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. |
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)
- @MS Sakib, I don't think you actually read through article 9(2). It states, "… to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases …". Here the word “reproduction” refers to the actual Freedom of Panaroma. The Berne Convention allows each country to enact Freedom of Panorama laws that comply with the Three-Step Test. However, it absolutely does not authorize a state to declare an entire mandatory class of subject matter (as explicitly defined in article 2(1)) to be totally uncopyrightable, as it would be a absolute denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the treaty.
- As you mentioned the US copyright law, yes it did not have protection for buildings until 1990. This is when the US joined the Berne Convention and were legally required to protect physical structures to remain compliant.
ছবি দেখেই দেখেই (নকশা ছাড়া) হুবুহু একটা ভবন নির্মাণ করে মূল নকশাগুলোর শতভাগ অনুকরণে ভবন নির্মাণ করে ফেলা সম্ভব নয়!
- Of course it's possible. If one engineer can build a building based on architect's design, why another engineer or architect won't be able to build another with the same exterior. This is the reason why copyright laws exist.
- Also, Bangladesh Copyright Office has no rights to explain copyright, it simply just registers them. Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention explicitly states that copyright “shall not be subject to any formality”. The structural limitations, digital menus, or administrative workflows of a national copyright office's website possess zero legislative authority, and the absence of a web form does not nullify a statutory right.
- Anyway, as long as Bangladesh is a signatory of the Berne Convention, there is no reason to carry on these arguments. Kaim (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- You seem to lack a proper understanding of international and domestic statutes, as well as Commons policy. An international treaty like the Berne Convention is a promise made between governments; however, for that promise to be binding for individual citizens and organizations, a country must "translate" those rules into its own domestic law. In Bangladesh, you do not go to court for "violating the Berne Convention"; you go for violating the Copyright Act, 2023.
As pointed out by খাত্তাব হাসান below. "It is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Commons community to act as an international tribunal to decide whether a nation's written law violates an international treaty or not." Per COM:Licensing, works must be free in both the United States and the source country of the work. As Prosfilaes noted below, we can use the Berne Convention for context, but it is not directly binding. To avoid these issues, the Commons community assumes treaty compliance by the sovereign state. I will say this again: "The Berne Convention is not legally binding in Bangladesh or on Wikimedia Commons."
Until a legal verdict is given by Bangladeshi courts, we must assume treaty compliance. Whether the Copyright Act, 2023 is compliant with the Berne Convention is a separate topic entirely. The convention is used only for context on Commons and is not legally binding in Bangladesh or the USA. Since Commons is not an international tribunal, debating compliance is a waste of time and energy. I advise you not to waste your time or the community's time in this regard.
Regarding compliance with Commons policy under our current logic, User:MS Sakib has already pointed out several precedents and discussions. If you disagree with those, please address every specific point of disagreement rather than cherry-picking minor details to support your agenda. Address the strongest points first. Furthermore, Commons already supports this exact situation via {{PD-US-architecture}}; if you believe these should be restricted, please start a separate thread to have those files deleted. If they are successfully deleted, then rejoin this thread regarding that point of disagreement.
As for the Copyright Office: while it is true the office does not have the authority to interpret the law, it is the body that implements it. We can argue for days about the text of the law, but the Copyright Office’s implementation serves as the practical example of what the law mandates. By looking at their requirements for registration, you can deduce that the law does not mandate the registration of physical structures as copyrightable works.
Your argument against this proposal seems to rely on cherry-picking unnecessary fine details while ignoring the "elephants in the room." Please present your arguments against the core pillars of the proposal, not the fine print. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 11:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)- @Prosfilaes, JWilz12345, can you help clarify whether Bangladesh or Commons policy is obligated to comply with the Berne Convention or not? Thanks. Kaim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support চমৎকার ও নিখুঁত আইনি বিশ্লেষণের জন্য ধন্যবাদ। প্রস্তাবিত এই ব্যাখ্যার সাথে আমি সম্পূর্ণ একমত। কপিরাইট আইন ২০২৩-এর ১৪নং ধারায় কপিরাইটযোগ্য কর্মের তালিকায় ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম'-কে রাখা হয়নি এবং ২নং ধারায় এর সংজ্ঞায়ন অত্যন্ত স্পষ্ট। প্রস্তাবনাটিতে খুব সুন্দরভাবে দেখানো হয়েছে যে, আইন অনুযায়ী ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম' এবং 'স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম' সম্পূর্ণ আলাদা বিষয়। যেহেতু বাংলা পাঠই এ আইনের একমাত্র আইনি বৈধ সংস্করণ, তাই অনুবাদের অভাবে অনুমানের ভিত্তিতে দুটি সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন শব্দকে এক করে ফেলার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। এছাড়া, সাধারণ প্রকৌশলগত ঢালাই বা নির্মাণ কাঠামোও কোনোভাবেই আইনের সংজ্ঞায় "ভাস্কর্য" নয়। যেহেতু ভৌত দালান আইনের সংজ্ঞায় সরাসরি কপিরাইটযোগ্য "কর্ম"-এর অন্তর্ভুক্ত নয়, তাই বাংলাদেশের উন্মুক্ত স্থানে অবস্থিত সাধারণ স্থাপনার ছবি প্রকাশ করা কোনোভাবেই কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘনের আওতায় পড়ে না এবং কমন্সে এগুলো আপলোড করা সম্পূর্ণ বৈধ। বিষয়টি কমন্সের বৈশ্বিক নীতিমালার সাথেও পুরোপুরি সামঞ্জস্যপূর্ণ হওয়ায় আমি এই প্রস্তাবনার পক্ষে পূর্ণ সমর্থন জানাচ্ছি।
[English Translation]: Thanks for the excellent and precise legal analysis. I completely agree with this proposed interpretation. Physical 'architectural works' are not included in the list of copyrightable works under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 2023, and the definition in Section 2 is exceptionally clear. The proposal beautifully demonstrates that, according to the law, physical 'architectural works' and 'architectural artistic works' are two entirely distinct concepts. Since the Bengali text is the sole legally authoritative version, there is no room to conflate these two distinct legal terms based on assumptions or the lack of an official English translation. Furthermore, ordinary structural construction or engineering casting cannot be categorized under the legal definition of a "sculpture". Since physical buildings do not fall under the direct legal definition of a copyrightable "work", publishing photographs of ordinary structures located in public spaces in Bangladesh does not constitute copyright infringement in any way, making it completely legal to upload them to Commons. As this conclusion is also fully consistent with the global policies of Wikimedia Commons, I express my full support for this proposal. ≈ MS Sakib 📩 ·📝 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Thank you for the thorough analysis and explanation. I strongly Support this proposal. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I acknowledge all the efforts Tausheef Hasan has put into his thorough analysis. However, following all the discussions here and previously, I do not believe this community can or should allow images based on the above explanation, given that we can already see how vague this issue is. I agree with Meghmollar that we should wait for a court ruling or any other definitive, reliable interpretation. Copyright is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis. Kaim (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Section 300 of the Penal Code states that murder is illegal. By your logic:
We should wait for a court ruling or another definitive, reliable interpretation to determine what “murder” is. Murder is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis.
- Therefore, your objection does not meaningfully address the issue. Please specify what exactly you disagree with. The law is clear on this point.
Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state “no copyright exists” for each.
- There is little room for ambiguity here. The text already covers all aspects relevant to architecture under Bangladeshi law, which is why the explanation is necessarily detailed. If you have read the full text, it should not appear vague. Please state clearly which part you disagree with and explain why you believe it is ambiguous. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan, I don’t see any way the Penal Code of murder is relevant in this discussion. We want to have a constructive discussion and hope to obtain a fruitful outcome from this. Bringing unnecessary arguments makes this discussion pointless.
