Commons:Village pump/Copyright
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
- One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
- Have you read the FAQ?
- Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
- Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
- Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
Are the CC licenses of these Youtube videos valid? (Sinn Sisamouth)
[edit]So Sinn Sisamouth is a Cambodian musician who died c.1976, but regardless he has a verified Youtube channel. I noticed that starting from this video up till the most recent upload are under CC licenses.
I don't know how this channel gets managed, but I know from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinn Sisamouth.jpg that the modern copyright holders of his stuff are an NGO that preserves Sisamouth's work, and despite their registered info being outdated are who I infer to be behind this channel.
Given everything, is this enough to say that the songs that have been released under CC licenses on Youtube to be eligible to be uploaded onto Commons? Furthermore, as there is a portrait of Sinn Sisamouth in these videos, which happens to be the same one referenced in the aforementioned DR (which allegedly the SSA did permit to be uploaded here per original uploader, but just never went through VRT), is that now eligible to be undeleted? TansoShoshen (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TansoShoshen: Any reason not to contact the Foundation and/or the YouTube channel owner and try to clarify the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel As far as I'm aware their contact info is outdated, their website was last updated in 2012. The Youtube channel does have a different email attached. I'll go ahead and shoot them an email there.
- I do want to say that I've had personally bad experiences with trying to get copyright holders to send over information to VRT, they have always never done so for all attempts. TansoShoshen (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: so the Yahoo email associated with the NGO whose website was last updated in 2012 is dead. The other 2 emails went through, and I CC'd VRT so hopefully there's no problems on that front. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- So there's a lack of any updates now that the work week has begun. I'll give them the rest of the week but, in the event that we still get no response, should we presume that the CC licenses on Youtube are valid?
- There's still the eLibrary we have to sort out. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- So things are still radio silent (apart from VRT's response), I'm going to go ahead and request undeletion of the original Sinn Sisamouth photo we had and go from there. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Update: so the Yahoo email associated with the NGO whose website was last updated in 2012 is dead. The other 2 emails went through, and I CC'd VRT so hopefully there's no problems on that front. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- The Cambodian Vintage Music Archive (CVMA) controls that account, or at least its releases. The videos posted under “video”, are not managed by the CVMA, but most of the music under “releases” are and should have a description stating if they were uploaded under the CVMA. The CVMA are an active US 501(c)(3) non-profit that have legal rights over Sinn Sisamouth plus practically all the other pre-genocide singers’ music but I’m not sure when it comes to visual material. They also work with the Ministry of Culture, Department of Copyright.
- For portraits, and in specific reference to the former picture on the Sinn Sisamouth Wikipedia page.
- 1. The eLibrary of Cambodia, that holds this record sleeve and photo, which is an academic initiative supported by the government, specifically the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport as well as the Buddhist Institute, has stated “អ្វីៗទាំងអស់ដែលតម្ដល់ទុកនៅក្នុង eLibrary of Cambodia ជាសម្បតិ្តរបស់ខ្មែរទាំងអស់គ្នា សម្រាប់បម្រើជាប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ ដោយមិនគិតរក និងយកកម្រៃ ព្រមទាំង អាចឱ្យយើងខ្ញុំបានជួយប្រទេសជាតិ បានមួយភាគតូចផងដែរ ។” translation: “Everything stored in the eLibrary of Cambodia is the property of all Cambodians, to serve the public interest, without any consideration or charge, and to enable us to help the country in a small way”.
- 2. The eLibrary of Cambodia also states “សម្បតិ្តខ្មែរណាដែលបង្ហោះលើវេបសាយយើង បើលោកអ្នកជាម្ចាស់ ចង់ឱ្យយើង
- ដកចេញ យើងនឹងគោរពតាមសំណូមពរ” translation: “If you are the owner of any Cambodian material on this website and want us to remove it, we will honor the request”. That portrait still remains in the database.
- It seems as tons of portraits have been able to be used freely because legal rights over them either haven’t been signed for a long time or do not exist. Regarding Wikipedia taking down former photos on the Sisamouth page, I’m highly sure it was due to people claiming the portrait was entirely their work rather than the use of it in the first place. CiteMeToSleep (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your input @CiteMeToSleep, I actually now remember some of the context of at least 2 of the deletions. There was a flickrwasher who uploaded several photos themselves, claiming they were under a free license. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @CiteMeToSleep Do you remember the exact file where you got the photo from within the eLibrary? TansoShoshen (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Copyright status of some Mongolian images
[edit]Hello, I've recently come across some images regarding Mongolia that have dubious copyright status. Here are some examples I've found:
- File:Chimediin Khurelbaatar.jpg — This image has a watermark from the State Great Khural and lacks EXIF data.
- File:Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa.png — The source of this image is a now-deleted tweet.
I’ve also identified other users who seem to be uploading similarly questionable images:
- Egzs (see above)
- Batzul25 — Uploaded a baby photo of a politician labeled as "own work."
- Davaadorj Ganbaatar
- AmarjargalR
I also believe most of the images in Category:Logos of political parties in Mongolia are incorrectly labeled with either CC or {{PD-Mongolia-exempt}} licenses. According to COM:NOP Mongolia, "state emblems" are exempt, but I think that's moreso for stuff like flags and coats of arms.
I think that Egzs also has at least some legitimate images uploaded, but also a lot of images from the 90s claimed as own work, which is suspect in my opinion.
What do you think? Should I create a deletion request for these images? I'm also not entirely sure how to even do a DR for so many photos, as so far I've only ever DRed single photos. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, I did {{Noping}} to these contributors, so here are courtesy pings to involved editors: User:Egzs, User:Batzul25, User:Davaadorj Ganbaatar, User: AmarjargalR. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
images from the 90s claimed as own work
I wouldn't call that suspect. A 50-year-old Wikipedian could have easily taken those photos themselves. Nakonana (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)- FWIW, my oldest "own work" on Commons dates from 1966. Yes, I'm old, but I know several users who are considerably older. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Have I sufficiently documented that an early-20th-century US copyright was not renewed?
