Commons:Village pump/Copyright
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
- One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
- Have you read the FAQ?
- Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
- Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
- Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
Are the CC licenses of these Youtube videos valid? (Sinn Sisamouth)
[edit]So Sinn Sisamouth is a Cambodian musician who died c.1976, but regardless he has a verified Youtube channel. I noticed that starting from this video up till the most recent upload are under CC licenses.
I don't know how this channel gets managed, but I know from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinn Sisamouth.jpg that the modern copyright holders of his stuff are an NGO that preserves Sisamouth's work, and despite their registered info being outdated are who I infer to be behind this channel.
Given everything, is this enough to say that the songs that have been released under CC licenses on Youtube to be eligible to be uploaded onto Commons? Furthermore, as there is a portrait of Sinn Sisamouth in these videos, which happens to be the same one referenced in the aforementioned DR (which allegedly the SSA did permit to be uploaded here per original uploader, but just never went through VRT), is that now eligible to be undeleted? TansoShoshen (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TansoShoshen: Any reason not to contact the Foundation and/or the YouTube channel owner and try to clarify the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel As far as I'm aware their contact info is outdated, their website was last updated in 2012. The Youtube channel does have a different email attached. I'll go ahead and shoot them an email there.
- I do want to say that I've had personally bad experiences with trying to get copyright holders to send over information to VRT, they have always never done so for all attempts. TansoShoshen (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: so the Yahoo email associated with the NGO whose website was last updated in 2012 is dead. The other 2 emails went through, and I CC'd VRT so hopefully there's no problems on that front. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- So there's a lack of any updates now that the work week has begun. I'll give them the rest of the week but, in the event that we still get no response, should we presume that the CC licenses on Youtube are valid?
- There's still the eLibrary we have to sort out. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- So things are still radio silent (apart from VRT's response), I'm going to go ahead and request undeletion of the original Sinn Sisamouth photo we had and go from there. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Update: so the Yahoo email associated with the NGO whose website was last updated in 2012 is dead. The other 2 emails went through, and I CC'd VRT so hopefully there's no problems on that front. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- The Cambodian Vintage Music Archive (CVMA) controls that account, or at least its releases. The videos posted under “video”, are not managed by the CVMA, but most of the music under “releases” are and should have a description stating if they were uploaded under the CVMA. The CVMA are an active US 501(c)(3) non-profit that have legal rights over Sinn Sisamouth plus practically all the other pre-genocide singers’ music but I’m not sure when it comes to visual material. They also work with the Ministry of Culture, Department of Copyright.
- For portraits, and in specific reference to the former picture on the Sinn Sisamouth Wikipedia page.
- 1. The eLibrary of Cambodia, that holds this record sleeve and photo, which is an academic initiative supported by the government, specifically the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport as well as the Buddhist Institute, has stated “អ្វីៗទាំងអស់ដែលតម្ដល់ទុកនៅក្នុង eLibrary of Cambodia ជាសម្បតិ្តរបស់ខ្មែរទាំងអស់គ្នា សម្រាប់បម្រើជាប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ ដោយមិនគិតរក និងយកកម្រៃ ព្រមទាំង អាចឱ្យយើងខ្ញុំបានជួយប្រទេសជាតិ បានមួយភាគតូចផងដែរ ។” translation: “Everything stored in the eLibrary of Cambodia is the property of all Cambodians, to serve the public interest, without any consideration or charge, and to enable us to help the country in a small way”.
- 2. The eLibrary of Cambodia also states “សម្បតិ្តខ្មែរណាដែលបង្ហោះលើវេបសាយយើង បើលោកអ្នកជាម្ចាស់ ចង់ឱ្យយើង
- ដកចេញ យើងនឹងគោរពតាមសំណូមពរ” translation: “If you are the owner of any Cambodian material on this website and want us to remove it, we will honor the request”. That portrait still remains in the database.
- It seems as tons of portraits have been able to be used freely because legal rights over them either haven’t been signed for a long time or do not exist. Regarding Wikipedia taking down former photos on the Sisamouth page, I’m highly sure it was due to people claiming the portrait was entirely their work rather than the use of it in the first place. CiteMeToSleep (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your input @CiteMeToSleep, I actually now remember some of the context of at least 2 of the deletions. There was a flickrwasher who uploaded several photos themselves, claiming they were under a free license. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @CiteMeToSleep Do you remember the exact file where you got the photo from within the eLibrary? TansoShoshen (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry for the late reply. The link is here: https://www.elibraryofcambodia.org/song/%E1%9E%87%E1%9E%B7%E1%9F%87%E1%9E%91%E1%9E%BC%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%9B%E1%9F%81%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%93%E1%9E%B9%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%94%E1%9E%84/ CiteMeToSleep (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- No problem, I think that the best way to move forward is via an undeletion request, I'm looking at the site, I think that PD-CambodiaGov could be argued as "other instructed circulars issued by state organizations". If that is the case, then what you've unlocked for Cambodian media on Commons will be huge. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry for the late reply. The link is here: https://www.elibraryofcambodia.org/song/%E1%9E%87%E1%9E%B7%E1%9F%87%E1%9E%91%E1%9E%BC%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%9B%E1%9F%81%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%93%E1%9E%B9%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%94%E1%9E%84/ CiteMeToSleep (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Most VRT tickets from Serbia are meaningless
[edit]Under Serbian copyright law, moral rights are super wide-ranging, and include the power to control derivative works and the "integrity" of your work (people regularly get €100+ for websites cropping their photos here), and these, like moral rights elsewhere, can't be transferred by contract. This means that works-for-hire can't be released under a free license by employers at least on those grounds, but also probably not at all, because economic/pecuniary rights are only granted to the employer for 5 years, and even then only to the extent necessary for the employer's business activity, unless a contract says otherwise (which we have no proof of). So unless VRT tickets literally come from the author themselves, they're basically invalid. If it's an entire website released under a free license (say, vs.rs) there might be edge cases where photographers consented to a free license in their contracts, but that's unlikely, and we have no proof of that. Not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but it seems like something should be done about it. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JustARandomSquid: Please see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, just because they're called moral rights doesn't mean they're exempt from assessments of freeness. Standard moral rights from other countries, sure, I wasn't planning to be prejudicial to the author's honour and reputation with my modifications anyway, but if we accept this, we might as well accept -ND licenses. And even if we chalk this down to non-copyright restrictions (which is a misnomer in this case — moral rights are part of copyright), we still have no proof the author signed a contract with their employer that even allows them to license the pecuniary/economic rights part of copyright away, which is unacceptable per COM:PCP. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JustARandomSquid: do you have any instances of someone getting in trouble for relying on such a license posted on Commons (that is, from Serbia, license didn't come from the photographer, they conformed correctly to the license and had action taken against them anyway)? Because, if not, I don't see any reason even to think about special-casing this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not Commons specifically, mostly because there aren't that many of these pictures on Commons, but in general
from Serbia, license didn't come from the photographer, they conformed correctly to the license and had action taken against them anyway
, yes. In the words of intellectual property lawyer Kruna Savović advising the Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina, "A common problem in practice is that media sign contracts with a news agency regulating the usage of their photographs, but neglect the name of the author, which violates their moral rights." See for example this case before the Belgrade Appellate court, which I'll quote the key details of (don't mind the Google Translate English, the amount of effort needed for me to touch it up and get it perfect wouldn't be worth it, the point comes across):
- Not Commons specifically, mostly because there aren't that many of these pictures on Commons, but in general
- @JustARandomSquid: do you have any instances of someone getting in trouble for relying on such a license posted on Commons (that is, from Serbia, license didn't come from the photographer, they conformed correctly to the license and had action taken against them anyway)? Because, if not, I don't see any reason even to think about special-casing this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, just because they're called moral rights doesn't mean they're exempt from assessments of freeness. Standard moral rights from other countries, sure, I wasn't planning to be prejudicial to the author's honour and reputation with my modifications anyway, but if we accept this, we might as well accept -ND licenses. And even if we chalk this down to non-copyright restrictions (which is a misnomer in this case — moral rights are part of copyright), we still have no proof the author signed a contract with their employer that even allows them to license the pecuniary/economic rights part of copyright away, which is unacceptable per COM:PCP. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- RSD 20,000 (~$200) per publication for each of the eleven. Admittedly, this was for the moral right of attribution, not integrity, but I'm sure that if they had cropped the photo this guy's lawyers would've gone for that too. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, if we only have the name of the organisation that gave us the work, we have an issue with attribution too, regardless. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- RSD 20,000 (~$200) per publication for each of the eleven. Admittedly, this was for the moral right of attribution, not integrity, but I'm sure that if they had cropped the photo this guy's lawyers would've gone for that too. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
FoP in Bangladesh
[edit]Upon closer and more thorough analysis of the new copyright law, however, it becomes apparent that FoP in Bangladesh has not been entirely abolished. According to the law's precise definitions, ordinary architectural works (e.g., buildings and structures) and sculptures or monuments that are neither carved nor cast in a mould (e.g., the Shaheed Minar, the National Martyrs' Memorial) do not fall within the scope of copyright protection. That is to say, except for carved or mould-cast sculptures, photographs of most public structures in Bangladesh are essentially copyright-free and may continue to be uploaded to Commons as before.
Huge thanks to MS Sakib for initial constructive criticism and restructuring of this text.