- Your reasoning mostly consists of linguistic interpretation of words. It can create many problems and vagueness in the matter. For example, you claimed that architectural works (স্থাপত্য কর্ম) are not copyrightable by law, and it is different from architectural artistic work (স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম). But section 14 (6) states:
(৬) নিম্নবর্ণিত ক্ষেত্রে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকিবে না, যথা:- … (গ) কোনো স্থাপত্য কর্মের ক্ষেত্রে, যদি কর্মটি বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত না হয়।
(Copyright shall not subsist in the following cases, namely: … In the case of any architectural work, if the work is not located in Bangladesh.)
- 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)
- Support I support the proposed interpretation regarding the situation in Bangladesh after the enactment of the Copyright Act, 2023 (Bangladesh).
- A careful reading of the law suggests that ordinary architectural structures are excluded among the categories of protected artistic works. While architectural drawings, models, and certain sculptural works may be protected, the law does not explicitly extend copyright protection to the physical buildings themselves. If that interpretation is correct, photographs of buildings located in public places should not constitute copyright infringement.
- In practice, treating Bangladesh as a strict “no Freedom of Panorama” jurisdiction may therefore be overly restrictive. Bangladesh has a large amount of culturally and historically significant architecture documented by contributors on Wikimedia Commons, and a blanket prohibition on photographs of buildings could unnecessarily limit the documentation of the country’s built heritage.
- At the same time, the distinction highlighted in the proposal allowing photographs of buildings and infrastructure while remaining cautious about sculptures created through carving or mould-casting appears to be a reasonable and legally cautious approach based on the wording of the law.
- Given the current ambiguity in the legislation, adopting this interpretation would allow Commons to remain consistent with the law while avoiding unnecessarily restrictive deletions of architectural photographs from Bangladesh.--ROCKY (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
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)
- Strong support. The explanation put down by Tausheef looks valid to me. It appears that under the laws of Bangladesh, architectural works (physical buildings) do not have any copyright protection. Additionally, apart from carved or molded works, no other structures are considered sculptures. It also seems to me that all the arguments against the proposal have already been refuted. So, the above proposal is entirely reasonable. T@hmid (T@lk) 17:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support
As far as I know physical building and plan or designs of a building are different. So there should be clear distinction between them if the law is enforced. If the law is for both, the family will eventually fade that should be clearly stated in the law(that it doesn't state). As Physical building is not actually a direct copy of the design; Therefore, the proposal should be thoroughly discussed with the entire community and then make the decision.Hasnat Abdullah (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- This last remark makes no sense to me at all. The last phrase, in particular [Now removed, but was "the family will eventually fade"], looks like an over-literal translation of an expression from some other language. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am really sorry for the previous mistaken editing. Somehow my writing was changed with previously copied sentence in the clipboard. I am really sorry again. I hope this doesn't disrupt the main point.-Hasnat Abdullah (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- From what I understand, you are arguing that:
- Physical buildings and architectural designs are fundamentally different and should be clearly distinguished in law.
- Any policy should explicitly state whether it applies to designs, buildings, or both.
- A building is not a direct copy of its design but an implementation. So treating them the same may be questionable. (I may be misunderstanding your point here, you can clarify if you want)
- Therefore, the issue should not be decided unilaterally but be discussed thoroughly with the community before any decision is made.
- If I have misunderstood, please correct me.
- I have also edited your comment to include your previously removed remark using a strike-through tag, in line with Commons guidelines. Also as a multilingual project, you want leave your comment in Bangla if you want. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 06:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Moving toward a close
[edit]At COM:AN#Closing_Request:_COM:VPC#FoP_in_Bangladesh, Tausheef Hassan has requested closure of this discussion. I notice he did not link that here, so now I did.
I am inclined to close this discussion in line with his remarks there, which assert that buildings as such cannot be copyrighted in Bangladesh. I cannot read Bengali, so there is quite a bit in the discussion above that I don't follow. If anyone believes that his summary of the state of this discussion is inaccurate, please say so there within the next 12 hours or so. Barring strong, coherent objection, I will close this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, 12 hours have passed without any objection. ≈ MS Sakib 📩 ·📝 08:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel@MS Sakib I propose extending the deadline by 30 more days (or so). I am still not convinced that Bangladeshi legislature would remove copyright protection on physical works of architecture (buildings), even if it means Bangladesh would breach Berne Convention which mandates protection of finished physical buildings as works of architecture. The Berne Convention expects all treaty members to protect buildings, too. The only countries that do not protect buildings are Marshall Islands and Micronesia, but these two countries are not Berne Convention members.
- For example, a French architect designing a mansion in Dhaka, and that mansion was completed in 2025. Then suddenly, in December 2026 (hypothetical), a Bangladeshi citizen constructs his house in a town outside Khulna, using the same exact design as that of the mansion. His house becomes complete in late 2027. Two years later, the French architect noticed this Khulna mansion by a Bangladeshi citizen, and he wants to claim economic rights damage.
- Assuming Tausheef's argument holds, the French architect-designed work remains unprotected because it is not a work of sculpture or a work of architectural plans and designs. I would bet the French architect can only claim compensation from the designer of the Bangladeshi house who copied plans/blueprints. But he cannot claim damage from the owner of the Khulna mansion who reproduced the French architect-designed building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
I did some digging to this matter. Bangladesh did not "remove" copyright of physical structure in 2023. You can look at previous two Bangladeshi copyright laws - The Copyright Act, 2000 and The Copyright Ordinance, 1962. In the 2000's law Section 15 is "Works in which copyright subsists" and Section 2 is definitions. My argument for the current 2023 law holds true for these sections also.However 1962's law (a continuation of Pakistani law) protected "architectural work of art" defined in 2(b) as "any building having an artistic character or design or any model of such building;" The 2000's law removed this sub-section.
The Copyright Act, 2000 was enacted on July 18, 2000, following an exchange-of-views program with WIPO experts in June 2000, led by Justice Naimuddin Ahmed and Research Officer Mr. Shawkot Ali Chowdhury.- WIPO experts were unable to make any substantive comments on the Copyright Act 2000 during follow-up October 2003 discussions because the law was written entirely in Bengali, and they could not review it without an authenticated English translation. This resulted in publication of authenticated English text in 2005. ref
- I don't know if a review was done after publishing the authenticated English texts.
Another correction I wanna make is that, the copyright office has legal authority to interpret the law. (Sections 9(3), 12(5), 99 of the Act of 2000; 12(5), 120 of the Act of 2023; 46(5), 78 of the Act of 1962; Section 34 of the Copyright Rules-2006)- by these sections, also any document with stamp of the copyright office and authenticated signature of the copyright register is a legal document. And copyright office is quasi-judicial authority (non-judicial body with the authority to interpret the law). The inability to register a physical building in copyright office further proves my point.
The fact is international treaties are not directly enforced in a nation, only it's domestic law is. When in doubt, we have to assume treaty compliance. If my argument holds correct, then we have to assume that It is treaty compliant. I have been going through Bangladeshi copyright cases. Only enforcement of copyright I see is for books only.
For your hypothetical situation, I have thought of that. My explanation as stated above is that, To make a one to one replica, you need a architectural plan to do so. There is no disagreement that structures that do no pass threshold of originality, does not have copyright under any Bangladeshi copyright act. But for structures that do pass ToO, It can be reasonably assume that you have to make or follow a architectural plan and that breaks the copyright. But photographs of that said work only captures 2D version and severely lacks 3D info and scale and De minimis principle could be applied here for photographs. I have also argued that photographs of architectural work can be assumed to be more distict. By my argument, we are not comparing a physical structure to it's photograph, We are comparing a photograph of a building to the Architectural plan of that building. I don't think photograph of a building and architectural plan of a building clash in terms of copyright and exist as a different concept. These two are too further apart.