[edit]I have an historical image of a figure with an EnWiki page who is definitely notably in my opinion. The image is published in a physical autobiography. The first edition of the book where the image was published was copyrighted in 1939 (so logically, that should be the latest date for the image copyright) in New York. As I understand it, US copyright law at the time required renewal of copyright 28 years after publication. So from August 1939, this would be August 1967. I have searched United States copyright renewals from 1967 archived online and it appears that the copyright was not renewed. If this is the case, the image would be free for use here, correct?
Original copyright: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/application-card/card_catalog_CC19381945A_131700-132399.0092 Renewals archive: https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112libr/page/1728/mode/2up
The author's name was "Demosthenes Petrus Calixte." He was the inaugural commander of the Haitian interwar Haitian gendarme force - "Garde" - following the American withdrawal in 1930 which lasted until the rise of Papa Doc. The relevant pages of the archive are: new copyright (just in case) - page 300 on archive, 1729 in the physical book for Demosthenes, page 204/1632 for Calixte, 818/2246 for Petrus; renewal - page 1160/2589 for Calixte, page 1168/2597 for Demosthenes, page 1208/2636 for Petrus, 1232/2660 for Wendell-Malliet (original corporate assignee).
Let me know if it looks like this image can be uploaded. If so, let me know if this would be the correct process to follow with other historical images which appear to have not had copyright protections renewed. Pietrus1 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- The usual practice is to check for a renewal in any of three years: one year prior, the expected year (1967), and the year after.
- Hathi Trust believes the book is public domain:
- That a book fails to renew a copyright does not mean that everything in the book goes out of copyright. A photographer may have given the publisher a license to use his work and separately renewed his copyright on the photo. (There is no credit for the photo in the book, so it is probably a work for hire by the publisher.)
- Glrx (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- On the basis of Hathitrust seeming to believe the book is not in copyright and includes the photo in their upload, can the photo be uploaded here? Additionally, can the image from Hathitrust be used (for this image and in the future) rather than relying on my own upload which will almost certainly be lower quality. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- I believe that is the case, but I would check all six copyright volumes before uploading the image. Your link above was only one of the volumes (July–December 1967). BTW, Hathi Trust used Google's scan. Glrx (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- What other five are you referring to? I was under the impression there were two others from your post? Pietrus1 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Pietrus1: Two volumes per year, three years. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist. To ask a couple of follow-up questions? Am I able to use the Hathitrust upload if this is in the public domain? Do you have any alternatives that could result in a higher-quality image than I will likely produce with a home scanner? A public library perhaps? Additionally, could you provide some color on how copyright worked at the time? Specifically, could you tell me if the renewal term did not necessitate renewal in the 28th year? Pietrus1 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Pietrus1: If it is demonstrably public domain, the Hathitrust upload is as good as any. Given that, your next couple of questions are probably largely irrelevant; Commons:Extracting images from PDF gives a pretty comprehensive overview of ways to extract images from a PDF.
- The rest of this all has to be qualified by "as I understand it." I am not a lawyer, just a layperson who has dealt with this a lot.
- Prior to the 1976 law, U.S. copyrights expired on the exact anniversary of publication or registration; that law made all copyrights (including older ones) expire on December 31, so before that it can all get a bit tricky, especially if registration was not filed on the exact day of publication; that precise date couldn't always be determined.
- If a work was demonstrably published 3 August 1939, then it was copyrighted through 3 August 1957 without renewal. You had to renew between 3 August 1956 and 3 August 1957, but in practice year of publication could be clear without day-within-year being clear; the people who've dealt with this aspect a lot on Commons seem to find it safer to look at everything 1956-1958, rather than just 1956 vol. 2, 1957 vol. 1 and 1957 vol. 2.
- (If anyone thinks I have that wrong, please chime in. I was an adult dealing with the very tail end of that copyright regime as a writer, but of course I never had to deal with renewals; I'm old, but not that old.)
- I hope that answers your questions. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- That does answer my questions :). Pietrus1 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- No entries in the other five that I can find:
- Calixte:
- New -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/1792/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/186/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/1660/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/168/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/172/mode/2up
- Renewal -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2764/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1258/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2560/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1128/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1142/mode/2up
- Petrus:
- New -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2410/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/874/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2236/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/780/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/794/mode/2up
- Renewal -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2818/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1316/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2604/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1178/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1190/mode/2up
- Wendell-Malliet:
- New -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2696/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1180/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2498/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1062/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1078/mode/2up
- Renewal -
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112libr/page/2842/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322112lib/page/1340/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112libr/page/2622/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1966320112lib/page/1202/mode/2up
- https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1967321112lib/page/1212/mode/2up
- Demosthenes was in error looking more into it.
- Let me if this is sufficient documentation. Pietrus1 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, well. Maybe I need to be bold at this point and just create the image here. I believe the justification is solid. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist. To ask a couple of follow-up questions? Am I able to use the Hathitrust upload if this is in the public domain? Do you have any alternatives that could result in a higher-quality image than I will likely produce with a home scanner? A public library perhaps? Additionally, could you provide some color on how copyright worked at the time? Specifically, could you tell me if the renewal term did not necessitate renewal in the 28th year? Pietrus1 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I believe that is the case, but I would check all six copyright volumes before uploading the image. Your link above was only one of the volumes (July–December 1967). BTW, Hathi Trust used Google's scan. Glrx (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- On the basis of Hathitrust seeming to believe the book is not in copyright and includes the photo in their upload, can the photo be uploaded here? Additionally, can the image from Hathitrust be used (for this image and in the future) rather than relying on my own upload which will almost certainly be lower quality. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the copyright status of photos distributed by the National Library of the Philippines
[edit]I received an email from the National Library of the Philippines regarding works uploaded to Flickr that have their watermark. Accordingly, photos distributed with their watermark do not mean they are government works, so they retain their original copyrights. A majority of files in this category are tagged under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} and may risk deletion.