Previous FoP discussions about Bangladesh: 2024-09, 2024-10, 2025-02
তবে নতুন কপিরাইট আইনটি আরও নিবিড়ভাবে বিশ্লেষণ ও পর্যবেক্ষণ করে দেখা যায় যে, আইনে স্পষ্টভাবে সংজ্ঞায়িত না হলেও বাংলাদেশে FoP পুরোপুরি বিলুপ্ত হয়নি। আইনের সূক্ষ্ম সংজ্ঞায়ন অনুযায়ী সাধারণ স্থাপত্যকর্ম (যেমন: ভবন, ইমারত) এবং খোদাইকৃত বা ছাঁচে বানানো নয় এমন ভাস্কর্য বা স্থাপনা (যেমন: শহীদ মিনার, জাতীয় স্মৃতিসৌধ) কপিরাইটের আওতাভুক্ত নয়। অর্থাৎ, খোদাইকৃত বা ছাঁচে বানানো ভাস্কর্য ছাড়া বাংলাদেশের বেশিরভাগ পাবলিক প্লেসের স্থাপনার ছবিই মূলত কপিরাইটমুক্ত এবং এগুলো আগের মতোই কমন্সে আপলোড করা যাবে।
এই লেখাটির প্রাথমিক গঠনমূলক সমালোচনা ও পুনর্গঠনের জন্য MS Sakib-কে আন্তরিক ধন্যবাদ।
পূর্ববর্তী FoP সম্পর্কিত আলোচনাসমূহ: ২০২৪-০৯, ২০২৪-১০, ২০২৫-০২
বাংলা: সারাংশ সিদ্ধান্ত
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
আইনি সারাংশ[edit]
|
English: Summary decision
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legal Summary[edit]
|
বাংলা: সম্পূর্ণ ব্যাখ্যা
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
আইনের সংজ্ঞা ও পরিভাষা[edit]কপিরাইট আইন, ২০২৩-এর ধারা ১৪(১) অনুযায়ী বাংলাদেশে শুধুমাত্র পাঁচ প্রকারের "কর্ম" কপিরাইটযোগ্য।
কপিরাইটের আইনি পরিধি: আইনের ধারা ১৪(১) ধারায় যেসকল কর্মকে স্পষ্টভাবে কপিরাইটযোগ্য বলা হয়েছে, শুধুমাত্র সেগুলোই কপিরাইটযোগ্য। এই ৫টি শ্রেণীর বাইরে যাওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। আইনে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"কে সরাসরি কপিরাইটযোগ্য নয় বলা না থাকায় অনেকেই ধরে নিতে পারেন এটি কপিরাইটযোগ্য। কিন্তু আইনি ব্যাখ্যা হলো, উল্লেখকৃত না থাকলে তা কপিরাইটযোগ্য বলে ধরে নেওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। উদাহরণস্বরূপ, কপিরাইট আইন, ২০০০-এ প্রথমে কম্পিউটারে সৃষ্ট কর্মের মেয়াদ উল্লেখ ছিল না। পরে সুরক্ষা দেওয়ার জন্য আলাদা করে কপিরাইট (সংশোধন) আইন, ২০০৫ (২০০৫ সনের ১৪ নং আইন) প্রণয়ন করতে হয়েছে।[1] কর্ম বলতে সাধারণ ভাষায় অনেক অর্থ বের করা সম্ভব। আইনের পক্ষে পৃথিবীর প্রতিটি শ্রেণির কর্মকে তালিকা করে কপিরাইটমুক্ত বলা সম্ভব নয়। আইনের ধারা ২ দ্বারা এই পাঁচ প্রকারের কর্মকে সুসংজ্ঞায়িত করা হয়েছে। ধারা ২ (১১) অনুযায়ী "কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা:
ধারা ২ (৪০) অনুযায়ী "শিল্পকর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা:
ধারা ২(৫১) অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা:
ধারা ২(৩২) অনুযায়ী "ভাস্কর্য কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা:
ধারা ২(১২) অনুযায়ী "খোদাই"-এর সংজ্ঞা:
বাংলা একাডেমি আইন, ২০১৩ দ্বারা কার্যরত বাংলা ভাষা বিষয়ক বাংলাদেশি রাষ্ট্রীয় সংস্থা বাংলা একাডেমি। বাংলাদেশ সরকার তার নিজের সরকারি কাজে বাংলা ব্যবহারে বাংলা একাডেমির নিয়ম মানতে নির্দেশনা দেয়।[2] তাদের প্রকাশিত আধুনিক বাংলা অভিধান অনুযায়ী নকশা, মডেল ও ডিজাইনের সংজ্ঞা নিচে দেওয়া হলো। উল্লেখ্য, এই সংজ্ঞাসমূহ মানতে আইন বাধ্য (binding) নয়। নকশার non-binding সংজ্ঞা:
মডেলের non-binding সংজ্ঞা
ডিজাইনের non-binding সংজ্ঞা
"স্থাপত্য কর্ম" বনাম "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম"[edit]উপরের উপধারা সমূহ বিশ্লেষণ করলে এই সিদ্ধান্তে উপনীত হওয়া যায় যে, ২০২৩ সালের কপিরাইট আইনে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এবং "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" সম্পূর্ণ আলাদা দুটি বিষয়।
আলাদাভাবে সংজ্ঞায়নের কারণ: যদি "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" (ভবন) কপিরাইটযোগ্য না হয়, তাহলে তাকে সংজ্ঞায়িত করা হলো কেন? মূলত "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম"কে (মডেল বা নকশা) সুস্পষ্টভাবে সংজ্ঞায়িত করার উদ্দেশ্যেই এটি করা হয়েছে। আইনের প্রতিটি স্থানে স্থাপত্য কথার সাথে সাথে নকশা ও মডেল শব্দদ্বয় ব্যবহার করা হয়েছে। এটি ইঙ্গিত করে, আইন প্রণেতারা বাস্তব ভৌত দালানকে আলাদা করে রাখতে চেয়েছেন। লক্ষ্য করলে দেখবেন, "শিল্পকর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা রয়েছে ৪০নং উপধারায়, আর "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞা রয়েছে ৫১নং উপধারায়। চাইলেই এই দুটিকে একই উপধারায় রাখা যেতো, কিন্তু তা ইচ্ছাকৃতভাবে করা হয়নি, যাতে ভৌত দালান এবং দালানের নকশা গুলিয়ে না যায়। "কর্ম"এর সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে শুধুমাত্র স্থাপত্যের মডেল বা নকশা-কে অন্তর্ভুক্ত করা হয়েছে। "কর্ম" এর মধ্যে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"তে উল্লেখ্য থাকা বাস্তব ভৌত দালানকে অন্তর্ভুক্ত করা হয়নি। ফলে এই আইনে যদি "কর্ম" শব্দটি উল্লেখ্য করে কোনো বিধি প্রণয়ন করা হয় তাহলে তার মধ্যে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" অন্তর্ভুক্ত নয় কিন্তু "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" ও "ভাস্কর্য কর্ম" অন্তর্ভুক্ত। প্রশ্ন উঠতে পারে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর মধ্যে কর্ম শব্দটি আছে, আবার "কর্ম" এর মধ্যে স্থাপত্য নেই। এই সংঘর্ষের কারণ কী? ধারা ২(৫১) তে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" শব্দদ্বয় একত্রে উদ্ধৃতির মধ্যে আছে। এটি স্থাপত্য + কর্ম নয়। বরং "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" একত্রে। ফলে এই শব্দদ্বয় একত্রে থাকলে "কর্ম"এর সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে তা পড়বে না। Threshold of Originality (শৈল্পিক গুণ): ধারা ২(৪০) অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম"-এর শুধুমাত্র শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন অংশের কপিরাইট রয়েছে। ২০২৬ সাল পর্যন্ত বাংলাদেশের কোনো আইন বা আদালতের রায় কী শৈল্পিক বা কী শৈল্পিক না (threshold of originality) তা ব্যাখ্যা করেনি। ধারা ২(৪০) অনুযায়ী "শিল্পকর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞার (ঘ) নম্বরে "শিল্পসুলভ কারুকৃতি সমৃদ্ধ অন্য কোনো কর্ম" অন্তর্ভুক্ত করা হয়েছে। কিন্তু "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" আইনে থাকা "কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে নেই। "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"কে আলাদা করে সংজ্ঞায়িত করায় তা এই "অন্যান্য"-এর মধ্যেও পড়ে না। বাংলা একাডেমির non-binding সংজ্ঞা অনুসারে "নকশা" বলতে "Floor Plan", রেখাচিত্র বা অবস্থান পরিমাপের মানচিত্র বোঝায়, যা "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"-এর অন্তর্ভুক্ত নয়। আর "মডেল" বলতে স্থাপনার ত্রিমাত্রিক ছোট অবয়ব বা "replica" বোঝানো হয়েছে। অতএব, ধারা ১৪(১) অনুযায়ী শুধুমাত্র "শিল্পকর্ম" (যার মধ্যে "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" ও "ভাস্কর্য" অন্তর্গত) কপিরাইটযোগ্য। কিন্তু "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" তথা বাস্তব ভৌত দালানকে কপিরাইটযোগ্য বলা হয়নি। "কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞাতেও শুধুমাত্র স্থাপত্যের মডেল বা নকশাকে অন্তর্ভুক্ত করা হয়েছে, বাস্তব ভৌত দালানকে নয়। সিদ্ধান্ত:
ভাস্কর্য[edit]ধারা ২(৩২) অনুযায়ী "ভাস্কর্য কর্ম" হলো খোদাই করা অথবা ছাঁচে বানানো ভৌত শিল্প। ধারা ২(৪০) অনুযায়ী শিল্পসুলভ গুণ থাকুক বা নাই থাকুক, ভাস্কর্য ও খোদাই করা কর্ম কপিরাইট দ্বারা সুরক্ষিত "শিল্পকর্ম"। অর্থাৎ ভাস্কর্যের কপিরাইট থাকার জন্য আলাদা করে Threshold of originality প্রমাণের প্রয়োজন নেই। বাংলা একাডেমির অভিধান অনুযায়ী ছাঁচ ও খোদাইয়ের সংজ্ঞা নিচে দেওয়া হলো (আইনত বাধ্য নয় তথা non-binding): ছাঁচের non-binding সংজ্ঞা:
খোদাইয়ের non-binding সংজ্ঞা
ক্ষোদনের non-binding সংজ্ঞা
সিদ্ধান্ত:
নির্মাণাধীন অবস্থার ছবি[edit]কোনো কর্মের কপিরাইট সুরক্ষা শুরু হয় তার প্রকাশকাল থেকে। আইনের বিভিন্ন ধারায় প্রকাশকাল নিয়ে বিস্তারিত বলা আছে:
বিদেশের মাটিতে স্থাপত্য[edit]
ধারা ১৪(৬)-এর (গ) অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত না হলে তা বাংলাদেশে কপিরাইটযোগ্য না। ধারা ২(২৯) অনুযায়ী স্থাপত্য এক ধরণের "বাংলাদেশি কর্ম"। কর্মের প্রণেতা বাংলাদেশি হলে বা কর্মের প্রথম প্রকাশ বাংলাদেশে হলে তা "বাংলাদেশি কর্ম" বলে বিবেচিত হবে। অপ্রকাশিত কর্মের ক্ষেত্রে, কর্মের প্রণেতা কর্ম সৃষ্টির সময় বাংলাদেশি নাগরিক হলে তা "বাংলাদেশি কর্ম" বলে বিবেচিত হবে। অর্থাৎ, আপনি বাংলাদেশি হয়ে বিদেশে কোনো কপিরাইটযোগ্য স্থাপত্যের ছবি তুলে বাংলাদেশে প্রকাশ করলে, আপনি বাংলাদেশের কপিরাইট আইন ভঙ্গ করেননি। তবে সে ক্ষেত্রে কমন্সের নীতিমালা ও সেই নির্দিষ্ট দেশের আইন আপনার আপলোডের উপর প্রযোজ্য হতে পারে। অতিরিক্ত শর্ত[edit]
পুনরুৎপাদন শর্তের সাথে কমন্সের নীতিমালার সংগতি[edit]কমন্স:লাইসেন্সিং এবং উইকিমিডিয়া ফাউন্ডেশনের লাইসেন্সিং বিষয়ে বোর্ডের প্রস্তাব অনুযায়ী মুক্ত সাংস্কৃতিক কর্মের সংজ্ঞা ১.০-এর শর্ত পূরণকারী যেকোনো লাইসেন্সধারী কর্ম কমন্সে প্রকাশ করা যাবে। কপিরাইট আইন, ২০২৩-এর আলোচ্য ব্যাখ্যা অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"-এর ছবি কমন্সে প্রকাশ করা হলে তা সম্পূর্ণভাবে উন্মুক্ত লাইসেন্সযুক্ত মিডিয়াকর্ম হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। এই মিডিয়া লাইসেন্স অনুযায়ী ছবিটির ওপর ভিত্তি করে ছবি, ভিডিও, সাউন্ড বা অন্য যেকোনো মিডিয়াভিত্তিক ডেরিভেটিভ করা যাবে। তবে "হুবহু প্রতিরূপ ও ফ্লোর প্ল্যান, আর্কিটেকচারাল ড্রয়িং নির্মাণ"-এর আইনি বাধাটি কমন্সের নীতিমালার সাথে সাংঘর্ষিক কিনা, তা ধাপে ধাপে স্পষ্ট করা হলো: ১. কেবল একটি ভবনের ছবি দেখে হুবহু আরেকটি ভবন নির্মাণের চেষ্টা করা হলে ফ্লোর প্ল্যান, আর্কিটেকচারাল ড্রয়িং এবং অন্যান্য কাঠামোগত ড্রয়িং ছাড়া তা কখনোই সম্ভব নয়। এক্ষেত্রে ছবিটি কেবল একটি রেফারেন্স হিসেবে কাজ করে। একাধিক ছবি দেখে রেপ্লিকা তৈরি করা হলেও, বাংলাদেশের আইনি দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে সেটি কোনো নির্দিষ্ট ছবির 'ডেরিভেটিভ ওয়ার্ক' বা উদ্ভূত কর্ম নয়, বরং তা মূল মাতৃ-স্থাপনারই পুনরুৎপাদন। যেহেতু আইনের সংজ্ঞায় ভৌত স্থাপনা ("স্থাপত্য কর্ম") নিজেই কপিরাইটের আওতাবহির্ভূত, সেহেতু এর ছবি এবং সেই ছবি থেকে সৃষ্ট ডেরিভেটিভ ওয়ার্কও (যদি আদৌ কিছু হয়ে থাকে) কপিরাইটমুক্ত। তাই এর ছবি কমন্সে আপলোড করার ক্ষেত্রে পুনরুৎপাদন সংক্রান্ত কোনো আইনি বাধা ছবির ওপর বর্তায় লালন। ২. উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্সের প্রতিটি ফাইল যে আক্ষরিক অর্থে ১০০% ভৌত পুনরুৎপাদনযোগ্য হতে হবে, বিষয়টি এমন নয়। কমন্স:কপিরাইট-বহির্ভূত বিধিনিষেধ মূলত কপিরাইট ব্যতীত অন্যান্য আইনি বা নীতিগত বাধাকে বোঝায়। উদাহরণস্বরূপ, একটি গাড়ি পেটেন্ট দ্বারা সুরক্ষিত হলে, গাড়ির ছবি দেখে হুবহু বাস্তব ভৌত পুনরুৎপাদন আইনত দণ্ডনীয়। কিন্তু গাড়িটির ছবি মুক্ত হওয়ার কারণে সেই ছবির মিডিয়াভিত্তিক ডেরিভেটিভ তৈরি করা যায় এবং ছবিটি কমন্সে প্রকাশযোগ্য। একইভাবে, কপিরাইট উত্তীর্ণ টাকার ভৌত পুনরুৎপাদন নিষিদ্ধ হলেও তার ছবি কমন্সে হোস্ট করা যায়। যেহেতু "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" আইনের "কর্ম"-এর সংজ্ঞার বাইরে, তাই এর হুবহু প্রতিরূপ নির্মাণের বাধাকে কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন না ধরে কমন্স:কপিরাইট-বহির্ভূত বিধিনিষেধ হিসেবে বিবেচনা করা যৌক্তিক। ৩. পুনরুৎপাদন শর্তের সাথে কমন্সের নীতিমালার সংগতির সবচেয়ে বড় প্রমাণ হলো স্বয়ং কমন্সে উপস্থিত বৈশ্বিক ফাইলসমূহ। কমন্স:ফ্রিডম অব প্যানোরোমা ও কমন্স:ডেরিভেটিভ কাজ-এর গাইডলাইন অনুযায়ী, মাতৃ-স্থাপনা কপিরাইটযোগ্য হলেও FoP সুরক্ষার কারণে তার ছবি কমন্সে প্রকাশ করা যায়। এক্ষেত্রে মূল স্থাপনার রেপ্লিকা বানানো বেআইনি হলেও, ছবির উপস্থিতিতে কোনো বাধা নেই। বিশ্বের অন্যান্য দেশের আইনের দিকে তাকালেও এর মিল পাওয়া যায়। কমন্স:এফওপি জার্মানি এবং কমন্স: ফ্রিডম অব প্যানোরোমা অনুযায়ী জার্মান কপিরাইট আইনের §৫৯-এর অধীনে একাধিক কর্মের পুনরুৎপাদনের অনুমতি থাকলেও স্থাপত্যের ভৌত পুনরুৎপাদনের অনুমতি নেই। আলবেনিয়ার কপিরাইট আইনের ৮২ নং আর্টিকেলে FoP থাকা সত্ত্বেও 2D কাজকে 3D বানাতে কঠোর বাধা রয়েছে। তা সত্ত্বেও আলবেনিয়ার File:Bashkia e Tiranës.jpg ছবিটাসহ দেশগুলোর হাজার হাজার স্থাপত্যের ছবি কমন্সে নির্বিঘ্নে হোস্ট করা হচ্ছে।