This can be assumed as a type of protection, also Berne also allows for some exemptions. This can also be assumed as compliance.
The argument presented in this comment are only for the sack of assuming treaty compliance. The core arguments of photographs of physical structures is located in the main proposal.Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 14:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)- @Tausheef Hassan unfortunately, that is not how both Berne treaty and the Berne-compliant copyright laws work in terms of reproduction. Generally, photographs of works are reproductions, too, and this is proven by past court decisions in Berne members that do not permit any freedom, notably France (1990s court decisions ruling postcards of w:en:Grande Arche and w:en:La Geode as infringements of architectural copyrights). Even Germany which was the first country to introduce FoP (1870s) had the concept of reproductions in dealing with images (photos and paintings) of buildings and statues. They decided to exempt "mechanical reproductions", and this exemption became panoramafreiheit or Freedom of Panorama.
- Remember, the public place exemption or Freedom of Panorama is just an optional clause as it isn't mandated by Berne Convention. Default rule is that the copyright holders (like the architects) hold all exclusive rights to reproductions.
- Do note that Bangladesh is a member of the treaty, too, and removing physical buildings from copyright protection constitutes a breach of the treaty's provisions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
- @Jmabel, @JWilz12345; This discussion is subject to meatpuppetry. The support votes are mere results of a tag-team method in order to gain a false consensus. I do not believe most of the support voters have much idea about the proposal itself or copyright laws in general. In fact, some of the comments (1, 2, 3) are clearly written by AI, while others are just mere repetitons of the proposal.
- I also find it pathetic the way certain users are deciding to ignore concrete aspects and opting for personal attacks instead. This discussion should not yield any major change on Commons policy. Kaim (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
I would say from the above that it is is not at all clear that there is a meaningful consensus here. A few remarks, though, that might help focus the discussion:
- The Berne Convention is certainly not directly applicable. We are concerned with the laws of the country in question (Bangladesh). Whether they have signed a treaty is not relevant until they create the enabling legislation.
- The only basis on which I could see considering this is precautionary: we would definitely want a distinct template for files uploaded on this basis, because if (and do I mean if) they do not now have such a law, it seems more than moderately possible that they might pass one in the future, and if they do it might be retroactive.
- "Freedom of panorama" as such is almost certainly beside the point. That would require positive legislation to that effect, and no one has asserted that there is such legislation.
- It seems to me that the issue is that either there is or isn't at least one of the following: (1) a law explicitly stating that buildings (or buildings of sufficient complexity) can be copyrighted in Bangladesh. (2) A judicial or quasi-judicial decision to that same effect. If no one can cite either of those—and I for one cannot rapidly work out whether that is the case, especially because I cannot read Bengali—then I don't see a basis to say that building as such can currently be copyrighted in Bangladesh.
- If (and do I mean if) all that can be copyrighted are the drawings and plans on which a building is based, and the building itself cannot be copyrighted, I'd say it is quite a stretch to say that a photograph of the building infringes the copyright of the drawings and plans, especially if no court in that country has ever ruled that it does so.
Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Continued discussion
[edit]Please continue here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Under Copyright Act, 2023 these works are protected (section 14 and 2)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
My core argument is that "architectural work" is absent from this list. It is recognized neither in the broad category definition of "work" nor in the definition of "Bangladeshi work," despite "architectural design" being recognished in both of them. Therefore, "other work" should not be interpreted to include it. Furthermore, while "architectural work" is defined within the Act, it was notably excluded from the list of protected works. As the 2005 amendment demonstrate, protecting new categories of work requires explicit legislative updates; the Act does not simply protect everything by default and cannot list all the works that are not protected. I believe there is strong support from the community for this interpretation.
Now User:JWilz12345's concern is this argument is that the argument directly contradicts Berne convention. His argument is that Berne convention does not support this type of exemption. User:MS Sakib argues that Berne convention does support this type of exemption.
As noted in my previous comment, WIPO has not reviewed the laws from 2000 or 2023. (While they could have reviewed the 2000 Act between 2005 and 2023, I have found no documentation of such a review). Their 2003 review did not include the Copyright Act of 2000; a future review may eventually lead to legislative changes.
While Bangladesh may extend copyright protection to architectural works in the future, User:খাত্তাব হাসান and I maintain that the current law permits these photographs. We should not block content based on the "precaution" that a future law might block them. This change could or could not be retroactive.
My proposal: I suggest we support photographs of architectural work of Bangladesh and place them in a specific category and add a big warning template regarding potential legislative changes. I do not believe this conflicts with COM:L.- @Jmabel and Prosfilaes:
- Do you believe that community consensus is that my argument is correct?
- Does this suggestion violate Commons policy?
- Is this feasible to implement? In my view, this violates neither Commons policy nor current Bangladeshi law.
Alternatively, we could block these images as a precaution, but I view that as self-censorship rather than genuine precaution. The consensus so far seems to favor keeping the images rather than being overly cautious. @JWilz12345:- Can you list your specific concerns?
- Do you agree that the current law lacks explicit protection for architectural works?
- Do you think images should be blocked due to the berne contradiction?
- What mitigations or alternative steps would you suggest?
I am also working to establish advocacy channels between Wikimedia Bangladesh (WMBD) and the Copyright Office. In 2025, WMBD requested advocacy funding for Freedom of Panorama (FoP), but the Global Advocacy team recommended focusing on other areas first due to WMBD's lack of prior advocacy experience. (ref).
My idea is to obtain a signed document or official statement from the Copyright Office, though they are not obliged to provide one. If they decline, my approach is to file a lawsuit in copyright office (not in acout) regarding this matter. The Commons community could also recommend that WMBD pursue this, allowing them to demonstrate a clear "community need" for any future efforts. I have also prepared to have a preliminary meeting with copyright office, but as we are all volunteers, scheduling conflicts have made it difficult to coordinate a group visit.
Ultimately, any local solution is likely temporary as the Berne Convention conflict remains. Only dedicated advocacy work can fix this permanently. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 15:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)- @Tausheef Hassan let's break it down to the very first rationale that you are proposing. You said that buildings (as physical works, not the plans/blueprints/designs) were no longer protected under the 2023 law, because these are not artistic works, right?
- If your argument is true and assuming the Bangladeshi legislature removed protection from physical buildings through this 2023 law, then Bangladesh has violated Berne Convention in the first place. Berne Convention requires protection on physical architecture, not just mere plans/drawings/blueprints/models. I'll quote here this online article from Excelon IP:
Until the “Berne Convention” of 1908 was amended, architectural works were not provided legal protection or any kind of copyright protection, and it was after this amendment placed in the purview of “literary and artistic” works and got copyright protection at the international level. According to Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention, countries are required to protect works of “architecture,” “three-dimensional works related to architecture,” and “any other works of architecture.” A “work of architecture” is defined under the Berne Convention only as one that is “integrated in a building or other structure,” but the convention does not specify what constitutes a “work of architecture.” The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) adopts expressly the Berne Convention’s requirement for architectural copyright protection without specifying further what defines an architectural work. The Convention of 1886 does not cover architectural works, with the exception of Article 4, which specifies “plans, drawings, and artistic works connected to architecture.”
- However, I really doubt about your interpretation based on dictionary and meaning of words. I am certain that the Bangladeshi legislature is not foolish enough to deprive the architects their copyrights on physical buildings when they proposed the 2023 law. Such an action breaches the said treaty on protection of artistic and literary works.
