daily deletion discussion - COM:PRP and conflicting licensing notices

Requesting uninvolved input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from SBS Star Daily on a COM:PRP issue involving conflicting licensing notices across SBS-controlled sources.

The question is whether there is sufficient certainty that the underlying still images in SBS Star slideshow-style videos were validly and intentionally released under a free license, despite conflicting signals: YouTube uploads marked as Creative Commons; SBS Star and SBS Entertainment News pages carrying restrictive copyright notices; SBS/SBSi terms restricting reproduction and redistribution without prior written permission; and corresponding posts on SBS Star's Instagram and X accounts without an equivalent free-license notice.

Input from editors familiar with COM:PRP, conflicting source/licensing notices, and Commons treatment of significant doubt would be appreciated. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Surveillance camera videos

File:VahidOnline-70116-brutal attack girl.webm was deleted by User:Abzeronow Commons:Deletion requests/File:VahidOnline-70116-brutal attack girl.webm.

current commons practice is, that videos, which were made by automatic cameras without human intervention, are not protected by copyright, because they do not have human creators and creative input from humans. see Template:PD-automated for example.

that video is a phone recording of a computer screen playing a surveillance camera video. as per commons practice, the surveillance camera video is not protected by copyright. the phone recording of the playback of it cannot reasonably exceed the minimum requirements for copyright either. therefore, the video track of File:VahidOnline-70116-brutal attack girl.webm is not protected by copyright as per commons practice.

currently, at least 5 files from iran are based on this reasoning: special:search/iran hastemplate:PD-automated. RoyZuo (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

are not protected by copyright iirc that depends on jurisdiction. Isn't CCTV footage protected by copyright in China? Nakonana (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

We've also deleted a dash cam video from a standing truck in the US, which filmed an aircraft crash, just because the driver was sitting in the otherwise not moving truck (bc the driver chose to not move the truck). Nakonana (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

See also #Videos from Iran not eligible for copyright? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I follow COM:PCP, and there was not any information that the Iranian video was from an automatic camera when I deleted. There are also two separate discussions on this matter (I don't opppose undeletion at this point in time), and it will be resolved. Copyright was the only doubt about this file as the file was documentation of state violence and in general, we believe that documentation of these atrocities outweighs the concerns about the dignity of the victim of state violence, a decision that not made lightly. Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

i find that very poor judgment. anyone can tell that's a surveillance cam footage (from a top down angle) played on a computer monitor. or did you really think the people holding the camera were filming the woman being beaten in front of them in that angle? RoyZuo (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"there was not any information"

i just found out, even though the file is now deleted and i have no access to the file page, that it's clearly stated on the file page that it's "A video captured by a security camera shows the brutal attack of suppressive forces on a young girl in the street..." RoyZuo (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing copyright on iNaturalist photos

I've been in discussion via a third person with someone at iNaturalist; they are willing to relicense some of their photos (currently cc-by-nc) to make them eligible for Commons, but they can't work out how to make the change. Anyone know how this is done, so I can advise them, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPF: Regardless of how they could change the license as far as iNaturalist's system is concerned, they could presumably offer the additional license via a comment under the same account they used to upload it. Then in the "permission" section of {{Information}} on Commons, you can note that is how the appropriate license is indicated. If you like, you can add {{LicenseReview}}, requesting validation by a license reviewer, although there is a big backlog on that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000175695-what-are-licenses-how-can-i-update-the-licenses-on-my-content-#How-to-change-licenses @MPF. RoyZuo (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

the guide on how to change licence is already written on commons Commons:INaturalist! 🤷‍♀️ RoyZuo (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel @RoyZuo many thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:37, 20 May 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)

Which license should I follow?

Sometime ago an idea suddenly struck me that I could upload the raw video files from the Tanks and Temples dataset, a popular dataset in computer graphics and computer vision, to Commons. Its license page reads follows:

Copyright

The benchmark data on this site is copyright by us and published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. You are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format (share) and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially (adapt). The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

as well as

License Grant

We grant a non-exclusive, non-transferable, free of charge right to install the Data on computers owned, leased or otherwise controlled by you and/or your organisation if the use of the Data is for the sole purpose of performing non-commercial scientific research. Any other use, in particular any use for commercial purposes, is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, incorporation in a commercial product, use in a commercial service, or production of other artefacts for commercial purposes including, for example, 3D models, movies, or video games. The Data may not be reproduced, modified, and/or made available in any form to any third party without our prior written permission.