অতএব, যৌক্তিকভাবে প্রমাণিত হয় যে, বাংলাদেশের কপিরাইট আইনের অধীনস্থ স্থাপত্যের ছবি পুনরুৎপাদনের শর্তটিও উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্সের নীতিমালার সাথে সম্পূর্ণরূপে সংগতিপূর্ণ। ফ্লোর প্ল্যানের, আর্কিটেকচারাল ড্রয়িং পুনরুৎপাদন শর্তের ক্ষেত্রেও একই যুক্তি প্রযোজ্য। স্পষ্টতা[edit]স্থাপত্যের ছবি কপিরাইট সুরক্ষার বাহিরে সে বিষয়ে আইন সুস্পষ্ট। ধারা ১৪ তে সুরক্ষা প্রাপ্ত কর্মের তালিকায় স্থাপত্য নেই। ধারা ২ এর সংজ্ঞাসমূহ যেকোনো অনিশ্চয়তা বা অস্পষ্টতা দূর করে। আইনের পক্ষে কপিরাইট সুরক্ষার বাহিরে থাকা হাজার হাজার প্রকারের কর্ম এক এক করে তালিকাভুক্ত করে "কপিরাইট নেই" বলা সম্ভব নয়। |
English: Full Explanation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legal Definitions and Terminology[edit]Under Copyright Act, 2023, Section 14(1), only five categories of "works" are eligible for copyright protection in Bangladesh.
Scope of copyright protection: Only those categories of works explicitly listed as copyright-eligible under Section 14(1) enjoy copyright protection. There is no basis for extending copyright beyond these five categories. Because "architectural work" is not directly stated to be copyright-eligible in the Act, some may assume it is protected. However, the correct legal interpretation is that anything not listed cannot be assumed to be copyright-eligible. For example, under the Copyright Act, 2000, the copyright term for computer-generated works was initially unaddressed; a separate Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No. 14 of 2005) had to be enacted specifically to provide protection.[3] It is not possible for legislation to enumerate every conceivable category of work and expressly declare it copyright-free. The five categories of copyrightable works are precisely defined by Section 2 of the Act. Definition of "work" under Section 2(11):
Definition of "artistic work" under Section 2(40):
Definition of "architectural work" under Section 2(51):
Definition of "work of sculpture" under Section 2(32):
Definition of "work of sculpture" under Section 2(12):
Bangla Academy is the Bangladeshi state institution for the Bengali language, operating under the Bangla Academy Act, 2013. The Government of Bangladesh has directed its own official bodies to follow Bangla Academy's rules in their use of the Bengali language.[4] According to their published Adhunik Bangla Abhidhan (Modern Bengali Dictionary), the definitions of naksha (design), model, and design are given below. Note that these definitions are not legally binding. Non-binding definition of naksha (নকশা) (design):
Non-binding definition of model (মডেল)
Non-binding definition of design (ডিজাইন)
"Architectural Work" vs. "Architectural Artistic Work"[edit]A careful analysis of the subsections above leads to the conclusion that the Copyright Act, 2023 treats "architectural work" and "architectural artistic work" as two entirely distinct concepts.
According to the non-binding definition of Bangla Academy, "design" (noksa) refers to "Floor Plan" or Architectural drawing, sketches, or maps of location measurements, which are not included in "architectural work". And "model" refers to a small three-dimensional representation or "replica" of a structure. Why the separate definitions: If "architectural work" (a physical building) is not copyright-eligible, why was it defined in the Act at all? The primary reason is to precisely delimit "architectural artistic work" (i.e., a model or floor plan). Every instance in the Act where "architectural" appears, the words "design" and "model" follow alongside. This signals that the legislators intended to keep physical buildings separate. Notably, the definition of "artistic work" appears in subsection (40), while that of "architectural work" appears in subsection (51). The two could easily have been combined in a single subsection, but were deliberately kept apart to avoid conflating a physical building with a building's design drawings. The definition of "work" in the Act includes only architectural models or designs. Physical buildings (as described under "architectural work" in subsection (51)) are not included in the definition of "work". Therefore, any provision of the Act that uses the term "work" does not encompass "architectural work" (physical buildings), but does encompass "architectural artistic work" and "works of sculpture". The question may arise: the word "work" is contained within "architectural work", yet architecture is not included within the definition of "work". What is the reason for this conflict? In Section 2(51), the two words "architectural work" appear together within quotation marks. It is not "architecture + work"; rather, it is "architectural work" as a single unit. Consequently, when these two words are used together, it does not fall under the general definition of "work." Threshold of Originality: Under Section 2(40), copyright in "architectural artistic work" subsists only in those elements possessing artistic quality. As of 2026, no Bangladeshi statute or court ruling has interpreted what meets or fails to meet this threshold of originality. The definition of "artistic work" in Section 2(40)(d) includes "any other work possessing artistic craftsmanship." However, "architectural work" (a physical building) is absent from the statutory definition of "work". Because "architectural work" was separately defined, it does not fall within the residual "other" category either. Therefore, pursuant to Section 14(1), only "artistic works" within which "architectural artistic work" and "works of sculpture" are subsumed, are copyright-eligible. "Architectural works" (physical buildings) are not stated to be copyright-eligible, and the definition of "work" includes only architectural models or designs, not physical buildings. Conclusion:
Works of Sculpture[edit]Under Section 2(32), a "work of sculpture" is a physical artistic work produced by engraving/carving or casting in a mould. Under Section 2(40), sculptures and engraved works are copyright-protected "artistic works" regardless of whether they possess artistic merit. In other words, a sculpture need not separately demonstrate a threshold of originality in order to enjoy copyright protection. The Bangla Academy dictionary definitions of "mould" (ছাঁচ) and "carving/engraving" (খোদাই) are given below (these are non-binding): Non-binding definition of "mould" (ছাঁচ):
Non-binding definition of "carving/engraving" (খোদাই):
Non-binding definition of "incision" (ক্ষোদন):
Conclusion:
Photographs of Works Under Construction[edit]Copyright protection for a work commences at the time of its publication. The Act addresses the date of publication in several provisions:
Architecture Situated Outside Bangladesh[edit]
Under Section 14(6)(c), "architectural works" not situated in Bangladesh do not enjoy copyright protection in Bangladesh. Under Section 2(29), "architecture" constitutes a form of "Bangladeshi work". A work is considered a "Bangladeshi work" if its author is a Bangladeshi citizen, if it was first published in Bangladesh, or in the case of an unpublished work if its author was a Bangladeshi citizen at the time of its creation. In other words, if you are a Bangladeshi citizen who photographs a copyright-protected architectural work abroad and publishes that photograph in Bangladesh, you have not violated Bangladeshi copyright law. However, Commons policies and the copyright law of the specific country where the photograph was taken may apply to your upload. Additional Restrictions[edit]
Compatibility of Reproduction Conditions with Commons Policies[edit]According to COM:Licensing and the Wikimedia Foundation's Board Resolution on Licensing Policy, any licensed work that meets the criteria of the Definition of Free Cultural Works 1.0 can be published on Commons. According to the discussed interpretation of the Copyright Act, 2023, if a photograph of an "architectural work" is published on Commons, it will be considered a fully open-licensed media work. According to this media license, media-based derivatives such as photos, videos, sounds, or any other media can be created based on the photograph. However, whether the legal restriction on the "construction of identical replicas and floor plans" conflicts with Commons policies is clarified step-by-step: 1. Constructing an identical building solely by looking at a photograph is practically impossible without floor plans and other structural drawings. In this case, the photograph serves only as a reference. Even if a replica is created by observing multiple photos, from a Bangladeshi legal perspective, it is not a derivative work of a specific photo, but rather a reproduction of the original parent structure itself. Since the physical structure ("architectural work") is itself outside the scope of copyright in the legal definitions, its photographs and any derivative works created from those photographs (if any exist at all) are also copyright-free. Therefore, no legal barrier regarding reproduction applies to the photo when uploading it to Commons. 2. It is not the case that every file on Wikimedia Commons must be literally 100% physically reproducible. COM:Non-copyright restrictions primarily refer to legal or policy barriers other than copyright. For example, if a car is protected by a patent, constructing an identical physical replica of that car by looking at its photo is legally punishable. However, because the photo of the car is free, media-based derivatives of that photo can be made, and the photo is publishable on Commons. Similarly, while the physical reproduction of copyright-expired currency is prohibited, its photos can be hosted on Commons. Since "architectural work" is outside the legal definition of a "work," it is logical to consider the restriction on constructing identical replicas as a COM:non-copyright restriction rather than a copyright infringement. 3. The strongest evidence for the compatibility of reproduction conditions with Commons policy is the presence of global files on Commons itself. According to COM:Freedom of panorama and COM:Derivative works guidelines, even if a parent structure is copyrightable, its photos can be published on Commons due to FoP protection. In such cases, while making a replica of the original structure is illegal, there is no restriction on the presence of the photograph. Similar patterns are found when looking at the laws of other countries. According to COM:FOP Germany, under §59 of the German Copyright Act, while the reproduction of multiple works is permitted, the physical reproduction of architecture is not included. Article 82 of Albania's Copyright Law itself maintains strict barriers against turning 2D works into 3D, despite having FoP. Nevertheless, thousands of architectural photos from these countries, including Albania's File:Bashkia e Tiranës.jpg, are hosted on Commons without issue.