Mentioning @JWilz12345 for awareness on the matter.
--Aristorkle (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristorkle PH govt works are really a major source of "headaches". At least I have relicensed one as {{PD-Philippines-1972}}: File:Senator Pablo A. David in 1948.jpg. I don't believe that Maglalang's Photo is a government employee or agency. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Toniker0501: concerning another file under the same problematic category, File:Pres. Garcia with US President Dwight Eisenhower.jpg. This is obviously NOT a work of the Philippine government. This is an Associated Press wire photo from 1958, as seen at the right edge of the scan [!]. This may be PD though, but a US photo, not a Philippine photo. One should check the copyright notice of the AP newspaper that first published this image. Major research project is required. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#Copyright for wire photos published from 1963-1978 - this discussion may be of relevance concerning AP photos before 1978. I can't immediately find an online copy of the issue where this 1958 image was first used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oakland Tribune, June 17, 1958 shows the image. I'd say that AP photos published pre 1964 are pretty safe, given that the Library of Congress was unable to locate any renewals. Based5290 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#Copyright for wire photos published from 1963-1978 - this discussion may be of relevance concerning AP photos before 1978. I can't immediately find an online copy of the issue where this 1958 image was first used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Aristorkle Google Lens reverse image searches do not yield meaningful findings. I won't act on most of the images. It's a considerable "headache." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I tagged a few files to be speedy deleted for copyvio (example).
The uploader claimed they received permission from the original author, which obviously needs to be received by VRT.
{{Copyvio}} outlines that challenged speedy deletions should be converted into deletion requests. Can {{Copyvio}} instead be replaced with {{No permission since}}? Or must there be a deletion request and {{No permission since}} as {{Copyvio}} was there first?
Thanks, Wracking (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've deleted them as copyvios. They can have the author contact VRT to verify permission for a free license if they wish, but there is no evidence of a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
John M. Culkin infobox/ID photo needed
[edit]Are any of these sources (1, 2, 3) acceptable for an image to be used as an infobox ID photo in the enwiki article about the academic w:John M. Culkin? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Cl3phact0. Your question seems to be more about using images on English Wikipedia than about whether the images are OK to upload to Commons. Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts (i.e., whether it meets Commons:Licensing). How such content ends up being used on one of the different language Wikipedias depends on the image use policies of that Wikipedia. For English Wikipedia, that's en:Wikipedia:Image use policy. Commons requires that the content it hosts be "free" in the sense that it's either something that is within the Commons:Public domain (i.e., no longer or never was eligible for copyright protection), or it's content that has been released under a copyright license which meets Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses.Those three sites are not, at least in my opinion, the original sources of the images of Culkin they're using; in other words, they're just using an image that was taken by someone else. Sources 2 and 3 are using essentially the same image, which means there's a good chance they got it from the same place. Moreover, those sites also don't seem to provide any information on the en:provenance of the images they're using; so, there's no quick and easy way to determine where they got the images. My quick assessment, therefore, is that none of those images would be OK to upload to Commons per Commons:Fair use and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images unless a way can be figured out to better verify their copyright status and their provenance. However, one of the images might be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. English Wikipedia is one of the projects which allows copyright-protected content to be uploaded and used locally (i.e., only on that project). English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) is quite restrictive by design, but it might be possible for a non-free image of Culkin to be used on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, and yes, you are correct that primarily, I'm simply trying to find a photograph of Culkin that can be used in the English Wikipedia article (although having a photograph of him on Commons would be a plus). I'll see if any of the various image search tools might give a better idea re: provenance of the photos. Failing that, I suppose I'll try the non-free image route (although I've struggled in the past trying to make sense of how this works on the enwiki side – where the rules appear to be fuzzier and somewhat subject to subjective interpretation). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Holly Wells Jessica Chapman CCTV Soham Murders 04 August 2002.jpg
[edit]File:Holly Wells Jessica Chapman CCTV Soham Murders 04 August 2002.jpg appears to be CCTV footage from the UK. Is UK copyright law on such footage clear that it meets {{PD-automated}}? I know the same license is often used for footage taken in the US, but COM:PUBLISH also requires it be PD in the UK. The information posted at the top of Category:Security camera footage by country doesn't seem to imply it is (but that could be outdated or wrong) and Category:Security camera footage of the United Kingdom is empty. COM:UK also doesn't mention it. This Gov UK webpage seems to be more about data protection/security than copyright (no mention is made of the latter). This lists a number of restrictions placed on such footage, but also doesn't mention copyright. Can this be kept as licensed or is some kind of COM:CONSENT needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Aside from what has been specified, this footage was freely released to the public (into the public domain? as part of an ongoing nationwide investigation) by Cambridgeshire Police in August 2002.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Being freely released to the public doesn't automatically mean something is within the COM:Public domain. Lots of content found online that is freely made available to public is still under copyright protection. It's only within the public domain if its copyright holder states as much. If you can find a clear statement in which the Cambridge Police (assuming they control the CCTV camera) states such a thing, please add it to the file's description. The question regarding footage taken by CCTV or other pre-positioned devices is whether it actually has an author who can be its copyright holder or whether its simply a mechnical process ivolving very minimal or no degree of creativity/input. For Commons to keep hosting an image like this, such would need to be the case in both the US and UK. If it's not within the public domain of either country's copyright law, the file can't really be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Reverend Gary Davis1960s LOC.jpg