- What we need is a real-life case law (from Bangladeshi courts) concerning copyright on architecture (as physical buildings), as well as the legality of commercial exploitations of images of physical buildings whose architects are still alive or not yet dead for more than 60 years. Case law builds stronger arguments than mere interpretations on the meanings of words.
- (Also to address @Jmabel: 's comment above). Berne Convention matters here, since all countries that are members of Berne Convention are obliged to protect buildings at all costs. The only countries that still do not protect architecture are all non-members of this treaty on protection of artistic works.
- By the way, I'll also include Somalia as among the countries that still do not protect architecture (Somalia is also not a Berne member). So, the only three countries that still do not protect buildings are:
- Marshall Islands (they have no copyright law and not a Berne member),
- Micronesia (their copyright law does not protect buildings, not a Berne member), and
- Somalia (their copyright law still requires authors or designers to register their works, no default protection from creation, not a Berne member).
- My suggestion: Never change Bangladeshi status as a no-FoP country (red on FoP maps). This should remain true until either one of these two situations occurs:
- a) revision of copyright law to reinstate the FoP rule, with no restrictions on commercial exploitations; or
- b) a new case law exists, either with a ruling that is beneficial for Wikimedia (architects are deprived of their copyrights on physical buildings, or commercial use of photos of their buildings is "fair use") or not (copyright law also grants protection to physical buildings, or commercial use of photos exceeds "fair use" threshold and is an infringement on architectural copyright).
- _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
As previously noted, post-independence Bangladeshi law has never protected physical buildings. While they were protected under Pakistani law (which remained in force in Bangladesh), my argument holds true for all subsequent Bangladeshi legislations. WIPO was unable to review the 2000 Act—the law that actually removed protection—due to the lack of an available translation. Had a review occurred, WIPO likely would have identified this discrepancy.- Yes, I am using dictionary, but the definitions are legally binding and established by the statute itself. The simple reality is that while physical buildings are defined in the law, it is notably absent from the list of protected "works" and does not qualify as a "work" within the legal context.
- I have seen numerous examples on Commons using the logic: "The US Copyright Office does not register this work." This is equally true for Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Copyright Office does not register copyrights for physical buildings; this is a practical, real-world example of the law in practice.
- Furthermore, it is a bold of you to assume competence from the then Bangladeshi legislators. They can never wash the blood off their hands.
- Architects create designs, and those designs are protected in Bangladesh, as I’ve stated. Any physical reproduction of a building that meets the Threshold of Originality would be a derivative of that protected design. So, while you cannot build a 1-to-1 replica—meaning architects' rights are protected—a drawing or photograph of a building is distinct enough to fall outside that protection. This essentially creates a situation mirroring Freedom of Panorama (FoP).
- As far as I am aware, Commons does not require compliance with the Berne Convention itself. Conventions are promises made by governments; we, as citizens, are bound by domestic law, not the treaties themselves. The government is responsible for aligning its legislation with its international promises. If the Bangladeshi government has breached a treaty, that should not be a concern for Commons, as Commons only requires compliance with Bangladeshi and US law. Whether the laws align with those treaties should not be determined by us.
- How do you address the fact that the Copyright Office registers architectural plans but refuses to register physical buildings? This is fully consistent with my explanation.
- Finally, what is the absolute minimum statement required from the Copyright Office? I will try to obtain one this month. Government employees here are notoriously slow, so I am looking for the simplest statement to get hold of. A signed explanation from them carries legal weight under Bangladeshi law.Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 08:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan in this case, I'd rather trust the court more than the Bangladeshi copyright office.
- A simple check on wikisource:en:File:Copyright Act, 2000 (Bangladesh) official English translation.pdf invalidates your claim that "post-independence Bangladeshi law has never protected physical buildings". Let's break the repealed 2000 law down:
- Section 2(36) defines "artistic work" as "(a) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality, b) a work of architecture; and (c) any other work of artistic craftsmanship."
- In the same section, "(47) “work of architecture” means any building or structure having an artistic character or design, or any model for such building or structure."
-
- Under Section 15(2), " Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section (1) except a work to which the provisions of section 68 or section 69 apply, unless...(c) in the case of a work of architecture, the work is located in Bangladesh." Here, Sections 68 and 69 are irrelevant as they concern works made by international organizations and works made by foreigners ("foreign works"). It is clear here that buildings and structures which have creative designs are protected.
- Under Section 15(5), "In the case of work of architecture, copyright shall subsist only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to the processes or methods of construction." It is not disputed that buildings under construction are unprotected, but once the building is completed and shows the artistry of the designer or architect (a building having an artistic design), it becomes protected.
-
- Registration is optional. While buildings have been denied registration (based on your claim), the law gives default protection: "Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (except a photograph) published within the lifetime of the author until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies." From Section 24. It's not "copyright shall subsist...until sixty years after the date of registration of the work."
- And finally, since the law includes architecture as protected works, the law gave the public the legal privilege to freely exploit them visually (Section 72(19)). That privilege was removed in the 2023 law: "the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of architecture or the display of a work [of] architecture."
- While Section 3 states that the construction of a building doesn't constitute a "publication" of it, if the building is communicated through the public (like through photos or videos), it then becomes "published." Anyway, "publication" means "making a work available to the public by issuing of copies or by communicating the work to the public." _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's strange. I was using the Bengali version. where 2(36)(b) is "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" and 2(47) is স্থাপত্য কর্ম inside quotation mark. But they are both translated as "work of architecture" The first one should have been "architectural artistic work" and the 2nd one should have been "architectural work"/"work of architecture". I didn't saw architectural work in the definition of Artistic work and assumed it did not include it.
- However the 2023 law swapped out "work of architecture" in the category of artistic work with "a model or design of an architectural or constructional artistic work possessing artistic quality" in section 2(40). For the current law, my argument still stand and admit that the 2023 law removed protection of this (according to me). As it is an older law, I did not study the law thoroughly enough. I usually double check my comments but did not do so for this. I admit my mistake and apologize and will be careful in future. I have also striked out sections of my previous comments.
- Also Bangladeshi Copyright Office is a civil court itself and regularly arrange hearings. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 15:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
- @Jmabel, I’ll be brief to avoid more circular debate.
- I am currently in Pakistan, where Wikimedia Commons is restricted. Yesterday Tausheef mentioned me above, so I got email notifications, which prompted me to read through this entire lengthy thread all over again.
- Frankly speaking, dragging this discussion out any further seems completely illogical. The exact same arguments are just repeating, and replying to them individually has become a waste of time. I am addressing you directly to highlight a couple of practical points as we move toward a close:
- First, there is a solid consensus among the Bengali-speaking community members who have actually read and analyzed the legally binding original text. It is not our role on Commons to judge whether a country's legislature acted "foolishly" or not; our job is simply to follow the enacted law exactly as it stands.
- Second, regarding the continuous demand for a court case: it is absolutely not the responsibility of Wikimedia Commons or the local community to initiate legal proceedings just to prove that something is not written in the law. If anyone doubts the clear statutory text and strongly believes there is some hidden protection for physical buildings, the burden of proof is on them to take it to court and prove it.