Therefore, it is logically proven that the condition regarding the reproduction of architectural photos under the Bangladesh Copyright Act is fully compatible with Wikimedia Commons policies. The same logic applies to the reproduction conditions for floor plans, architectural drawings. Ambiguity[edit]The law is clear regarding the fact that photographs of architecture are outside the scope of copyright protection. 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. |
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;
- @Tausheef Hassan, Thank you for your prompt reply. But, I believe, this is a technical misinterpretation of both law and engineering.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.)
- 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)
- 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:
- Architectural works inside Bangladesh are, in fact, copyrightable by law.
- 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।
- আইনের কোন ধারার ভিত্তিতে আপনি বলছেন যে স্থাপত্য ও স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম একই? আশা করি আপনি কোনো speculation দেবেন না। বরং আমার মতো যুক্তি দেবেন ।
- আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন ধারা ২ এর সংজ্ঞার বাহিরে আপনি গিয়ে কোনো কিছু যোগ করতে পারবেন। কেননা আপনার মতামত বলছে যে আপনি পারবেন।
- 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।
- 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।
- 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 [5]। 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 অংশেপ্রশ্ন 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।
- 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।
- 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:
মূলত আমার ব্যাখ্যা আইনের সাথে আক্ষরিক। এবং আপনার ব্যাখ্যা প্রমাণের জন্য আদালতের রায় প্রয়োজন। আশা করি আপনি শুধুমাত্র বিরোধিতা করার লক্ষ্যে বিরোধিতা করছেন না।
Rough English translation. can be some mistakes
|
|---|
|
- 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)
Further comment and discussion
[edit]@Tausheef Hassan: the clause denying protection to buildings outside Bangladesh does not matter, because the local FoP rules of each country apply (for example, US FoP allows images of architecture, but French FoP does not allow except on noncommercial use of images). The only concern is architecture situated within Bangladesh.
Are you sure that there is no single court case file concerning "artistic features and design" of the architecture? The law states:
কপিরাইট থাকে এইরূপ কর্ম
১৪। (১)(৫) স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্মের ক্ষেত্রে কপিরাইট কেবল শৈল্পিক বৈশিষ্ট্য ও ডিজাইনে থাকিবে এবং নির্মাণ প্রক্রিয়া বা পদ্ধতিতে বিস্তৃতি হইবে না।
Translated by Google as: "Copyright in Works. 14. (1)(5) In the case of architectural works, copyright shall subsist only in the artistic features and design and shall not extend to the process or method of construction."
We can argue that most buildings may not reach sufficient threshold of originality for those to be copyrightable, but it is certain that some buildings have artistic designs that would qualify them copyright protection. The fact that it hasn't been decided in the court means we may apply precautionary principle here, in the sense post-2023 images of Bangladeshi buildings with artistic designs cannot be accepted on Commons.
Concerning exceptions/limitations, according to Gifari (2024), the exhaustive list of exceptions (Section 72) of the old 2000 law was replaced with a flexible fair use regime, which can be seen in three areas of the new law. I'll only give two, since the third one (Section 73) concerns broadcasts and performing rights which are irrelevant here:
- Under Section 2(42)
সংজ্ঞা
২। বিষয় বা প্রসঙ্গের পরিপন্থি কোনো কিছু না থাকিলে, এই আইনে,-...
(৪২) “সদ্ব্যবহার” অর্থ কপিরাইট সুরক্ষিত কর্মের অনুমতি ব্যতিরেকে নির্দোষ বাণিজ্যিক ব্যবহার যা বাক্স্বাধীনতার প্রসার ঘটায়;
Google Translate
|
|---|
|
Definition |
- Under Section 70
কতিপয় কার্য যাহাতে কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন হইবে না
৭০। (১) এতদুদ্দেশ্যে বিধিতে উল্লিখিত উদ্দেশ্য ও শর্ত অনুসারে যদি কোনো সাহিত্য, নাট্য, সংগীত বা শিল্পকর্মের পুনরুৎপাদন, অভিযোজন, শব্দ-ধ্বনি রেকর্ডিং প্রচার, সম্প্রচার, প্রদর্শন, প্রকাশন বা সদ্ব্যবহার করা হয় কিংবা অন্য যে কোনো ভাষায় অনুবাদ তৈরি বা প্রকাশনা করা হয় তাহা হইলে উক্তরূপ কার্যাদি দ্বারা কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘিত হইবে না।
(২) যেক্ষেত্রে কোনো কর্মের সাধারণ ফরম্যাট দৃষ্টি প্রতিবন্ধীদের ব্যবহারের উপযোগী না হইয়া থাকে সেইক্ষেত্রে দৃষ্টি প্রতিবন্ধীদের স্বার্থে কাজ করিয়া থাকে এইরূপ কোনো ব্যক্তি বা প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক তৈরিকৃত দৃষ্টি প্রতিবন্ধীদের পাঠ বা ব্যবহার উপযোগী ব্রেইল বা অন্য কোনো বিশেষ বিন্যাস তৈরি বা আমদানি দ্বারা কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘিত হইবে না:
তবে শর্ত থাকে যে, উক্ত তৈরিকৃত বিশেষ বিন্যাসের অনুলিপি দৃষ্টি প্রতিবন্ধীদের মধ্যে উৎপাদন ব্যয়ের মূল্য ব্যতিরেকে সম্পূর্ণ অলাভজনক ভিত্তিতে বিতরণ করিতে হইবে:
আরও শর্ত থাকে যে, উক্ত ব্যক্তি বা প্রতিষ্ঠান নিশ্চিত করিবে যে, উক্ত বিশেষ বিন্যাসে তৈরিকৃত অনুলিপি কেবল দৃষ্টি প্রতিবন্ধীগণ ব্যবহার করিবে এবং ইহার বাণিজ্যিকীকরণ বন্ধে প্রয়োজনীয় পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করিবে।
Google Translation
|
|---|
|
Certain acts which shall not infringe copyright |
The law seems to have passed the decision on "innocent commercial uses promoting freedom of expression" to the courts. Do note that freedom of expression does not equate to the freedom to use the work commercially (postcards, stock images, website development, vlogging, et cetera) without permissions from sculptors, painters, craftsmen, or architects.
Do note that buildings under construction do not matter, since Commons has accepted images of buildings under construction from countries without FoP rules. For example, Category:Construction of Burj Khalifa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Thank you for taking the time to read through all of this.
Scope: My intention with this text was not to propose a change to Commons policy. Rather, I wanted to fully explain all aspects of copyright regarding architectural works in the law so that the Commons community can determine what falls within its scope. I aimed to present the full picture and allow the community to decide what changes, if any, should be made. Therefore, you may find several points here that are outside the scope of Commons.
Architecture outside Bangladesh: This section only applies if the host country does not provide protection against publishing photos of architecture located within its territory in foreign country. However, I believe that most, if not all, countries do provide such protection.
Construction: This section does not apply only to the construction of buildings; it may also apply to unfinished architectural drawings and sculptures. I am not certain whether those are allowed on Commons right now.
Court case file: Bangladeshi courts do not upload all court cases online. After reviewing the cases that have been uploaded, as well as online law reports and local news sources, I could not find any cases concerning “artistic features and design.” Bangladeshis rarely exercise their copyright protection. I have recommended a book for the Wikimedia Bangladesh Library that reportedly contains all copyright-related court cases. To be 100% certain, someone would need to physically visit the Supreme Court archives, and I do not currently have time to do that. I have already had my fair share of being denied government services, especially while working on GLAM Bangladesh.
Section 14(5): First of all, this is 14(5), not 14(1)(15). There is a fundamental mistake in the Google translation. It translates স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম as “architectural works.”
স্থাপত্য → Architecture,
শিল্প → Art,
কর্ম → Work.
Therefore, স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম → "architectural artistic works".
This is completely different from "architectural work". "architectural work" refers to the physical building, while "architectural artistic works" refers to architectural drawings and replica models. Here is a better translation I have provided above:
Section 14(5) – Extent of copyright in the construction process
Unofficial non-binding translation Should not be used to reach any conclusions |
|---|
|
- Therefore, your section about the threshold of originality is fundamentally flawed. Physical buildings do not enjoy copyright protection. As a result, the threshold of originality is irrelevant here, and all buildings can be photographed and uploaded to Commons freely. A further explanation of "architectural work" vs. "architectural artistic works" can be found in the #"Architectural Work" vs. "Architectural Artistic Work" section.
- Section 2(42) and Section 70 apply only to copyrightable works. Since a physical building is not copyrightable, these sections do not apply here.