[edit]This image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverend_Gary_Davis1960s_LOC.jpg was uploaded in 2020 with the associated information "Reverend Gary Davis (no copyright notice could be found anywhere on the original source, thus public domain is assumed) |date=1963 |source=LOC (page 14) |author=American Folklife Center, Library of Congress". It appears to originate from a poster at that URL which includes small shots of a lot of American folk and blues artists without creator information, all presumably re-used from elsewhere. I note that this shot was published in 1960 on the cover of an issue of "Sing Out" magazine, volume 9 number 4, and presumably would have had a credit there, although I have not located an original copy to see (you can see a reproduction here, it is at the bottom left: https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/issues-Sing-Out-Vol-NYC/32180228428/bd#&gid=1&pid=1 ). To my mind this may invalidate the "public domain" presumption, what do knowledgeable persons think? BTW I extracted a better version of the same image and posted it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverend_Gary_Davis1960s_LOC_Restored.jpg for use in a Wikipedia article, however I am happy for both to be deleted from Commons if they are deemed to be copyvios. Regards - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, I don't have a copy of that issue of Sing Out, but I do have enough issues from a few years after that to say that even in the early 1970s they did not routinely have a copyright notice on the issues. Work was generally credited, but without a statement of copyright, in that era in the U.S. that would still have gone straight to PD. Typically, they placed notices on individual songs, copyrighted by their respective authors, but that's all. Hard to imagine they were more careful earlier. - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Well I just thought they would most likely have credited the photographer but do not know if that also implies copyright for the photo also resides with that person... happy to go with whatever you think best. Tony 1212 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Quite likely that they credited the photographer, but credit in an uncopyrighted work did not give you copyright. Assuming the publication of the photo was authorized, it lost copyright the moment it was in an uncopyrighted magazine. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- ... as long as that publication was with permission, and represented more than a "relative few" of the copies out there. If that photo was widely used in publications which did have notice, such that this was relatively small percent (say 1 or 2 percent), copyright was not lost. Of course in this case for a 1963 publication, the copyright would have needed to be renewed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel "credit in an uncopyrighted work did not give you copyright. Assuming the publication of the photo was authorized, it lost copyright the moment it was in an uncopyrighted magazine". Interesting, I guess this follows https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States ... under the category "During 1931–63: without notice" (the photo was taken prior to Feb 1960, we do not know exactly when). The author may be traceable (via credit) but that does not seem to affect anything, then. Thanks! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- ... as long as that publication was with permission, and represented more than a "relative few" of the copies out there. If that photo was widely used in publications which did have notice, such that this was relatively small percent (say 1 or 2 percent), copyright was not lost. Of course in this case for a 1963 publication, the copyright would have needed to be renewed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Quite likely that they credited the photographer, but credit in an uncopyrighted work did not give you copyright. Assuming the publication of the photo was authorized, it lost copyright the moment it was in an uncopyrighted magazine. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Well I just thought they would most likely have credited the photographer but do not know if that also implies copyright for the photo also resides with that person... happy to go with whatever you think best. Tony 1212 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
File:ONTIVA.COM -Isabelle-Is-a-Balloon-by-Ridiculouscake-720p.gif
[edit]While fixing infoboxes I noticed this animation: File:ONTIVA.COM -Isabelle-Is-a-Balloon-by-Ridiculouscake-720p.gif. It looks professionally made but I don't know where it's from. The uploader claims authorship but points to a non-existent user. I wasn't sure the best way to proceed so I'm asking here. Thanks. --Stux (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- From the filename alone the creator is likely RidiculousCake, see YT channel or Redbubble shop. There is a copy in YouTube suggesting it as created in 2021 and the source is likely DeviantArt. The filename also suggest that the video was downloaded from YouTube using Ontiva[1][2]. I would say the upload is likely a copyvio. Günther Frager (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was definitely not expecting to see Animal Crossing inflation fetish fan art here. Regardless of the source, this is a DW copyvio (of the Isabelle character); so tagged. Omphalographer (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you Günther Frager and Omphalographer for confirming it was sus and for providing source information! --Stux (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Is this map series okay?
[edit]Is uploading this map and similar from the series okay? They only consists of shapes of US counties, colors and text which is too short to copyright. BorysMapping (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
User:Luffykudo/Dobutsu Chess
[edit]Wouldn't all the images of en:Dobutsu shogi pieces in User:Luffykudo/Dobutsu Chess be considered derivative works or simple slavish copies of the same pieces developed/designed by the original creators of the game regardless of whether they're the vector creations of the uploader? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Marchjuly, good day! Thank you for bringing this up. Yes, these are just derivative works. I got these vector from Kadagaden (which is link in all Dobutsu Chess images as original author). His vectors have a CC-BY-4.0 licenses. Luffykudo (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Luffykudo: The person who designed the pieces for Dobutsu Shogi is a former women's professional shogi player named Maiko Fujita and her company is/was Pieco Design. Are you saying she is the same person as Kadagaden? What makes you think that Kadagaden is the original designer of the pieces and thus the copyright holder on their design? If Kadagaden is not Fujita, then perhaps their vector versions of the pieces are also derivative works and the CC-by-4.0 license they're using doesn't cover the original design of the pieces. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Marchjuly, thank you for the clarification and for pointing that out. I was not assuming that Kadagaden is Miss Maiko Fujita or the original designer of the Dobutsu Shogi pieces. My understanding was only that the vector versions I used were uploaded by Kadagaden under a CC-BY-4.0 license, which I relied upon in good faith when using them.
- That said, you raise a valid point regarding whether those vectors themselves might be derivative of the original artwork designed by Maiko Fujita (Pieco Design). I have not verified whether Kadagaden had permission from the original rights holder to license those designs under CC-BY-4.0. Thank you again for bringing this up. Luffykudo (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Luffykudo: The person who designed the pieces for Dobutsu Shogi is a former women's professional shogi player named Maiko Fujita and her company is/was Pieco Design. Are you saying she is the same person as Kadagaden? What makes you think that Kadagaden is the original designer of the pieces and thus the copyright holder on their design? If Kadagaden is not Fujita, then perhaps their vector versions of the pieces are also derivative works and the CC-by-4.0 license they're using doesn't cover the original design of the pieces. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Young pictures of Mojtaba Khamenei
[edit]In 2021, Tasmin News Agency shared previously unseen pictures [3] of the newly-elected Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei during his service on the Iran-Iraq War. Despite being more than 30 years old, I guess Template:PD-Iran would not be valid because there is not prove these pictures were published before 2021. However, may they be licensed under the Template:Tasnim CC-BY 4.0 licence, as they were published with the Tasnim watermark. Given that Tasmin's owner is the IRGC and the pictures were taken during his service with the IRGC, I think it could be argued that Tasnim is the owner of the copyright of the pictures. Basque mapping (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
CC BY releases by Urdu Magazine
[edit]This YouTube channel known as "Urdu Magazine" uploads single-frame videos of photos of Pakistani actors and releases them under CC BY licenses. In the description of many of the videos they say the following:
Lollywood Archives: Rare, Unseen Images #Lollywood.