- Until such a ruling exists, we should simply rely on the explicit written text of the 2023 Act, just as you rightly noted earlier. Thank you for your patience and time on this issue. খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345, @Jmabel, I completely agree with Khattab's point. The discussion is being unnecessarily dragged out. The bottom line is that, rather than judging whether the law itself is right or wrong in the "Commons tribunal"(!), we should simply abide by the explicit written text of the 2023 Act. It is not our burden to go to court to prove something that is not in the law; instead, the burden of proof rests entirely on those claiming otherwise ≈ MS Sakib 📩 ·📝 23:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion has gone on for so long that I haven’t read everything. However, I’d like to share one point: I visited the Bangladesh Copyright Office to discuss a possible legal change. The officer explained that, under current law, copying the entire structural design is prohibited, but photography is allowed. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Yahya is commercial exploitation of photos of buildings allowed? Freedom to photograph buildings alone is not enough. What we need is the freedom to commercially exploit images even without permissions from the architects. The essence of licenses like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is the freedom to include images in media considered as lucrative among the authors, like post cards, commercial vlogs by TikTokers or YouTubers, websites which generate profit through advertising, and advertising itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- What they essentially said was that taking a photograph is allowed and will not constitute an infringement. When I brought this topic up, she herself said that only architectural plan is copyrightable, not the building and you are free to take photos and if we are facing copyright strikes/take down request that is not allowed under current law. She said this before I even brought up my arguments. We did not raise the commercial concern but I believe this argument essentially covers that. We have a follow-up meeting planned for possible policy change and more open knowledge advocacy. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 14:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan there is a distinction between taking photos of buildings for personal or noncommercial use and taking photos of the same buildings for commercial or lucrative use. Wikimedia Commons requires the latter to be true. The copyright laws of at least 86 countries (from my metawiki crib note) contain explicit provisions on free use of images of buildings with no restrictions on commercial exploitations. Good examples are the Indian one, the Singaporean one, and the Taiwanese one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The situation of the law is that "We are free to take pictures because the building is not copyrightable". Current Bangladeshi law does not have a FoP clause. But the law does not directly protect the building; only the architectural plan of the building.
Question Does this situation require commercial permission? - As the underlying work is PD; I personally don't think it does. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 15:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan it's best if Wikimedia Commons can obtain a copy of official statement from the copyright office. The statement saying that under the current law, there is no protection to any physical work of architecture and anyone can freely exploit all Bangladeshi buildings (whether artistic or not), without permission from their architects. This would make {{PD-Bangladesh-architecture}} a valid tag here. Note that it is not an FoP exception per se, but a PD exception. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I understand. We will try to get a written copy. Our previous meeting was short due to World Intellectual Property Day celebrations. Even without a written statement, I think there are reasonable grounds to close the discussion and move forward to implementation. Regardless of that, we will try our best to have a written copy. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan documentation is needed. It serves as a proof of PD claim. It is also a good defense against claims by architects of buildings physically located in Bangladesh. Do not expect that it would be "seamless" for WikiCommons to host such images. There is a potential for image rights claims, as long as the number 1 opponent of Wikimedians' Freedom of Panorama movement has major influence within Europe and possibly beyond. Remember that France-based ADAGP, perhaps one of the principal opponents of Wikipedia, has a network of global partners. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- We'll see what we can do. We are currently only persuing freedom to take pictures of architectural buildings only and full freedom of panorama as a long term goal. Getting documents in one form or another is in our top priority but getting such document is a looooong burocratic process and takes wayyy too much effort. I am pretty sure I can get documents. Using some legal instruments, they are required to provide such documents. It can either take a year or couple of weeks. I don't want to put this much effort for a year unless I am absolutely required to do so. I am but a volunteer. But I also understand the concerns for written proofs. My point of view is that my explanation has solid legal ground and copyright office pretty much said the exact same thing. I don't want to put this much time and effort with them to get the exact same wordings unless I am absolutely required. We are trying our best here and persuing to get written documents. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 06:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan documentation is needed. It serves as a proof of PD claim. It is also a good defense against claims by architects of buildings physically located in Bangladesh. Do not expect that it would be "seamless" for WikiCommons to host such images. There is a potential for image rights claims, as long as the number 1 opponent of Wikimedians' Freedom of Panorama movement has major influence within Europe and possibly beyond. Remember that France-based ADAGP, perhaps one of the principal opponents of Wikipedia, has a network of global partners. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I understand. We will try to get a written copy. Our previous meeting was short due to World Intellectual Property Day celebrations. Even without a written statement, I think there are reasonable grounds to close the discussion and move forward to implementation. Regardless of that, we will try our best to have a written copy. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan it's best if Wikimedia Commons can obtain a copy of official statement from the copyright office. The statement saying that under the current law, there is no protection to any physical work of architecture and anyone can freely exploit all Bangladeshi buildings (whether artistic or not), without permission from their architects. This would make {{PD-Bangladesh-architecture}} a valid tag here. Note that it is not an FoP exception per se, but a PD exception. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The situation of the law is that "We are free to take pictures because the building is not copyrightable". Current Bangladeshi law does not have a FoP clause. But the law does not directly protect the building; only the architectural plan of the building.
- @Tausheef Hassan there is a distinction between taking photos of buildings for personal or noncommercial use and taking photos of the same buildings for commercial or lucrative use. Wikimedia Commons requires the latter to be true. The copyright laws of at least 86 countries (from my metawiki crib note) contain explicit provisions on free use of images of buildings with no restrictions on commercial exploitations. Good examples are the Indian one, the Singaporean one, and the Taiwanese one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- What they essentially said was that taking a photograph is allowed and will not constitute an infringement. When I brought this topic up, she herself said that only architectural plan is copyrightable, not the building and you are free to take photos and if we are facing copyright strikes/take down request that is not allowed under current law. She said this before I even brought up my arguments. We did not raise the commercial concern but I believe this argument essentially covers that. We have a follow-up meeting planned for possible policy change and more open knowledge advocacy. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 14:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Yahya is commercial exploitation of photos of buildings allowed? Freedom to photograph buildings alone is not enough. What we need is the freedom to commercially exploit images even without permissions from the architects. The essence of licenses like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is the freedom to include images in media considered as lucrative among the authors, like post cards, commercial vlogs by TikTokers or YouTubers, websites which generate profit through advertising, and advertising itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo PaRoLi V1.00.svg
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo PaRoLi V1.00.svg Behaltensentscheidung mit dem Argument "in use", aber ohne der Urheberrechtsfrage nachzugehen. GerritR (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @GerritR: Your DR nomination was almost entirely about scope and whether the coat of arms was valid. For those issues, INUSE is decisive.
- A blazon (the statement that describes the design of a coat of arms) is normally not copyrightable; only the emblazon (the actual visual representation) is. Are you saying the emblazon here was a copyright violation? If so, can you show the original from which it was taken?