These two sections seem contradictory on commercial use, so which one should I follow? MilkyDefer 06:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MilkyDefer: "benchmark" for the stuff under CC-By-SA doesn't look like encompassing videos. So, the licenses aren't mutually excluding each other, but rather meant for different kinds of content. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

After reading their landing page, I think that some 3D measurement data may be the information that the site owners actually license as CC-By-SA: We present a benchmark for image-based 3D reconstruction. The benchmark sequences were acquired outside the lab, in realistic conditions. Ground-truth data was captured using an industrial laser scanner. The benchmark includes both outdoor scenes and indoor environments. High-resolution video sequences are provided as input, supporting the development of novel pipelines that take advantage of video input to increase reconstruction fidelity.

The processed media, videos or the like, are what is covered by the second kind of license, the non-commercial one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

But aren't videos image sequences and thus, the "benchmark sequences" mentioned above, and thus part of the "benchmark"? MilkyDefer 06:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

By all appearances no, see https://www.tanksandtemples.org/download/ . The videos are clearly separate from the raw data used to generate them. In fact, after further reading, the subjects of the CC-By license (I misread and added a -SA above) aren't clear at all, it could very well be limited to their paper offered as PDF on the page. You should ask the site owners what is actually covered. I am actually a license reviewer and wouldn't currently dare to pass a review on such a unclear situation (the relevant policy is: COM:PRP). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I dug through the history of the license page and see that there was a license change no later than 2023. Before that, it was licensed under CC-BY-SA-NC 3.0 which was more consistent with the rest of the page. There is a possibility that they only updated the license but not other descriptions. MilkyDefer 07:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that would be nice! But then, my advice is even more important: ask the site owners what they want to say with their licensing terms! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:12, 20 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)

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)

{{ping|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)

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)

Admin., please review.

This file was closed in 2016 by a former admin, "Deleted: per nomination"

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Y-o-d-a yodas (3261795989).jpg

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Same photo that was deleted, rationale was correct, redeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Can i add this image?

I first found this image on RawPixel. https://www.rawpixel.com/image/6305225/lane-kirkland-labor-day-parade-new-york-bernard-gotfryd-1924-2016 RawPixel says it is public domain and I think it says that the image has CC0 liicense. I got confiused because Wikimedia Upload Wizard was asking if the *creator* made it available under CC0.

I also found the same image with higher resolution on the Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/2020738001/ Under Rights Advisory it says "No known restrictions on publication." The page linked under Rights Advisory also says that reproduction is allowed under fair use. If I am allowed to upload this image to Wikimedia, which options would I select under Upload Wizard? TheGreatCooLite (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You can upload this to Wikimedia Commons. Put {{PD-Gotfryd}} into the "Enter a different license" option under "The creator has released..." Based5290 (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is Seventeen magazine from November 1950 in the public domain due to not being renewed?

Seventeen magazine is published in the United States and Triangle Communications copyrighted their November 1950 issue on 1950-11-01, with copyright registration number B271103. I searched all volumes of the Catalog of Copyright Registrations up to 1977 (inclusive) and they renewed the copyright on many 1950 issues in 1977, but not the November one (an unrelated publication was given the same registration number in 1977; it was not a renewal). From 1978 onward, the USPTO's site allows you to search and "271103" does not show any issues of Seventeen and searching "Seventeen" in 1950 shows no records. Searching "Seventeen" and then sorting by date shows a gap between 1947-07-11 and 1977-01-01. That first 1977 record is in fact an issue of Seventeen, but it's a newly-published issue, not a renewal. Have I done enough due diligence to reasonably think that the November 1950 issue is in the public domain due to not having its copyright renewed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This is one of those examples where I answered my own question the moment I asked it. It was renewed. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)