Blast From The Past: Rare Vintage Photos Of Lollywood Celebrities.
Urdu Magazine Since 1975-2017
Reverse image searching a handful of the photos did not bring up older instances of the images, so this could be a legitimate archive of photos released for free, perhaps the official account of a magazine which dates to 1975. Could this actually be the case? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would be very reluctant to bring these images into Commons without proof that the magazine actually existed and held rights to these photos. (They're also very poor quality - the YouTube videos are 480p.) Omphalographer (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Noted - will not import the photos then. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- The actual YouTube username is "TinaMunim2" and I have to point you out that en:Tina Munim is a well known Indian actress. I doubt that the channel is something official. Günther Frager (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Prussian standard.jpg
[edit]I might be wrong but I've noticed that this file claims the image is out of copyright because the term is author's age + 70 years, yet the author has not been dead for that long (having passed in 2010), and the file was uploaded in 2006 with the tag stating the author was dead (when he wasn't)
And also, the image is from a book published by Osprey, who I believe holds the rights to the image(?)
Quinoa Grain (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Quinoa Grain: What author are we talking about? Guido Rosignoli (illustrator of the book you linked) or someone else? Page does not attribute an author. What is your basis for a death date, and do we know if the illustrator made a copyrightable contribution to the image of what is, after all, a centuries-old flag? - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was referring to the writer of the book Terrence Wise; the only reference to his death that i could find was in his goodreads profile, other than that there seems to be no information
- (in retrospect, yeah the illustrator would make more sense to mention but same applies)
- Even if the flag depicted is 200 years old, the art itself isnt and would still technically be property of Osprey per their permissions page
"If the requested material is an illustration or photograph, please check the acknowledgment pages at the front or back of the book, or the caption alongside the photograph, for information on whether the rights are controlled by another party. If this is the case you will need to apply to them directly. As a rule of thumb, nearly all artworks, maps and diagrams in Osprey books are © Osprey."
- yes i am aware it says "check the book to find information" but i couldn't find that in the book so i'm assuming it is copyrighted
Quinoa Grain (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Israeli CoA
[edit]Most such files (an example) carry some kind of 'permission', which looks dubious for me, cause it's about reproduction of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place. Instead I see an emblem which taken from a copyrighted website (and not shown to be situated in a public place), with cc-by-sa-3.0 licence, added by the uploader and seemingly taken from nowhere. Is everything fine here? Komarof (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not to mention linking a whole website, rather than a relevant page, as a source. Looks to me like this may have to be deleted unless someone can clarify. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- @TenBaseT: any comments? Komarof (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- The template mentioned by user Komarof is {{FoP-Israel}}.
- Regarding to the topic. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of local councils in Israel and my explanation here. -- Geagea (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's too much to examine in detail. But overall, I'm convinced now it's nothing more than a misleading description carrying irrelevant FoP template and a false license missing on the source website. --Komarof (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg
[edit]File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg is sourced to this (direct link)Ministry of Sports of the Republic of Tatarstan website. It is licensed using {{Tatarstan.ru}}. The main website for the Republic of Tatarstan does state "All materials from the site are available under the license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" at the bottom of the page, but it's not clear whether that also applies to the Ministry of Sports' website since no similar mention of any licensing on it that I can find. Is this file OK as licensed? FWIW, the licensing of the file is being as about at en:WP:MCQ#File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: You weren't looking hard enough. Right on the page linked in the file description (and the root page either), there's a footer: All site content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Apparently, you simply didn't see this footer because it was overcovered by a cookie policy banner you forgot to remove. A tempest in a teapot. Komarof (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Komarof for finding that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Are these stones with inscriptions sculptures?
[edit]I'm a Russian-speaking Commons:License reviewer, and was asked on my talk page to review these four images of a monument in Dagestan from a YouTube video:
_(1).jpg)
_(2).jpg)
_(3).jpg)
_(4).jpg)
I told the submitter that these were pictures of relatively recent sculptures (1989), and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#Freedom_of_panorama means we need the release of the sculptor, not just the photographer. He disagrees, he says they're not sculptures, they're just uncut rocks with text. The YouTube video has a release (bottom, in comment by videographer). What do people think? --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Monuments like this are routinely deleted from Commons, but they can not be speedy deleted, they should go through the deletion process. Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- I live not far from there and can confirm that these are two natural stones without authorship. The monument was erected by all the people.
- Can you confirm that the author of the photo gave permission? Then it would be easier for me to transfer them to Wikipedia. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- I see nothing copyrightable here. Komarof (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- These are just stones, not the work of a sculptor. There are many such examples. Stones were erected in our country in the 19th century to commemorate a hero, a battle, or an event. Товболатов (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Is this above TOO?
[edit]Hello, I am wondering if this crest from enwiki en:File:RCACS Crest.svg is above COM:TOO Canada or it should be recreated as a free version.
Given that File:Banner_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets.png uses another version of the same crest (available on en:File:RCACS Crest.png) Wolfy13399 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- After doing some research, it seems that the design has been used on badges since at least 1976. I cannot find original dates for the crest itself Wolfy13399 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
LongIslandRapArchive
[edit]received this message:
I am Sport G from Sport G and Mastermind. This page and photos are about my life and are my photos music and art.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sport G And Mastermind "Then And Now".jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! LongIslandRapArchive (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Convenience link: File:Sport G And Mastermind "Then And Now".jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @LongIslandRapArchive: are you saying you are Sport G, or that you received a message from Sport G? Your wording here is unclear. If you are Sport G, then we can probably sort this all out, though it may take some doing: copyrights normally belong to the photographer, not the subject of the photo.