Thank you again for taking part in this discussion. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 07:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)- @Tausheef Hassan So you're implying that the new law finally removes copyright from all physical buildings?
- If it is true, then the legislators may have inadvertently breached (yes, breached) the Berne Convention. Bangladesh is a Berne member, and they should protect physical buildings in accordance with the international treaty on copyright. Berne Convention's Article 2 provides:
Protected Works:
1. “Literary and artistic works”;
1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.
- Bangladesh acceded to the treaty in 1999, and they are expected to protect physical buildings as well, not just models or designs of architecture. Removing architects' protections from physical architecture of Bangladesh is a serious breach of the treaty, in my opinion.
- US did not protect their buildings before 1991, that is why we have {{PD-US-architecture}}. However, sometime after they entered the international treaty, they passed a law to protect buildings (AWCPA) in 1990. It is not retroactive, so only US buildings completed after 1990 are protected. But fortunately, they introduced FoP rule for architecture at the same time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I don't know much about international law. But I can say is Section 2(40) does not recognize architecture as artistic work by not including it in it. Section 2(11), does not recognize it as "work" in context of the law. As "architectural work" is separately defined, it does not fall within the residual "other" category either. Bangladeshi general clauses and practices does not provide protection unless stated.
However the law does provide indirect protection to architectural works. I have explained them in #Additional Restrictions section and compliance of these restriction with commons policy in #Compatibility of Reproduction Conditions with Commons Policies section.
Architectural drawings are protected by copyright law. (Section 2(40) & 14). And converting these drawing from 2D (drawing) to 3D (architectural work) is prohibited by section 2(7). As explained in Additional Restrictions section, If I make a physical 1:1 reproduction of architectural work with the same material, one can argue that I have made it by deriving the work from the architectural drawing, which is prohibited. This type of indirect protection can not be argued from the law for photograph of architecture. So, making architectural drawing and physical reproduction of architectural work is prohibited. So, architectural work is not fully unprotected. It enjoys some indirect (Non-copyright?) protection. May be this can be counted as not breaching the Berne Convention.Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 10:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)- @Tausheef Hassan, "...I can say is Section 2(40) does not recognize architecture as artistic work by not including it in it." I think it's the opposite. The website of Bangladesh Copyright Office lists "architectural designs" under "artistic works". See here: [7]. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 10:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Meghmollar2017: , it lists স্থাপত্যের নকশা, not স্থাপত্য. Two different things and inline with my explanation. And Bangladesh Copyright Office has not rights to explain copyright. It simply just registers them. Their office is viewable from my window. Last time I went there, the officer there redirected another person to me to give her legal advice. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 11:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan, "...I can say is Section 2(40) does not recognize architecture as artistic work by not including it in it." I think it's the opposite. The website of Bangladesh Copyright Office lists "architectural designs" under "artistic works". See here: [7]. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 10:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Game & Watch consoles and copyright
[edit]
There is no clear consensus for uploading images of Game & Watch consoles to Commons, and what parts of a console should or should not be uploaded. In Category:Game & Watch, many images exist depicting gameplay, the permanently colored backgrounds of the displays, or depictions of copyrighted characters.
This topic was originally posted to the main Village Pump page, and since then I have created an essay in my userspace regarding the uploading of Game & Watch consoles to the best of my knowledge. To summarize, backgrounds that fall below the TOO should be kept; complex backgrounds should be nominated for deletion as derivative works, and replaced with a new version with the copyrighted screens blurred; consoles with their screens on may be nominated for deletion as copyrighted video game graphics; and any copyrighted characters depicted should be nominated for deletion per Commons:Character copyrights.
I have brought this discussion here, as suggested by PantheraLeo1359531, for any further discussion. JudeHalley (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have moved the essay to Commons:Uploading of Game & Watch consoles. JudeHalley (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
BEGIN also moved, so that we do not have to repeat discussion that has already happened:
- Could some (if not, all) graphics fall under de minimis? JudeHalley (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not so much de minimis as ineligible for copyright.
- Also: if there is an image of a console we want ot us, and the content on the screen is not relevant, it is easy enough to blur or otherwise cover anything that is not relevant to the purpose of the photo and would constitute a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
END also moved. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel@JudeHalley should the essay page be expanded to include all handheld consoles as well? Like GB/GBC/GBA, Nintendo DS/3DS, Sony PlayStation series, Nintendo Switch, et cetera? Suggested title (feel free to modify): Commons:Video game handheld consoles/Commons:Handheld gaming consoles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps; after rereading what I've already wrote, some of it could apply to all handheld consoles. As long as the consoles are referred to in general and not given their own unwieldy "examples" sections (known as WP:EXAMPLECRUFT on the English Wikipedia) then it could be rewritten to cover those. I initially wrote the essay specifically to deal with those colored backgrounds and copyrighted characters on the Game & Watch consoles, which are (mostly) unique to those consoles. Maybe the body can be reworded to cover modern consoles (or anything with a modern LCD screen), and then there could be a section about things exclusive to older consoles like the Game & Watch and the Nelsonic Game Watch.
- Some things overlap with these two (for example, the dock of the Animal Crossing Edition Nintendo Switch has the same problem as the outer case of Donkey Kong II), so it may be appropriate to restructure the essay to focus on what is common with all consoles, rather than a single, uncommon series of consoles. JudeHalley (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Just a little update on this: I slightly reworded the essay to refer to all LCD games, so that it encompasses games in the same category as Game & Watch consoles. I moved the essay again to Commons:LCD game guidance (which has a nice ring to it). I think that guidance surrounding all game consoles have already been covered in Commons:derivative works and Commons:de minimis. JudeHalley (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Publication and URAA
[edit]Does {{PD-1996}} require evidence of publication prior to 1996? In some countries, a copyright can expire without the work being published, merely based on its time of creation, eg. if an Italian photo was created in 1950 it would have expired in 1970 per {{PD-Italy}}, but if it was only published in 2010, would that make it public domain in the US aswell? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, The publication date matters for URAA, but the issue is what evidence of publication do we require. We usually assume that documents are published around the date of creation unless evidence shows otherwise (e.g. source is a family archive). Yann (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a Commons guideline/policy page I can look at for reference when determining time of publication? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- AFAIK we do not have such a page (may be we should?), but common sense is the best guideline. Anything which has been printed should be considered as published. The complicated cases are photographs with unprecise provenance. Yann (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- A reference page on assuming publication would indeed be helpful in deletion discussions. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- AFAIK we do not have such a page (may be we should?), but common sense is the best guideline. Anything which has been printed should be considered as published. The complicated cases are photographs with unprecise provenance. Yann (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a Commons guideline/policy page I can look at for reference when determining time of publication? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding Italy you might look at Template:PD-Italy/US. Günther Frager (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is an edge case under URAA. URAA restores US copyright for works published without compliance with US formalities. If the work was published after 1989 it can never apply as US formalities are no longer required. You'd follow the normal COM:HIRTLE chart to determine the US copyright status. Similarly if a work has ever been published in the US in a way that had a US copyright URAA will not apply. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- As per [8] for the URAA to apply: "the work must have been first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." So US publication after that 30-day period is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true, there are plenty of works published in the US with full notice and renewal after the 30 days, are you going to argue the US registration is actually invalid? (You're quoting rule 4, look at rule 3) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 02:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- We're talking about different things here. The URAA took works that were in the public domain in the US and restored copyright to them. So I was thinking about works that were in the public domain, because works that were eventually published in the US but weren't renewed or the like; the URAA could still apply to them. The URAA isn't relevant to things that were in copyright in the US, of course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I actually think it's trickier than that, but not in a way that affects us. It is quite possible that prior to URAA, a court might have found that U.S. copyright invalid and ruled that the work in question had already passed into the public domain before it was copyrighted in the U.S.; URAA closed off that possibility. But we don't really care under which logic the work is now considered to be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- We're talking about different things here. The URAA took works that were in the public domain in the US and restored copyright to them. So I was thinking about works that were in the public domain, because works that were eventually published in the US but weren't renewed or the like; the URAA could still apply to them. The URAA isn't relevant to things that were in copyright in the US, of course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true, there are plenty of works published in the US with full notice and renewal after the 30 days, are you going to argue the US registration is actually invalid? (You're quoting rule 4, look at rule 3) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 02:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- As per [8] for the URAA to apply: "the work must have been first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." So US publication after that 30-day period is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Works that were not published were copyrighted in the US until 2002, wherein the usual life+70 period kicked in. If it were first published in Italy before 1996, it'd be in the public domain; if it were first published in 1996-2001, it will be copyrighted until at least 2047, as the rule for works first published (with appropriate notice before 1989) in 1978-2002, by authors who were dead by 1977, was that the authors were treated as having died in 1977.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Writing down this practice somewhere
[edit]Howardcorn33 and Yann: I wonder if maybe the best way to do this is a template that reflects community consensus, a la {{PDMark-owner}} and {{PD-old-assumed}}. Something like this:
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets two requirements:
The copyright situation of this work is theoretically uncertain, because there is no evidence of publication of this work, and the URAA applies to works published outside the US before 1 March 1989, without having been published in the US within 30 days, and without compliance with US formalities. However, the date of creation of the work was before 1 March 1989, and there is no reason to believe the work was not published soon after creation (e.g. because it is a publicity photo), so it is a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired. Do not use this template if the date of publication is known. |
Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- That seems acceptable to me. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, fine for me. Yann (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know way this idea that to be PD-1996 it must be before March 1989 came from and I don't think it is right just like how some countries like Iran still have no copyright relations with the US and everything from them is public domain there was some countries that didn't sign the Berne Convention till after 1989 and every thing from there was public domain in the US till they signed it for example Jamaica didn't sign it till 1994 and they had no posthumous term so something published in Jamaica in 1992 by a author who died before 1946 is still PD-1996 REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @999real: there may need to be a further phrase or sentence about countries that are not Berne signatories, but in any country that is a Berne signatory, if the work was created on or after 1 March 1989, it was copyrighted in the U.S. upon creation, and there is no way it could be PD in the U.S. on anything like the basis for which this template would apply. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your Jamaica case and how it would relate to this template. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, a similarly-modified tag could be made for {{PD-US-unpublished}} and {{PD-anon}}. Anything else? Also, should we hold an RfC? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Photos of the Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion by Carl Mydans
[edit]I was wondering if photos taken by American photojournalist Carl Mydans of the Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion in South Korea in 1948 could be eligible for Commons as Template:PD-South Korea-photo-1977, in particular the photos that were not published in Life magazine. Of the photos not published in Life (the Time article states which ones were and weren't), I was only able to find one photo (the 5th from last one in the article) that was published in a later work, Carl Mydans: Photojournalist (ISBN 9780810913233).
Since I haven't found evidence of these photos (excluding that particular one) having been published, would they still be under copyright in the US as unpublished work? Especially given that Mydans passed away in 2004. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, unpublished works are life+70 in the US. So all the works not published in Life, including the one published in 1993, would copyrighted until 2075.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Average Pennsylvanian: Those photos are not unpublished, since they were published in that Time article. The article seems undated on the website, but it sounds like it might be from the mid 2010s. If other photos from Mydans are unpublished, they are under copyright also. You can see also this page for details. The South Korea template is not applicable for the photos published in the Time article and for unpublished photos by Mydans. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Video game consoles - utilitarian function?