- Also Pinging @Jameslwoodward who did the closure and Pinging @FritschOr who cross-wiki uploaded this from de-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I assumed (in germann language) that iẗ's not an official COA, but a copyrightable logo in the shape of a coat of arms. So the rules for coats of arms don't work. An my DR was about the copyright issue, too. GerritR (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- If this COA isn't official, who is it's creator? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- If the blazon is unofficial and copyrighted, the issue for the file is the same: a picture does not violate the copyright of a verbal description. The question is whether this infringes the copyright of some image somewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Due to the pcp we don't need to know the creator of the artwork. Copyvio is copyvio. And please have o look at the name of the file (Logo...). I think it's a hint that my assumption (Logo, not coat of arms) ist correct. GerritR (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig, bitte eine Meinung zu der Sache, dankeǃ GerritR (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is apparently not an official coat of arms (and never was), so it is not in the public domain for that reason. The file is claimed to be the uploader's own work, which might or might not be the case. If not, it would be a copyvio IMO. So it boils down to the question if we believe this is the uploader's own work or not. I found the file on the web, but (so far at least) not before it was uploaded here in 2019 (along with another file, File:Logo Pattscheid.svg). --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Sache jetzt auch in Wikidata angemeldet, die Datei ist natürlich in einer Infobox gelandet, wo sie eigentlich nicht hingehört. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AQ2058341#Das_%22Wappen%22_ist_ein_inoffizielles_Logo GerritR (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noch etwasː Die Grafik ist eine stark vereinfachte Version des (ehemaligen) Stadtwappens von Bergisch-Neukirchen, mittlerweile eingemeindet. Die Frage stellt sich nun auch, ob die Logos in ihrer weiß-blauen und vereinfachenden Interpretation einer gemeinfreien Vorlage Schöpfungshöhe haben? Liegt die Schöpfungshöhe möglicherweise genau darin? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergisch_Neukirchen GerritR (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ich habe den Löschantrag reaktiviert. GerritR (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noch etwasː Die Grafik ist eine stark vereinfachte Version des (ehemaligen) Stadtwappens von Bergisch-Neukirchen, mittlerweile eingemeindet. Die Frage stellt sich nun auch, ob die Logos in ihrer weiß-blauen und vereinfachenden Interpretation einer gemeinfreien Vorlage Schöpfungshöhe haben? Liegt die Schöpfungshöhe möglicherweise genau darin? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergisch_Neukirchen GerritR (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Sache jetzt auch in Wikidata angemeldet, die Datei ist natürlich in einer Infobox gelandet, wo sie eigentlich nicht hingehört. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AQ2058341#Das_%22Wappen%22_ist_ein_inoffizielles_Logo GerritR (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is apparently not an official coat of arms (and never was), so it is not in the public domain for that reason. The file is claimed to be the uploader's own work, which might or might not be the case. If not, it would be a copyvio IMO. So it boils down to the question if we believe this is the uploader's own work or not. I found the file on the web, but (so far at least) not before it was uploaded here in 2019 (along with another file, File:Logo Pattscheid.svg). --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig, bitte eine Meinung zu der Sache, dankeǃ GerritR (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Due to the pcp we don't need to know the creator of the artwork. Copyvio is copyvio. And please have o look at the name of the file (Logo...). I think it's a hint that my assumption (Logo, not coat of arms) ist correct. GerritR (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I assumed (in germann language) that iẗ's not an official COA, but a copyrightable logo in the shape of a coat of arms. So the rules for coats of arms don't work. An my DR was about the copyright issue, too. GerritR (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg
[edit]I'm not sure the licensing of File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg is correct but would like some other opinions. The source provided for the file doesn't indicate (at least anywhere that I can see) that even the book (let alone its cover) has been released under the type of license used by the uploader; there is, in fact, a visible copyright "© 2013" symbol right next to the cover image on said site. It's possible that the original work itself is within the public domain (it looks kind of old), but I'm not sure how to assess that. Can Commons keep this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is a book cover, a derivative work of the original illustration. It clearly requires the copyright of that cover to be available to us, which I'm not convinced that it is (or even that it's useful to us).
- I cannot justify the licence tag claimed on the upload by @Peanutpress101: .
- This would be simple fair use for an article on the book, not the topic. But we don't have such an article, and that's a Wikipedia issue, not Commons.
- There is an argument often made (not locally though) as to book covers being treated like their titles and assumed to not be as fully protected as their content. Again, not something I think Commons can use.
- The source image would be useful to us, and to that WP article, and obviously OOC, if we can source it. That's the real solution here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- The illustration is apparently from 1671, and can be found here, so it is PD. Nothing else on that book cover is eligible for copyright (all below TOO) so the whole thing is PD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding it, that solves all the problem.
- I'd still delete the book cover. I've no fondness at all for the argument, "The author and rights holder think they own this and want to own this, but we're the almighty Wikipedia and we're going to exploit the most tenuous loophole to grab it, just because we think we can." Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's not tenuous, and this seems like a weird hill to stop in. A cheap book cover with the title tossed on PD art, versus some very expensive reproductions of paintings done at great expense by museums. PD-Art has been policy as long as Commons has existed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's not tenuous. What part of the cover can be copyrighted? If I put the word "the" on top of an engraving from 1600 have I created a new copyright? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- The illustration is apparently from 1671, and can be found here, so it is PD. Nothing else on that book cover is eligible for copyright (all below TOO) so the whole thing is PD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Correct tag
[edit]If an image has a subject that has died 150+ years ago, but it is unknown where, who, and when the photo was taken, is the photo in the public domain, and if so, how should I tag it? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 10:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC) ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 10:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps it can be tagged with {{PD-old-assumed}}? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- @.Anohthterwikipedian: There are some edge cases where it still could be copyrighted in the U.S. (depending on when it was first published). Could you be more concrete about what exactly you know about the image (and especially any publication history)? - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Not exactly the same, but I was referring to File:Rudra Shah.jpg.
- ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 08:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC) ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 08:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Anohthterwikipedian: There's an artist signature at the bottom-left corner. I cannot read the name but the year below it looks to be 2005. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Clearly this is a painting and not a photograph, so it cannot be assumed that it was created/published during the subject's lifetime (i.e. 150+ years ago). So, I don't think {{PD-old-assumed}} can be used in this case. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- 100% agree with TVpuppy. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Ok to upload?
[edit]See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cwa-logo.PNG . Seems pretty simple to me. Context: Commons:TOO, UK. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
File:DSC03643 (2048519396).jpg
[edit]File:DSC03643 (2048519396).jpg is photo of sculpture, located in France. No FoP in France, but maybe sculpture is {{PD-old-70}}? If not, should be deleted. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- If the Spanish-language description is correct in describing it as etrucsco ("Etruscan"), then it is ancient. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo of unknown sculpture, copyright for the sculpture isn't clear. Perhaps sculpture is modern and no FoP. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- also File:Annoyed (121872660).jpg Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- File:Dsc01435 (74705593).jpg Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- The first two are 19th-century works, so certainly no problem. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- The last one is 21st-century, and in France; I'll nominate it for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo of painting. Copyright for the painting isn't clear. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- also File:DSC01794 (530357224).jpg Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Respectively a 19th-century painting and a portrait of Goethe which, based on style, probably dates from his lifetime or shortly thereafter. @Evelino Ucelo: are you doing any research before bringing these here? - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, because I would expect {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-100}} or so on. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Evelino Ucelo: The photo, including the frame, has a copyright of its own. Presumably that is what is being licensed. It would be better for the uploader to have described these with {{Art Photo}}, which makes it easier to discuss the two different pieces of intellectual property involved, but they didn't. Your edit at Special:Diff/1202500865 leaves things a bit unclear. Special:Diff/1202556109 is probably clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, because I would expect {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-100}} or so on. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Template:Opmcm.gov.np
[edit]@GeminiVern: have created Template:Opmcm.gov.np and Template:Opmcm.gov.np/en. But there are no evidence that such files are under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
@Yann and Túrelio: . Panam2014 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo of a memorial, located in France, built after 1945, so likely still under copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logos uploaded as own work
[edit]I am concerned about the licensing for some of the files uploaded by March8613.