- Also, though, if you are Sport G, then your en:Draft:Sport G and Mastermind is probably a problem. On en-wiki you are generally not supposed to write articles about yourself. See their policy on conflicts of interest, and I really recommend reading that, because otherwise you are likely to find your account blocked on en-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Most VRT tickets from Serbia are meaningless
[edit]Under Serbian copyright law, moral rights are super wide-ranging, and include the power to control derivative works and the "integrity" of your work (people regularly get €100+ for websites cropping their photos here), and these, like moral rights elsewhere, can't be transferred by contract. This means that works-for-hire can't be released under a free license by employers at least on those grounds, but also probably not at all, because economic/pecuniary rights are only granted to the employer for 5 years, and even then only to the extent necessary for the employer's business activity, unless a contract says otherwise (which we have no proof of). So unless VRT tickets literally come from the author themselves, they're basically invalid. If it's an entire website released under a free license (say, vs.rs) there might be edge cases where photographers consented to a free license in their contracts, but that's unlikely, and we have no proof of that. Not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but it seems like something should be done about it. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
What to do with the template, referring to a website, which is under ARR now? The creator insists there were free license back in the day, but web.archive can't help find the date of change. 28 files are in Category:Media from Mfa.uz. Komarof (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Komarof I chose a random image File:Meeting of Sadyr Japarov and Abdulaziz Kamilov.jpg, and found its archive from 2022: [4]. At the bottom of the page, it does indeed states:
Официальный веб сайт Министерство иностранных дел Республики Узбекистан Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International При использовании материалов, опубликованных на данном сайте, ссылка на www.mfa.uz обязательна
- which roughly translates to:
Official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan All site materials are available under the license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International When using the materials published on this site, a link to www.mfa.uz is required
- So, I would say the template is most likely valid at least for files until 2022 (I haven't look for the date of the website change). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I had no doubt that the template was created properly at the time. The question is, what should we do with it now. Should we add an expiration date (but which one exactly)? Should we delete it and apply a free license to the files that are confirmed by the web archive? Komarof (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Komarof keep the template but add a cutoff date. See {{Unsplash}}. See also File:CN Tower, Toronto, Canada (Unsplash DJ kOgH5u0o).jpg for a reviewed Unsplash file with that template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I had no doubt that the template was created properly at the time. The question is, what should we do with it now. Should we add an expiration date (but which one exactly)? Should we delete it and apply a free license to the files that are confirmed by the web archive? Komarof (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
FoP in Bangladesh
[edit]Upon closer and more thorough analysis of the new copyright law, however, it becomes apparent that FoP in Bangladesh has not been entirely abolished. According to the law's precise definitions, ordinary architectural works (e.g., buildings and structures) and sculptures or monuments that are neither carved nor cast in a mould (e.g., the Shaheed Minar, the National Martyrs' Memorial) do not fall within the scope of copyright protection. That is to say, except for carved or mould-cast sculptures, photographs of most public structures in Bangladesh are essentially copyright-free and may continue to be uploaded to Commons as before.
Huge thanks to MS Sakib for initial constructive criticism and restructuring of this text.
Previous FoP discussions about Bangladesh: 2024-09, 2024-10, 2025-02
তবে নতুন কপিরাইট আইনটি আরও নিবিড়ভাবে বিশ্লেষণ ও পর্যবেক্ষণ করে দেখা যায় যে, আইনে স্পষ্টভাবে সংজ্ঞায়িত না হলেও বাংলাদেশে FoP পুরোপুরি বিলুপ্ত হয়নি। আইনের সূক্ষ্ম সংজ্ঞায়ন অনুযায়ী সাধারণ স্থাপত্যকর্ম (যেমন: ভবন, ইমারত) এবং খোদাইকৃত বা ছাঁচে বানানো নয় এমন ভাস্কর্য বা স্থাপনা (যেমন: শহীদ মিনার, জাতীয় স্মৃতিসৌধ) কপিরাইটের আওতাভুক্ত নয়। অর্থাৎ, খোদাইকৃত বা ছাঁচে বানানো ভাস্কর্য ছাড়া বাংলাদেশের বেশিরভাগ পাবলিক প্লেসের স্থাপনার ছবিই মূলত কপিরাইটমুক্ত এবং এগুলো আগের মতোই কমন্সে আপলোড করা যাবে।
এই লেখাটির প্রাথমিক গঠনমূলক সমালোচনা ও পুনর্গঠনের জন্য MS Sakib-কে আন্তরিক ধন্যবাদ।
পূর্ববর্তী FoP সম্পর্কিত আলোচনাসমূহ: ২০২৪-০৯, ২০২৪-১০, ২০২৫-০২
বাংলা: সারাংশ সিদ্ধান্ত
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
আইনি সারাংশ[edit]
|
English: Summary decision
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legal Summary[edit]
|
বাংলা: সম্পূর্ণ ব্যাখ্যা
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
আইনের সংজ্ঞা ও পরিভাষা[edit]কপিরাইট আইন, ২০২৩-এর ধারা ১৪(১) অনুযায়ী বাংলাদেশে শুধুমাত্র পাঁচ প্রকারের "কর্ম" কপিরাইটযোগ্য।
কপিরাইটের আইনি পরিধি: আইনের ধারা ১৪(১) ধারায় যেসকল কর্মকে স্পষ্টভাবে কপিরাইটযোগ্য বলা হয়েছে, শুধুমাত্র সেগুলোই কপিরাইটযোগ্য। এই ৫টি শ্রেণীর বাইরে যাওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। আইনে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম"কে সরাসরি কপিরাইটযোগ্য নয় বলা না থাকায় অনেকেই ধরে নিতে পারেন এটি কপিরাইটযোগ্য। কিন্তু আইনি ব্যাখ্যা হলো, উল্লেখকৃত না থাকলে তা কপিরাইটযোগ্য বলে ধরে নেওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। উদাহরণস্বরূপ, কপিরাইট আইন, ২০০০-এ প্রথমে কম্পিউটারে সৃষ্ট কর্মের মেয়াদ উল্লেখ ছিল না। পরে সুরক্ষা দেওয়ার জন্য আলাদা করে কপিরাইট (সংশোধন) আইন, ২০০৫ (২০০৫ সনের ১৪ নং আইন) প্রণয়ন করতে হয়েছে।[5] 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।[6] 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। |