[edit](Low priority question)
Hello everyone,
I would like to know how video game consoles don't apply to COM:TOYS. I obviously know that they don't, otherwise, a lot of Evan Amos works would be deleted, but I realized recently that I don't know the consensus/reasoning behind it, and if I get back to doing DR work, I probably should know just in case. I swear that this is just curiosity, not JAQ.
Thanks for reading. Cawfeecrow (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cawfeecrow: For the same reason that COM:TOYS does not apply to computers or cars. Although they typically have some design elements that are chosen for purely aesthetic reasons, they are mainly considered to be utilitarian objects.
- It would be an interesting question exactly where the line is, but it's pretty clear which side video game consoles lie on.
- Some cases that would be less obvious to me as to where they fall:
- A chemistry set.
- Something that prepares edible food, but is marketed as a toy.
- A rideable toy vehicle.
- Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. Cawfeecrow (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
How to attribute audio when playing in public
[edit]I am part of an amateur theater group that would like to play File:Maple Leaf RagQ.ogg during the break. It is licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5. How do we attribute a recording if it is just being played unchanged? @Apatterno created the recording, but has not been active for many years. Alien878 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have a written program for the performance? - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- We could add it to the printed program. Should we add the WP user or the name which is also listed on the file? Alien878 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alien878: It says explicitly on the file page "Attribution: William J. Leslie". - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel! Sorry, I missed that line. Alien878 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Alien878: It says explicitly on the file page "Attribution: William J. Leslie". - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- We could add it to the printed program. Should we add the WP user or the name which is also listed on the file? Alien878 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
This Beatles album cover was uploaded under the rationale that it was first published in the USA due to {{Simultaneous US publication}}. Based on the evidence I found, the earliest US Vinyl pressings appear to lack a valid copyright notice (MAS 2653[9]). However, it gets interesting. I found the Reel to Reel and 8-Track releases of the album from the same time period, and they contain full copyright notices. So {{PD-US-no notice}} may not apply, as it might actually be copyrighted? BUT... they misprinted the claimant. It was supposed to say "© 1967 NEMS Enterprises Ltd." but it incorrectly says "© 1967 News Enterprises Ltd." instead. My question is, would that be enough to be considered {{PD-US-defective notice}}, even though its a minor typo of one letter - W not M? Although the template suggests it could be defective, I wanted to gather others opinions before. PascalHD (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm... May you nominate the album art then? Dunno whether the URAA would disregard the simultaneous publication and favor the so-called defective notice, honestly. Otherwise, this comes down to whether the US law would forgive that minor mistake and then consider it copyrighted. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @George Ho Sure thing, conversation can continue here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art PascalHD (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Can someone check the origin and copyright status of the underlying image of this Philippine stamp? It is unlikely in the public domain as {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Also the following:
- File:Afghan-Hound-Canis-lupus-familiaris.jpg
- File:American-Eskimo-Dog-Canis-lupus-familiaris.jpg
- File:Beagle-Canis-lupus-familiaris.jpg
- File:Black-and-Tan-Coonhound-Canis-lupus-familiaris.jpg
- File:Bull-Terrier-Canis-lupus-familiaris.jpg
- File:Chow-Chow-Canis-lupus-familiaris 2010.jpg
- File:Labrador-Retriever-Canis-lupus-familiaris 2010.jpg
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
PD-US-1978-1989
[edit]Hi I would like some help to determine whether these images can be added to Commons as public domain under the PD-US-1978-1989 tag, i.e. "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and February 1989, inclusive, without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years."
How can one check whether "copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years."?
My examples:
Thanks in advance, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Moving this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding the first one, the article itself is a reprint of an article by John F. Burns from the NYT, so the article itself was already registered by the original newspaper. Günther Frager (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Question about possibly uncopyrighted newspaper images
[edit]Hello! I'm still a bit new to uploading to Wikimedia and have mainly stuck to unambiguous cases of public domain material thus far (pre-1931 obvious PD or 1931-1963 images that were not renewed). There have been some newspaper images from the 1960s/1970s that I had my eye on, but I am aware that the copyright rules around these are obviously much stricter starting in 1964. It is my understanding that if the newspaper did not include a visible copyright notice, it automatically entered public domain? For a couple of these images (1964 and 1968 images in The Cincinnati Post), I have checked literally every page of that issue and have been unable to find such a notice. I did some digging and it seems to me that the Post only began regularly including copyright notices on March 1, 1984; obviously, one would still need to verify each issue's lack of a notice before uploading, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Do I have a case for uploading these (and similar images, if I am also unable to find a tag in those issues) under PD-US-no notice? Thank you! Silver181 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Silver181 Yes, you can upload those. From 1978 to 1989 you need to check the copyright logs to see if a registration was filed though, in that period they had a 5 year period to fix it (but very few did). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Cincinnati Post was indeed one of several large or mid-sized papers that failed to add notice or subsequently register with the Copyright Office. The Baltimore Sun and Evening Sun, for example, failed to add notice or register for copyright well into the 1980s. Always good to get a second set of eyes on the material before uploading, but it's not unusual to find major papers from the 20th century that failed to follow copyright formalities. (whether or not their successor publications/owners understand that is another story) The other PD tag you might need is Template:PD-US-1978-89.
- When searching for copyright registrations that might have been filed in that 1978-1989 range, always remember to check for the individual contributors in the scanned pages as well as the newspaper itself (a photographer or writer could register their work on their own if their publication failed to add a notice or register). 19h00s (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Does this logo meet the threshold of originality?
[edit]Hello! I was wondering if this logo meets the threshold of originality. It contains File:NASCAR.svg, which does not meet the threshold of originality, some simple text, a circular shape and a checkered flag. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMrapids (talk • contribs)
- Moving to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Prototyperspective (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Inherited Photos
[edit]My father died in 2023. I inherited his photographs. I uploaded about 40 2 years ago. Besides someone telling me to use PD-Heirs, I don't recall much issue with uploading files. I have finally gotten around to uploading more of his photos. But I am confused by the uploader screens. I am not sure if they have been changed since the last time. I think so. I just want to get his photos out there. I just want to make sure I choose the right options when uploading. Grrprr (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Grrprr:
Uploader screens
: is this about the Upload Wizard or some other means of uploading? - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)- the uploader wizard. Grrprr (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Grrprr: It's a case that the Upload Wizard handles terribly. Quite honestly, if you are not intimidated by the following, I'd recommend:
- Treat one of your own prior successful uploads as sort of a template; place the wikitext in a TXT file on your PC, or whatever else is convenient for you.
- Upload through Special:Upload: copy from the template and edit as needed.
- Leave the Wizard out of the picture entirely.
- Yes, there are ways to do it with the Wizard, and someone may be able to guide you through that, but it isn't what I'd recommend in this case. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. That upload option does seem to be better suited, except it would very tedious to upload what might be 100s of photos that way. I am still in the process of having AI help me identify photos and their "worthiness" of being uploaded to the commons. I already have over 70 ready to upload. Grrprr (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Grrprr: Assuming they each need to be individually given descriptions and dates (let alone categories), it won't slow you down compared to the Wizard. Unless you have super-fast Internet connection (so that the actual upload time is negigible), you will want to ping-pong a pair of browser tabs, so you start setting up each upload while the preceding one runs. The actual uploading is almost always fast enough that one upload is finished by the time the next one is ready. I do this all the time, and I think once you get the hang of it, it is actually faster than the Wizard for anything other than a big batch of photos with exactly the same description/date/category.
- Don't even use the separate line for license in Special:Upload, just make the license tag part of what you copy-paste. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Grrprr: It's a case that the Upload Wizard handles terribly. Quite honestly, if you are not intimidated by the following, I'd recommend:
- the uploader wizard. Grrprr (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
PD-AR-Photo files without a US PD tag
[edit]Greetings. What should I do if I come across a file that uses {{PD-AR-Photo}} but doesn't have a US PD tag? Example: File:Gatos-1967.jpg. I currently don't know enough about the interaction of Argentina and US copyright laws to place the appropriate US tag myself. Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Copyright in Argentina for photographs is 20 years ppa. So as long as it was not simultaneously published in the US and the publication date (not the the creation date) is prior to 1976, then the correct US tag is {{PD-1996}}. Of course if it is old enough {{PD-US-expired}} might also apply. The photo that you mention was cover art of their first L.P. published in 1967, so {{PD-1996}} applies. Günther Frager (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. Rockfang (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Are this photos really on public domain?
[edit]https://archive.org/details/NIST_9-11_Release_07/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_07/Release%207/42A0006/AdamSchreiner/firstcollapse.JPG ಠ ಠ 07:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Most likely, yes. It appears they are attributed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST is a part of the United States Department of Commerce (US DOC). The US DOC is part of the federal government. So one could assume that the following applies: [10]. Rockfang (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are you sure these photo were actually taken by NIST employees? NIST makes standards for Industries and give grants to scientists, etc. They made a report after 9/11 but it is hard to imagine that they were taking photos on the day. The NIST report[11] claims The collected materials available on this site were accumulated with the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers.. The folder in archive.org has several archives that they definitively didn't created, like this TV broadcast. So if you upload something, please take it from the NIST website and make sure it is in the category NIST-generated photos. Günther Frager (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- NIST conducted an investigation after 9/11. Not all photos are government works, many photos were collected from private individuals who were there that day. https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/photos-videos-and-simulations#Copyright PascalHD (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Is this legal to upload
[edit]File:Matt Clark (actor) copy2.jpg
_copy2.jpg){kind=link}
It is apparently an AI generated image, and by U.S. copyright law OK to copy. But it is from an Indian source. Can I use it in English Wikipedia or on commons? Also, on en Wikipedia I added it with non-free license because he is deceased. Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- If, indeed, "AI" there as a credit means "Artificial Intelligence", and that that is accurate, then it is in the public domain and would be legal in the narrow sense of the actual law, but in general the (slightly loose) consensus on Commons is against hosting most AI images of actual people. en:Wikipedia:AI image use would indicate that it would not be welcome on the English-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Prince Consort Gallery images (V&A)
[edit]There are three images that I would like to upload to Commons for use in our w:Prince Consort Gallery article (please see Victorian and Albert Museum site: 1, 2, and 3). Given the age and nature of the images, my instinct is that it should be fine to use them, though before proceeding, I thought it prudent to check-in here first. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would say they are fine to upload.
- For the first image, British Museum indicates here the artist John Watkins passed away in 1908 (assuming it is the same John Watkins).
- For the second image, it is a photograph taken in 1905, commissioned by the V&A museum.
- For the third image, the artist en:Godfrey Sykes passed away in 1866.