All of these are logos of US brands/stores, but they were uploaded as "own work" which clearly isn't the case. I don't know how many of these are copyright issues, and if some are trademarked. The uploader has some files that are properly licensed and attributed, like File:Jupiter Discount Stores Final Logo.png or File:Kresge's Discount Store Final Logo.png, which have the proper author and are licensed as both "PD-textlogo" and "trademarked". Unfortunately, that cannot be said about the files below:
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
All of these were uploaded between and 7 October 2024 and 17 October 2024. I say this because, on 21 October 2024, the uploader was notified by GreenLipstickLesbian about the issue, and what needs to be done to avoid deletion of those files ("Now, the good news is that many of these logos will not be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. You'll need to look at those, and then change to license to Template:PD-textlogo. If a logo was produced for an American company, and it's only made up of shapes and simple text, you'll use that template. The others, unfortunately, may have to be deleted"
). March8613 then asked about how to resolve the issue ("How would I apply the Templates to the files? I'd like to get things right asap"
), but got no response. On 22 October, they nominated some of their own files for deletion, out of copyright concerns. As far as I can tell, all of these were kept, but the license was changed from "self|cc-zero" to "PD-textlogo" in the process (without addressing the issue that "own work" is still wrong):
It seems that March8613, maybe unaware of the option to combine these all into a mass deletion request, nominated all of them separately (example), but stopped after number 57 for no apparent reason other than that they may have become exhausted. They have not uploaded any new files since. Their 8 uploads since 22 October 2024 are new versions of old files.
That leaves 260 files to be re-licensed, or to be deleted; and to change authorship for all 317 files to the owner of the brand/store. I'm bringing these files up here because I hope that deletion won't be necessary, at least for most of them. Renerpho (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am trying my best to fix all these issues. I was overwhelmed at the time and didn't have time back then to figure out how to fix them March8613 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- @March8613: I'm sure we'll get it sorted out. Renerpho (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment "Own work" is wrong if these files were copied from somewhere. But if they were recreated from scratch, it is fine. And the issue is that for PD-textlogo logos we can't distinguish between both cases. Yann (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Commissioned works
[edit]If a mural was commissioned by an agency of the US Government, does that void its copyright? (Mural went on display in 1941 and artist died in 1984) DS (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- @DS No, not necessarily. When the federal government commissions a work of art by an independent artist, the artist is not generally considered a "government employee", they are essentially an outside contractor producing a work for the government, and the artist retains full copyright (with the caveat that formalities like notice/renewal needed to be followed as well at the time of this specific work). Most commissioned visual art - so, art commissioned outside the scope of an artist's full- or part-time employment - is also not covered by the "work-for-hire" copyright rules, which in some cases would assign copyright to a commissioning party. Cartoonists at a newspaper would be covered by "work-for-hire", as their cartoons are produced as part of their employment with the newspaper, so the copyright for their works would generally be owned by the newspaper; but an artist who is commissioned to create a work does not give up their copyright to the commissioning body. Of course, artists can sign agreements with commissioners to assign their copyright to the commissioning body, but that's not standard for singular works of visual art, it's more common when someone is being commissioned to create, say, a logo or a work of art intended for marketing/branding.
- For a non-art example, see former US Poet Laureate Ada Limón's poem commissioned by NASA several years ago; the poem is copyrighted by Limón even though a government agency commissioned the work, because she created it as a commission, not as part of any employment. 19h00s (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, slight correction (though it doesn't impact the end result). Commissioned visual artwork can be covered by the "work-for-hire" rules, wherein the commissioning body is assigned copyright of the commissioned artwork. But even if that is the case with this specific mural, that doesn't void the copyright, it simply means the government owns the copyright. The federal government is able to acquire or receive copyright ownership of works created by third parties like commissioned artists. 19h00s (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also, if the mural was published (visible in a public area) in 1941 without a copyright statement (or even with a copyright statement if the copyright wasn't renewed), it might be public domain on that basis. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also (not relevant for anything in 1941, but for a lot in the 1930s): the many artists who worked for the the WPA were employees, and all of the many works they produced in that capacity are in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
CC-GobCL or simply copyleft?
[edit]Last night I was reminded of this decree mentioned in the {{CC-GobCL}} which mandates public institutions of Chile to release their materials under a free license, allowing their use without major restrictions. Back in 2010, when the government of President Piñera took office, they released all the web government materials under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 license. An official communication from the Minister Secretary General of Government (note, not a decree or resolution, just a communication) instructed all public offices (except municipalities and other corporations, which are not mentioned in the oficio) to release their materials under a CC BY license. Since then, even though most websites don't even contain such a mention, we have been uploading mostly indiscriminately materials from Chilean government websites under that CC BY license. I don't see a major problem with that, except that the license has not been used (in most sites) for years, including Gob.cl, the main government website. Some websites, like prensa.presidencia.cl (the official Presidency website) even claims materials have "all rights liberated. They can be reproduced, used and downloaded, all contents, without altering them and citing the source" (CC BY NC ND?). Anyway. Here's the trick. Decree No. 1 of 2 March 2015 mandates in its eight article that "information published in such websites [public government websites] and platforms directed at the public, must be released to the public under a free licensing system allowing their use without major restrictions". Wouldn't that be {{Copyleft}}? I do think the wording does allow for a broad understanding the materials are either public domain de facto or CC BY (as it was originally stipulated). Furthermore, the decree does refer to municipalities and corporations that were not mentioned in the original 2010 communication, making it official that the materials should be freely licensed from most public offices.
So, TLDR, the issue is the following: 1) does the 2016 decree actually release the government materials under a free license (as in template:copyleft)? 2) if the response to the previous question is yes, then materials from municipalities and other institutions (which we previously thought weren't covered by this release) are too freely licensed. Bedivere (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
"[S]in alterarlos"
translated (accurately) above as "without altering them", is a problem for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)- Yes, the presidency website does state that. And that has been on the website ever since it was launched. But since then, several hundreds of pictures (including those of the 2010 miners rescue) have been uploaded here on the basis of the CC-GobCL terms (which IMO is fine). I could try contacting them to clarify. Bedivere (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Question about UP (UPI) photo copyright
[edit]I originally posed this question on Wikipedia, but was directed here. There's a photo (Getty version, modern NYTimes usage with UP credit, and contemporary usage with UP credit) that was created through the United Press syndicate early September 1956. It was used in an issue of Time magazine, which is copyrighted (and renewed), but I haven't found evidence of the photo itself (which was credited to UP) being copyrighted.
A couple things: First, does this look to be a public domain photo? Is there a way to easily get a sense of which UPI photos from the time were or weren't among the few that got renewed? Second, which version could I upload? The NYTimes version would be the best of the three above, but if not that, would the version in Time be okay if I don't include any text/layout besides the photo? What about this version, which is the same photo (with less cropping) but doesn't have the UPI credit/provenance. Thanks in advance! Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- The advice at Category:United Press International photographs is useful; if the photo was by a UPI photographer, then the photo's copyright was definitely not renewed. This can be difficult to determine sometimes, but Getty not attributing anyone but UPI and another non-American distributor is a pretty good tell. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how renewals on collective works like Time magazine work, but {{PD-US-no notice}} is likely to apply anyways as long as no notice was affixed to the photo specifically (generally, newspapers were good about reproducing copyright notices when they were there, but looking through several different newspapers should still be done to make sure).
- Any version which only includes the portions that were published contemporaneously would be fine to upload copyright-wise (so probably not the UTSA one?), but the NYTimes version is probably the best to upload. Based5290 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Dizzycheekchewer Search for newspapers on newspapers.com or some other archive. Many UPI photos were not published, is the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
PD-IDGov again - April 2026 discussion
[edit]Contexts:
- COM:Indonesia
- {{PD-IDGov}}
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/03#Template:PD-IDGov template name in relation to COM:NOP Indonesia
Pinging participants from both the above-mentioned discussion (@Mdaniels5757 and Jmabel: ) and from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia: @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, Nat, Jeromi Mikhael, RaFaDa20631, Liuxinyu970226, Bennylin, and Adamant1: .
This is with regards to Article 43(b): Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include...Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made.