.jpg){kind=link}
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.[7] 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.[8] 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)
- Strong support চমৎকার ও নিখুঁত আইনি বিশ্লেষণের জন্য ধন্যবাদ। প্রস্তাবিত এই ব্যাখ্যার সাথে আমি সম্পূর্ণ একমত। কপিরাইট আইন ২০২৩-এর ১৪নং ধারায় কপিরাইটযোগ্য কর্মের তালিকায় ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম'-কে রাখা হয়নি এবং ২নং ধারায় এর সংজ্ঞায়ন অত্যন্ত স্পষ্ট। প্রস্তাবনাটিতে খুব সুন্দরভাবে দেখানো হয়েছে যে, আইন অনুযায়ী ভৌত 'স্থাপত্য কর্ম' এবং 'স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম' সম্পূর্ণ আলাদা বিষয়। যেহেতু বাংলা পাঠই এ আইনের একমাত্র আইনি বৈধ সংস্করণ, তাই অনুবাদের অভাবে অনুমানের ভিত্তিতে দুটি সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন শব্দকে এক করে ফেলার কোনো সুযোগ নেই। এছাড়া, সাধারণ প্রকৌশলগত ঢালাই বা নির্মাণ কাঠামোও কোনোভাবেই আইনের সংজ্ঞায় "ভাস্কর্য" নয়। যেহেতু ভৌত দালান আইনের সংজ্ঞায় সরাসরি কপিরাইটযোগ্য "কর্ম"-এর অন্তর্ভুক্ত নয়, তাই বাংলাদেশের উন্মুক্ত স্থানে অবস্থিত সাধারণ স্থাপনার ছবি প্রকাশ করা কোনোভাবেই কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘনের আওতায় পড়ে না এবং কমন্সে এগুলো আপলোড করা সম্পূর্ণ বৈধ। বিষয়টি কমন্সের বৈশ্বিক নীতিমালার সাথেও পুরোপুরি সামঞ্জস্যপূর্ণ হওয়ায় আমি এই প্রস্তাবনার পক্ষে পূর্ণ সমর্থন জানাচ্ছি।
[English Translation]: Thanks for the excellent and precise legal analysis. I completely agree with this proposed interpretation. Physical 'architectural works' are not included in the list of copyrightable works under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 2023, and the definition in Section 2 is exceptionally clear. The proposal beautifully demonstrates that, according to the law, physical 'architectural works' and 'architectural artistic works' are two entirely distinct concepts. Since the Bengali text is the sole legally authoritative version, there is no room to conflate these two distinct legal terms based on assumptions or the lack of an official English translation. Furthermore, ordinary structural construction or engineering casting cannot be categorized under the legal definition of a "sculpture". Since physical buildings do not fall under the direct legal definition of a copyrightable "work", publishing photographs of ordinary structures located in public spaces in Bangladesh does not constitute copyright infringement in any way, making it completely legal to upload them to Commons. As this conclusion is also fully consistent with the global policies of Wikimedia Commons, I express my full support for this proposal. ≈ MS Sakib 📩 ·📝 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC) - Thank you for the thorough analysis and explanation. I strongly Support this proposal. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I acknowledge all the efforts Tausheef Hasan has put into his thorough analysis. However, following all the discussions here and previously, I do not believe this community can or should allow images based on the above explanation, given that we can already see how vague this issue is. I agree with Meghmollar that we should wait for a court ruling or any other definitive, reliable interpretation. Copyright is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis. Kaim (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Section 300 of the Penal Code states that murder is illegal. By your logic:
We should wait for a court ruling or another definitive, reliable interpretation to determine what “murder” is. Murder is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis.
- Therefore, your objection does not meaningfully address the issue. Please specify what exactly you disagree with. The law is clear on this point.
Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state “no copyright exists” for each.
- There is little room for ambiguity here. The text already covers all aspects relevant to architecture under Bangladeshi law, which is why the explanation is necessarily detailed. If you have read the full text, it should not appear vague. Please state clearly which part you disagree with and explain why you believe it is ambiguous. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Tausheef Hassan, I don’t see any way the Penal Code of murder is relevant in this discussion. We want to have a constructive discussion and hope to obtain a fruitful outcome from this. Bringing unnecessary arguments makes this discussion pointless.
- Your reasoning mostly consists of linguistic interpretation of words. It can create many problems and vagueness in the matter. For example, you claimed that architectural works (স্থাপত্য কর্ম) are not copyrightable by law, and it is different from architectural artistic work (স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম). But section 14 (6) states:
(৬) নিম্নবর্ণিত ক্ষেত্রে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকিবে না, যথা:- … (গ) কোনো স্থাপত্য কর্মের ক্ষেত্রে, যদি কর্মটি বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত না হয়।
(Copyright shall not subsist in the following cases, namely: … In the case of any architectural work, if the work is not located in Bangladesh.)
- So what about architectural works inside Bangladesh? I believe every sentence of the Act has a purpose, and this is not just a Fallacy of the Inverse. This could only imply one of the following:
- 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)
- 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:
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: [9]. — 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: [9]. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 10:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support
This interpretation appears consistent with the structure of the Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023.
Section 14 lists the categories of works in which copyright subsists, and physical buildings are not included in that list. In addition, Section 2(11) defines “work” (কর্ম) to include architectural designs or models, but not the constructed building itself. Section 2(40) similarly treats the design or model (নকশা) of architecture as an artistic work (শিল্প কর্ম).