- So, per en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Copyright term, I would say these works should be in the public domain in the UK under the Copyright Act 1842 (and the other laws onwards), hence also in the public domain in the US. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, that's great to know. Thank you. I'll proceed accordingly. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the first two but not the third, as there doesn't seem to be a clean version without the V&A watermark and file size info embedded in the image itself. If you don't mind, please have a look to make sure that the correct PD template has been applied, etc. (File:Prince Consort Gallery Etching (V&A Room 110).jpg; File:Cases in Prince Consort Gallery circa 1905 (V&A Room 110).jpg). Thanks again, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cl3phact0: I found the 2014GX9698 one available at https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O503538/design-sykes-godfrey/ and downloaded it with dezoomify: File:Prince Consort's Gallery design by Sykes.png. For the other, I'm not sure if {{PD-UK-unknown}} is correct because you've said the author is known (John Watkins). Sam Wilson 12:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Lovely. Much nicer image. I'll swap it into the article now. Re: the PD template for the Watkins etching, do you know which one should be applied? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have changed the template to {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Lovely. Much nicer image. I'll swap it into the article now. Re: the PD template for the Watkins etching, do you know which one should be applied? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cl3phact0: I found the 2014GX9698 one available at https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O503538/design-sykes-godfrey/ and downloaded it with dezoomify: File:Prince Consort's Gallery design by Sykes.png. For the other, I'm not sure if {{PD-UK-unknown}} is correct because you've said the author is known (John Watkins). Sam Wilson 12:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Ich habe meine zweifel das der uploader der urheber des bildes ist, der fotograf scheint https://www.tobiaskoch.net/ zu sein, bitte auch die benutzerdiskussion in der dewp beachten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Kassiopeia77 damals war es auch der fall, dass er ein fremdes bild von einer website hochgeladen hatte. gruss Wetterwolke (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andreas Mattfeldt, 2025.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Question About University Collections
[edit]Alright so I was researching the Communist Party of Canada and I realized that many of them had few photos of themselves on Wikipedia, so I decided to find some on my own. I found this one photo in an article, which I can't actually attach to this conversation but you'll find it and other photos at this link [12] the one I'm specifically talking about is on page 32, it has Communist leader Tim Buck, Alderman of Toronto Norman Freed, Co-founder of the party Annie Buller, and Canadian Labour Defense Secretary, A.E. Smith. The thing is, this photo, and all the other photos in the article, originated from the University of Toronto's Kenny collection, so do they own the copyright? CanadianChicken (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- @CanadianChicken: To the specific question (does the U of T Library own the copyright), the answer is no. Firstly, the photo is from before 1949 (it looks like it may be from the 1930s), therefore its copyright in Canada is expired. It can be noted that the Library does not limit copies. Secondly, Robert S. Kenny, the person who sold the material objects to the Library, was a collector of various objects, not their author nor their copyright owner, therefore even if some foreign copyright existed in some other country, that copyright was not acquired by the Library with the material objects. The magazine article you linked gives its source as "box 636" of the collection, but that is likely a typo for "box 63 C" [13]. The only difficulty on Commons is that there is no indication of the first publication of the photo, to determine its copyright status in the United States. If you are bold and assume a publication before 1989, you could upload the photo with the the templates PD-Canada and PD-1996, but someone might object the absence of proof of publication and start a deletion discussion. You could check with the Library if they have more information, although they probably don't, because the author of the article would likely have mentioned it. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Capcom France
[edit]We have another case of a national subsidiary YouTube channel uploading copyrighted material under a CC BY license at Category:Videos by Capcom France and Category:Files from the official Capcom France YouTube channel. It is currently holding up an FAC at w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leon S. Kennedy/archive2 because free images have to be used in place of non-free images wherever possible per w:WP:NFCC1.
Is it possible for someone to contact whoever does the licensing for Capcom to clarify whether or not these videos were intended to be released freely? We have seen before at videos from Vogue Taiwan and Cartoon Network India that the releases were illegitimate and thus the files were deleted from Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: there is currently an ongoing deletion discussion regarding one of the Capcom France videos here, but for some reason that deletion discussion does not include every other video by that channel. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this website is where to contact Capcom's licensing dept. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Has anyone contacted them yet? I just want to make sure before I attempt an email. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I believed nobody has done it yet. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @EnvironmentalDoor: nobody has done it yet, but if you attempt it, make sure to be formal and precise about the matter. Make sure their message is also confirmed by VRT. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Commons is not my area of expertise: what exactly does "confirmed by VRT" means? I think I know what VRT is. It's essentially a way for copyright holders to confirm that a certain file is licensable under a license that is considered free by Commons standards (E.G.: File:Celeste box art full.png). Does this mean I have to run the email by the team running VRT first? I just want to handle this situation with utmost care. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Volunteer Response Team (VRT) handles verification of copyright status and permissions for Commons, this includes potential copyright violations. If Capcom clarifies that the Capcom France YouTube videos were not legitimately released under the Creative Commons license, they should email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org so that the VRT can ensure it is an official statement. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, I have a draft for an email set up.
- Good day,
- There is an inquiry regarding the licensing of YouTube videos on the official Capcom France YouTube channel. Ever since 15 December 2017 with the release of the “[ Monster Hunter - World ] - Palico - PS4, Xbox One, PC” video, the vast majority of videos on the Capcom France YouTube channel have been licensed under Creative Commons Attribution. It is important that you confirm that the licensing of these to be legitimate and not merely an error.
- If this was an error and you did not wish for these videos to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, please email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org at your earliest convenience clarifying the mistake.
- How does this sound? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Make sure you provide URL links to the following pages in your inquiry:
- Make sure to also introduce yourself by mentioning that you are a volunteer editor on Wikimedia Commons, seeking clarification on if videos from the Capcom France channel are released under the Creative Commons Attribution license. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Here is an improved version of the email, based off of your recommendations:
- Good day,
- I am a volunteer of the free media repository to which anyone can contribute to known as Wikimedia Commons. There is an inquiry regarding the licensing of YouTube videos on the official Capcom France YouTube channel. Ever since 15 December 2017 with the release of the “[ Monster Hunter - World ] - Palico - PS4, Xbox One, PC” video, the vast majority of videos on the Capcom France YouTube channel have been licensed under Creative Commons Attribution. Creative Commons is a type of way to license a work or part of such work. It is important that you confirm that the licensing of these to be legitimate and not merely an error.
- If this was an error and you did not wish for these videos to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, please email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org at your earliest convenience clarifying the mistake.
- Was there anything more I missed? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- It sounds like an invitation to people who are releasing material under a Creative Commons to back down on what they've been doing for years.
- I can't understand why WE assume the people who is for free licenses are some kind of weirdos. (Not because of this message, I feel as if the very own Commons community does not believe in free licenses).
- Why instead of sending them messages asking if they are doing things wrong, we try to send them messages congratulating for doing things right? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Volunteer Response Team (VRT) handles verification of copyright status and permissions for Commons, this includes potential copyright violations. If Capcom clarifies that the Capcom France YouTube videos were not legitimately released under the Creative Commons license, they should email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org so that the VRT can ensure it is an official statement. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Commons is not my area of expertise: what exactly does "confirmed by VRT" means? I think I know what VRT is. It's essentially a way for copyright holders to confirm that a certain file is licensable under a license that is considered free by Commons standards (E.G.: File:Celeste box art full.png). Does this mean I have to run the email by the team running VRT first? I just want to handle this situation with utmost care. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Has anyone contacted them yet? I just want to make sure before I attempt an email. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Update: I have now found out that a file from Capcom France did indeed survive a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phoenix Wright in Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney.png, which was closed by @Josve05a.
- Also, the concern about holding up the FAC is no longer present as it was agreed that the FAC could be promoted without the images and the images could be added after the deletion discussion was concluded. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Just want to comment that Josve05a's reasoning (and, by extension, that of @Qzekrom) is flawed. Under Pinkham v. Sara Lee Corp., "the apparent authority defense ... is generally unavailable in the context of copyright infringement". Although there are cases suggesting otherwise, I have not seen Pinkham criticized by other judges or legal scholars. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have since read more on this subject and am open to reopen that discussion… --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Just want to comment that Josve05a's reasoning (and, by extension, that of @Qzekrom) is flawed. Under Pinkham v. Sara Lee Corp., "the apparent authority defense ... is generally unavailable in the context of copyright infringement". Although there are cases suggesting otherwise, I have not seen Pinkham criticized by other judges or legal scholars. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's very unlikely it's an error when Capcom France account does indeed select which licenses they use, and have historically also uploaded videos under non-free licenses (Paris Games Week 2024 videos aren't free licensed Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and 5).
- Capcom France does select wether they want (or not) to release a video under a Creative Commons. This is not Cartoon episodes, this is promotional material, it makes sense for them to want it to spread as freely as possible (they don't sell videos, they sell games). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Possibly worth mentioning Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ace Attorney - Ici, Ace Attorney TV!.webm as another Capcom France file that survived a deletion discussion. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- This was already mentioned above, and you just repeated yourself. The closer has also acknowledged they may reopen it. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Request to rename PD-CambodiaGov to PD-Cambodia-exempt
[edit]As per COM:Cambodia, the only types of works that don't have copyright protection are government texts and documents (including laws, decisions, and proclamations) and ideas/concepts/mere data. There are no provisions for government photos and logos. The template name is misleading. {{PD-CambodiaGov}} should be renamed {{PD-Cambodia-exempt}}, just like {{PD-Philippines-exempt}} and {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Also: {{PD-SpanishGov}} should be renamed {{PD-Spain-exempt}}. There is no evidence that Spanish government photos are in the public domain as per COM:SPAIN. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Another one: {{PD-DutchGov}} should be changed to {{PD-Netherlands-exempt}}. Other existing proof: {{PD-Portugal-exempt}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345
- These should honestly be 2 separate templates. There are works by the government and used by the government (ex. flag, national anthem) and works which are under the copyright of the government who then provides the materials for free distribution (ex. Sinn Sisamouth photo that is currently the topmost discussion here). The difference with the latter is that copyright could technically pass from the government to an heir or other organization (like what happened with Sisamouth's music) and thus be taken out of the public domain. I think the template PD-CambodiaGov should just have a clause that says something along the lines of: "Visual media, including but not limited to portraits and logos, are not permitted to be uploaded under this template unless they are proven to be from a document where use isn't incidental."
- The reason why the photos of royalty are not PD is because they are actually held by the copyright of the photographer, Yim Samel in modern times, who then licenses the portraits to the government for use.
- PD-Cambodia-exempt I think we would have to talk about in greater detail after we figure out the status of the aforementioned portrait. I think that it could be huge if we are allowed to upload such works onto Commons. TansoShoshen (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- @TansoShoshen if non-textual or non-document government works are copyrighted yet several are under "free distribution," then those are not PD. Those are similar to {{Copyrighted free use}}. Using {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}} as the model, {{Copyrighted free use-CambodiaGov}}.
- I disagree with your suggestion on simply adding a clause stating, "Visual media, including but not limited to portraits and logos, are not permitted to be uploaded under this template unless they are proven to be from a document where use isn't incidental." The Cambodian copyright law does not provide automatic PD provision for government works, unlike those of COM:GVT Philippines and COM:GVT United States. The template name should reflect on what the law actually provides. If the Cambodian law only exempts textual government works from copyright, then PD-Cambodia-exempt is more appropriate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Copyright question on specific image
[edit]I would like to replace the image in the en.wiki article on the Finnish architect Einari Teräsvirta, because it is both useless (I don't even know if it shows the person in question, and if so which of the 30-odd people shown that might be) as well as misleading (it visually implies some sort of Nazi connection, just because it happens to depict the Berlin 1936 Olympics and the German athletes are doing Nazi salutes).
I have found this image [14] on the Finnish libraries and museums portal, Finna.fi, which shows the person in question much more clearly and in a more appropriate professional setting. The photo is licensed with CC BY-NC 4.0, which I gather is not acceptable because of that NC param.