Apparently, this copy of the same copyright law by Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property contains a full explanation of many of the clauses of the law. These explanations are found at the end of the document. The explanation for Article 43(b) is at page 70 of the document (or page 15 of the section):
The term "Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction which is conducted by or on behalf of the government" means, for example, Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or any Reproduction done by or on behalf of the government with respect to the results of research conducted at State expenses.
Perhaps this is a clue on whether Article 43(b) complies with COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. For sure, though, this is not a public domain clause, but a free use clause. If this complies with the licensing rule, the template should be moved to {{Copyrighted free use-IDGov}}, on the similar pattern as those of {{Copyrighted free use}} and {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}. The rule on government works under the free use part of the law is enough to consider that such works are not PD. Under copyright, so to speak, but subject to free uses which do not infringe the copyright held by the Indonesian government entities.
- The question is...
Is the clause (as per the explanation) meaning it is not an infringement on the government's copyright the reproduction, distribution (etc.) of works executed or done by the government (unless stated to be protected by laws/regulations/statements?
Or (which I am suspecting) is the clause simply meant it is not an infringement to the copyright of the (non-government) works the government's reproduction, distribution (etc.) of such (non-government) works, unless stated to be protected by laws/regulations/statements?
Someone should decode the explanation of the clause at page 70 of the document (or page 15 of the section). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Uploads of Tuğçe Utlu
[edit]I have encontered some photos which small size, no exif data and those was uploaded some critical (Anchorwoman, TRT2) keywords. There is no results for reverse image which I can't exactly say copyvio. I don't know what I will do it.
All of them is here: Category:Tuğçe Utlu Satirdan kahraman (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Looks like a television presenter probably arranged to have pictures taken of herself, uploaded them, and does not understand that copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Probably the most appropriate approach would be to briefly explain this to her on her talk page, explain VRT, probably link COM:THIRD to spare yourself any lengthy explanations, and let her know that if the pictures are to be kept she needs to sort this out soon. - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Satirdan kahraman: is there some particular reason you did not ping/link/notify her here? - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- @TUĞÇE UTLU Satirdan kahraman (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, I have forgotten at first. And now I am writing on her page. Satirdan kahraman (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Satirdan kahraman: I've done my best to explain further on her user talk page. If you are a Turkish-speaker, you may be able to add usefully to what I wrote.
- My suggestion: give her a week right now. If she has not started the VRT process, start a mass DR for these photos (not speedy-deletion, because the desired outcome is that she does the VRT process and we can keep the photos). Satirdan, are you willing/able to take it from there, or should I consider this my responsibility? Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
House rules
[edit]Say that a person is allowed to photograph the inside of an area by its owner, on the basis that those images are non‐commercial. Would it be legal for them to license those images freely & upload those images on here anyway (assuming that the place is in scope and in a country with FOP for public interiors)? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 21:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- When looking at the legal standpoint of intellectual property laws, yes. Morally? Not really, and you may also get into a liability (getting sued for immaterial damages or subject to cease-and-desist injunctions) stemming from an evident violation of contract law. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Anohthterwikipedian: It sounds like you're asking about COM:NCR#"House rules". I believe whatever hypothetical agreement you might enter into with some third-party is between you and that party and has nothing to do with Commons per se; so, you'd be better off asking a lawyer or someone more familiar with the finer points of contract law for advice. Commons would only be concerned with the copyright status of the photo, which would include the copyright status of whatever is being photgraphed. There may be other non-copyright restrictions in place for which you as an individual might be held liable for if you violate them, but these would have nothing to do with Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- IANAL but I'm pretty comfortable saying that they would almost certainly be violating a contract, and could be sued for that. Conversely, unless the contract actually signed over their copyrights, this would have no bearing on copyright as such. Pretty much what Grand-Duc said. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons checks for copyright and we generally allow all photos which have compatible copyright.
- We do not have rules for all situations and people discuss case by case uploads. I have no opinion about use of the photos you describe outside of Wikimedia Commons, but I do invite that kind of photography in Wikimedia Commons. Here are some comparable examples:
- Sports stadiums frequently demand of ticketholders watching the sports game that commercial photography is prohibited. Despite the fact that fans in the stadium would be violating the terms of entry into the stadium, I am supportive of people in the audience sharing photos of games. There is nothing copyrightable about athletes in a field.
- There are historic homes which are registered as national historic sites or monuments. It routinely happens that the owners of such homes both have open houses where the public can enter the property and view the homes, but they also personal prohibit photography. I personally do not have much respect for the right to privacy with regard to routine external photographs of publicly-designated sites of shared cultural importance, even when they are privately owned.
- Generally, I do not like photography regulation where owners seek to maximize public attention and photographs in social media while also trying to restrict photographs in repositories like Wikimedia Commons. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Does PD-USGov really apply to this file?
[edit]File:Official Arrest Photo of Cole Tomas Allen.jpg Trade (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Archived link here: [8] https://web.archive.org/web/20260428040819/https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/26/us/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooter-teacher-invs/
- @Trade- At the source webpage, the photo's attribution states, "(Obtained by CNN)".
- It does not disclose the photographer of this photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Signatures
[edit]Hello, I recently uploaded some vectorized signatures. Some people raised concerns about compliance with copyright law. If someone with authority on this matter could comment to dispel any doubts. Thanks
File:Krzysztof Stanczyk Signature.svg, File:Senne Lammens Signature.svg, File:Ole Gunnar Solskjaer Signature.svg, File:Harry Maguire Signature.svg, File:Marek Siwiec Signature.svg, File:Maciej Klisz Signature.svg, File:Grzegorz Kaminski Signature.svg, File:Marek Kloczko Signature.svg, File:Wojciech Kostrzewa Signature.svg, File:Pawel Matenczuk ps Naval Signature.svg, File:Stanislaw Wroblewski Signature.svg, File:Tadeusz Rozwadowski Signature.svg, File:Radoslaw Piesiewicz Signature.svg, File:Olivier Sukiennicki Signature.svg, File:Lukasz Zwolinski Signature.svg, File:Kazimierz Moskal Signature.svg, File:Stanislaw Czosnek Signature.svg, File:Pawel Sliz Signature.svg, File:Ignacy Pradzynski Signature.svg, File:Maciej Rybinski Signature.svg, File:Andrzej Olechowski Signature.svg, File:Wladyslaw Kosiniak Kamysz Signature.svg, File:Szymon Holownia Signature.svg, File:Robert Biedron Signature.svg, File:Wlodzimierz Czarzasty Signature.svg, File:Boris Pistorius Signature 2026.svg, File:Carsten Breuer Signature.svg, File:Steven Nordhaus Signature.svg, File:Wayne Rooney Signature.svg, File:Bruno Fernandes Signature.svg Bastruk (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
File:ATN News Logo without slogan.svg
[edit]
File:ATN News Logo without slogan.svg seems fairly simple, at least simple enough per COM:TOO US, to be licensed as {{PD-logo}}, except that there's really nothing in COM:Bangladesh about the threshold of originality under Bangladeshi copyright law to be reasonably certain, at least in my opinion, that the logo is within the public domain both in the US and Bangladesh (as required per COM:PUBLISH). Is this OK as licensed? The main reason I'm asking is because of en:File:ATN News Logo without slogan.svg, uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. That file was licensed as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly until earlier today when someone converted it to "PD-logo". If the Commons file is OK, then there's really no need for a local file of the same logo to be kept by English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
File:4x100Mujeres4 (10350885556).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
File:4x100Mujeres4 (10350885556).jpg contains author name in EXIF, which not match username on Flickr (it written in "author" statement in {{Description}}); potentially this file can be work-for-hire, so attribution should be fixed? Or file should be deleted? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}