However, the photo is almost certainly out of copyright: it is shown on the portal as having been taken "c. 1965" (although my guess would be, considering the subject matter, that it was more likely 1964), which makes it over 60 years old. In Finland the copyright term on non-artistic photographs is 50 years.
Can I therefore upload it to Commons despite the CC BY-NC 4.0 licence? And if so, how do I handle the licensing side of things, given that the source is showing an incompatible licence? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing: Unless I'm missing something, this would still be copyrighted in the U.S. Certainly was in copyright in Finland in 1996, when URAA set in, which gives it 95 years of protection in the U.S. from date of first publication. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: thanks for responding. I thought URAA is about restoring US copyright to foreign works which are still in copyright in their original country but have become public domain in the USA? Whereas this is public domain in Finland, where it was created – so why would URAA override that? Or are you saying that a Finnish photo can be at the same time public domain in Finland but copyright in the USA? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The URAA is not an ongoing process. For countries that were part of Berne in 1996, if a work was in copyright on Jan. 1, 1996, then the URAA restored it to copyright in the US, generally with 95 years of protection from first publication. After that point, the URAA and US copyright law doesn't care what happens in the source country, whether works are taken out of copyright or put into. Notably, the US does not have the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- So since, per Antti T. Leppänen's point below, this image was already in public domain on 01/01/96, URAA had no effect on that, am I right? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- If by "this image" you mean the 1936 one, yes. If you mean the one that is circa 1964, I don't see it. See my reply to Antti T. Leppänen below. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- The URAA is not an ongoing process. For countries that were part of Berne in 1996, if a work was in copyright on Jan. 1, 1996, then the URAA restored it to copyright in the US, generally with 95 years of protection from first publication. After that point, the URAA and US copyright law doesn't care what happens in the source country, whether works are taken out of copyright or put into. Notably, the US does not have the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- As stated in the linked section, simple photographs published before 1966 were public domain in 1996. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Antti T. Leppänen: I don't see that stated there at all. What statement there implies this? - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with copyright law in Finland, but reading from the linked page, the appropriate text would appear to be, "An amendment to the Copyright Act (1991) extended the copyright time from 25 years (according to the 1961 copyright law) to 50 years. However, material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law remain in public domain and therefore all photographs (but not photographic works of art) released before 1966 are in the public domain (and were in the public domain at the URAA date)."
- This presumes the date of creation in 1964 or 1965 is correct and that publication occurred on or before 31 December 1965. Adding the 25 year term for photographs (assuming this is not a "photographic work of art") the copyright would have expired in 1990, prior to the copyright term being extended in 1991. In this scenario, the photograph would be public domain in Finland prior to the URAA date.
- The key argument then becomes whether there is any evidence of publication prior to 1966. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Antti T. Leppänen: I don't see that stated there at all. What statement there implies this? - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: thanks for responding. I thought URAA is about restoring US copyright to foreign works which are still in copyright in their original country but have become public domain in the USA? Whereas this is public domain in Finland, where it was created – so why would URAA override that? Or are you saying that a Finnish photo can be at the same time public domain in Finland but copyright in the USA? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The image used in en-wiki, File:Gymnastics men team medallists in Berlin 1936.jpg, has annotations for the people depicted, including Teräsvirta. So an extracted image can be used, if needed. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Statue of Satō Sankichi.jpg
[edit]There doesn't appear to be unrestricted freedom of panorama for works of art in Japan per COM:FOP Japan; so, Commons can't really keep File:Statue of Satō Sankichi.jpg for a FoP-based reason. The file's description seems to imply the photo was taken in 2006, but there's no information about the provenance of the statue/bust. According to en:Satō Sankichi, the statue/bust can be found on the campus of en:The University of Tokyo. This can be verified here (see No. 05) and here and here. The last site states the artist who created the work is Testsuya Mizunoya (水谷鉄也), with the statue being installed in 1914. Another site here states Mizunoya died in 1943. If those dates are all correct, then it also seems that the statue/bust wouldn't have entered into the public domain prior to Japan's URAA date, i.e. January 1, 1996. It's in the public domain now since Japan offers copyright protection of 70 years p.m.a. for works created by a known author, but I'm not sure about US copyright law. Would the work also have entered into the public domain under US copyright law on January 1, 2014? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- If it was installed in 1914, PD-US-expired? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Asclepias. URAA gives exactly the protection they would have had if they complied with all U.S. formalities. Anything published before 1931 is PD in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- If Mizunoya did die in 1943, then his works still would've been protected until January 1, 2014 (70 years p.m.a. + 1 year) under Japanese copyright law, wouldn't they? That means his works would've still be under copyright protection under Japanese copyright law on Japan's URAA date, doesn't it? Does that mean his works also entered into the public domain under US copyright law on January 1, 2014? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly That isn't my interpretation of URAA. My understanding is that works copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date were given the same US copyright as if the normal US processes were completed in full. For most works, that would be protection of 95 years from the date of first publication. In many cases, we find that the restored US copyright lasts far longer than copyright in the source country. However, in this case, the restored US copyright would have expired first. I can't see any obligation under URAA for restored US copyright to align with the source country's copyright term.
- In this specific case, if publication in 1914 is correct, the US copyright would have expired on 1 January 2010. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- The restored US copyright for a life+70 work that was published during the life of the author will always expired no more than 25 years after the life+70 copyright. The reverse is not true; the works of s:en:Author:Joel Townsley Rogers which were published in 1923 and left copyright in the US in 2019, will leave copyright in Germany in 2055. In fact, looking at the first issue of Weird Tales, of the works with known author death dates, more than half left copyright in the US before they would leave copyright in a life+70 nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- If Mizunoya did die in 1943, then his works still would've been protected until January 1, 2014 (70 years p.m.a. + 1 year) under Japanese copyright law, wouldn't they? That means his works would've still be under copyright protection under Japanese copyright law on Japan's URAA date, doesn't it? Does that mean his works also entered into the public domain under US copyright law on January 1, 2014? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Asclepias. URAA gives exactly the protection they would have had if they complied with all U.S. formalities. Anything published before 1931 is PD in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was published as per US law at the time, and thus the URAA wouldn't have changed anything. If we use modern rules, it probably wasn't published before 2002 (which the URAA wouldn't have changed anything), and thus became life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: The "modern rules" for what constitutes publication do not apply to works that were already considered "published" under the old pre-1978 rules. Unless I'm missing something (am I?) that part is completely irrelevant here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I think we can work from the assumption that it was published under the old pre-1978 rules and that's what matters. But publication rules for statues and paintings are hairy case-law, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised for a court to rule publication based on the law in effect in 1996. I'd love certainty here, but I don't think it exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: I would be terribly surprised by a court having further occasion to rule on this at all.
- We've pretty consistently assumed that if a sculpture was displayed before 1978 in a location that would readily have allowed for photographs by a broad public, that is considered publication. I see nothing special about this particular case. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I think we can work from the assumption that it was published under the old pre-1978 rules and that's what matters. But publication rules for statues and paintings are hairy case-law, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised for a court to rule publication based on the law in effect in 1996. I'd love certainty here, but I don't think it exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: The "modern rules" for what constitutes publication do not apply to works that were already considered "published" under the old pre-1978 rules. Unless I'm missing something (am I?) that part is completely irrelevant here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who responded above. It seems that the statue entered into the public domain under both American and Japanese copyright laws at some point in the early 2010s. The current CC license is fine for the photo. Should a {{PD-Japan}}, {{PD-US-expired}} or both be added for the statue? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: if you are going to do that {{Art Photo}} is probably better to use than {{Information}}, because it makes it easier to express that distinction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
URAA and Indian films
[edit]Does {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} apply to full-length Indian films uploaded to Commons after 1 March 2012, see license description below for File:Pather Panchali (1955).webm. Absolutiva 01:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- No idea on Indian copyright, but a 1955 film was created under the Indian Copyright Act, 1914; based on the UK Copyright Act of 1911. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- All of these Indian films are public domain in the US after 1946, so is it true if necessary? Absolutiva 11:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Absolutiva, that last remark of yours makes no sense to me at all. Could you reword? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- All Indian films are public domain in the United States before 1936 (60 years before URAA), the copyright duration is currently 60 years after publication, which has amended in 1992. Absolutiva 23:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Actually the law was 50 years until 1992. Yann (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Then, pre-1941 films were PD by 1992 (when the law changed) and URAA did not restore anything in the US.
- Still, irrelevant to Pather Panchali (sadly). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- 1936 => Totally irrelevant to Pather Panchali. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Actually the law was 50 years until 1992. Yann (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- All Indian films are public domain in the United States before 1936 (60 years before URAA), the copyright duration is currently 60 years after publication, which has amended in 1992. Absolutiva 23:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Absolutiva, that last remark of yours makes no sense to me at all. Could you reword? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- All of these Indian films are public domain in the US after 1946, so is it true if necessary? Absolutiva 11:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
File:TimHorton.png
[edit]Hello, I'm wondering if this image is free of copyright? The photo is of a trading card, but the source--an online sales site for these cards--has a copyright notice. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: what is relevant here is if the card was originally printed in the US prior to 1978 without a copyright notice in print. If you look at the front and back of the card, you will see there is no copyright notice.
- A modern website's copyright notice would not be relevant here. See {{PD-US-no notice}} for further info and links. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Ontario, Canada - post mortem examination
[edit]I'd like to add photos from this post mortem examination, published by the Coroner of Ontario.
My read of w:Crown copyright for Ontario states:
The King's Printer for Ontario holds copyright in Ontario statutes, regulations and judicial decisions. The King's Printer permits any person to reproduce the text and images contained in the statutes, regulations and judicial decisions without seeking permission and without charge.
Just need to add "© King's Printer for Ontario, 20__."
Is this correct? Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- No. You left out the part that says that the materials "must be reproduced accurately". Reproduction is not the same thing as free use. Also, a medical certificate is not a statute, regulation or judicial decision. That leaves the question of what is the copyright status of a 1974 filled medical certificate. How did you obtain it? When, where and by whom was it published? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Found it on the net. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- A Canadian government document that was published over 50 years ago would be in the Public Domain, per {{PD-Canada-Crown}}. I see it’s from 1974, but was it considered published? PascalHD (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Second opinion needed on copyright status of March 14 Truth Social Post
[edit]Media has reported on the following Truth Social post by Trump. Does this image fall under fair copyright use under the following templates? Template:PD-text, Template:PD-textlogo, and Template:Trademarked? The image mainly features simple text and screenshots of newspaper headlines, corporate logos, and low-resolution grainy images of public figures. I am unsure and would appreciate a second opinion. BootsED (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- The image in that post is an extensively derivative work (non-free logos, magazine clippings, etc) and cannot be hosted on Commons. It may be accepted as fair use content on some projects, like the English Wikipedia (cf. w:en:WP:NFCC), but Commons does not, and cannot, host fair use content. Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the feedback and will solicit an opinion on the English Wikipedia. BootsED (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Press Kit Copyright
[edit]Looking at uploading contents from this David Bowie press kit from 1976, just seeking some clarification. There is a copyright notice on the back of the folder, however none of the individual publicity photos or documents have notices on them. Wouldn't each photo/work require their own copyright notice as they are individual and separable works on their own? The notice would only technically protect the folder itself? Would the principle of {{PD-US-dust-jacket}} apply in this case? Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)