Taken together, these provisions suggest that the law protects the architect's designs and models, while the completed physical structure itself may not constitute a copyrightable work. Therefore, photographs of ordinary buildings would not reproduce a protected work and should generally be acceptable on Commons. — Delwar • 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Artworks and sculptures: three wording fixes so the page describes U.S. law more precisely
[edit]NB: reposted from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Artworks and sculptures: three wording fixes so the page describes U.S. law more precisely
Duplicated content
|
|---|
|
I'm not proposing any change to Commons' ban on fair-use uploads or to the general rule for freestanding sculptures. I'm asking for three wording fixes so the page describes U.S. law more precisely. 1. The guideline omits the Leicester building-integration doctrine. The current text uses Gaylord to imply the building-integration argument is categorically foreclosed. But Gaylord involved a freestanding figurative sculpture in an open plaza with no structural connection to any building. The court rejected the building argument because of those specific facts, not as a general rule about all integrated works. Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000), reached the opposite result on different facts: sculptural towers physically built into a high-rise's boundary walls were held to be part of the architectural work, not independent PGS works, and photographing them was permitted under §120(a). The relevant question in Leicester was whether the sculptural elements were part of the architectural work rather than independent PGS works. More recently, in Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Lewis, No. 2:19-cv-10948-AC-EAS (E.D. Mich. 2019), the court denied motions to dismiss and held that Mercedes had plausibly alleged §120(a) protected its right to photograph publicly visible buildings containing murals, relying heavily on Leicester and quoting it at length. The current page presents the issue more categorically than the case law supports. Proposed addition after the Gaylord paragraph:
2. The "subject to approval" sentence is not accurate as a description of U.S. law. The current text says publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork "is subject to the approval of the copyright holder." Commons policy on fair use is not at issue here and I'm not arguing it should change. But this sentence appears in an explanatory section describing what U.S. law says, and as a description of U.S. law it is incomplete. Proposed replacement:
3. The 1978–1989 formalities paragraph conflates publication with public accessibility. The current text says that for works in this period to lose copyright protection, "it was necessary that tangible copies be sold or otherwise made available to the public." That describes publication, but the actual trigger for forfeiture under the 1976 Act was publication without copyright notice. Whether a publicly installed sculpture constitutes "publication" in the copyright sense is not settled: a sculpture affixed to a building may not have been "published" regardless of its public visibility. The paragraph currently treats physical accessibility as equivalent to publication, which affects which works qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Proposed replacement for the first sentence of that paragraph:
|
Let me know if there are any objections here. - Scarpy (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please, if you have objections, go instead to Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United States, keep discussion in one place. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Help with Crop license
[edit]Hi. I recently uploaded a crop here of this image. When using the Crop tool, it did not bring across the Flickr license confirmation. Can I please have some assistance with this so the crop is not deleted. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- It already has all necessary tags. Ruslik (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Ich finde, die Behaltensentscheidung nach der Löschdiskussion steht auf dünnem Eis und beruht auf zu wohlwollenden Annahmen. Das Copyright des Zeichners könnte nach wie vor betroffen sein. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coat_of_Arms_v_Brokes.jpg GerritR (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Der kleingeschriebene Text unten links an der Mitte des Wappens... steht da vielleicht der Name des Autors/der Autorin? "Fischer (Kira?) 1938"? Nakonana (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
CyberLeninka
[edit]Are works from CyberLeninka permitted on Commons? They claim to release their files under "CC BY" but I could not figure out which version of the CC BY license they refer to. There is a dedicated license template {{CyberLeninka}} which claims CC BY 4.0 but does not elaborate on this choice of version number, neither did a previous deletion discussion. There is also a dedicated category Category:Works from CyberLeninka. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
"All copyright belong to God"
[edit]I recently came across a Christian website with the footer "All copyright belong [sic] to God".
I am now so curious whether or not this would be considered legally sound, and whether this would be considered "freely licensed" to upload here (hypothetically).
Because like, as far as I know only people can have intellectual property, and it's not like God is going to sue you for infringing on His copyright. Would this fall into the public domain? Is this invalid and the author still has all rights reserved? QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 17:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
A statement issued by USCO said that the office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy states that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.
- Should be relevant in this case. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do not believe vesting copyright in an entity which is legally incapable of owning copyright infers that the copyright is null. Lawsuits against God have repeatedly concluded that God is not a legal person and incapable of owning property. The “transfer” of copyright should simply be treated as null and void with the author of the website retaining copyright. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is neither a valid copyright statement nor an unambiguous release of rights. Omphalographer (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
File:KC3original.jpg - own work or not?
[edit]The image File:KC3original.jpg depicts a work by w:en:Martin Jennings, specifically an effigy of w:en:Charles III designed for use on coins, but it is shown as "Own work". Is that a valid claim? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
South Korean golf courses
[edit]Pinging some Korean-speaking users @Nuevo Paso, Namoroka, and Ox1997cow: .
We seem distracted by the war between US/Israel and Iran/Hezbollah, yet two days before the first day of the war in West Asia, a radical decision by the Supreme Court of this East Asian country brought 7.0-magnitude-like shockwave across the screen golf simulation sector of this country.
- Korean top court deems golf courses creative works, jolts screen-golf sector by Chosun Biz (2026-02-28)
- Supreme Court Rules Golf Course Designs Qualify for Copyright Protection by Seoul Economic Daily (2026-02-26)
The SoKor Supreme Court has ruled that "golf course designs should be recognized as creative works entitled to copyright protection. The court held that design drawings cannot be denied creativity solely because they contain functional elements, provided they demonstrate originality in the selection and arrangement of components." (Lim, 2026) Lim (of Seoul Economic Daily) added, "The First Division of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Noh Tae-ak, on the 26th overturned a lower court ruling that had favored Golfzon, a screen golf simulation system manufacturer, in a damages lawsuit filed by Golf Plan Incorporated and other domestic and foreign golf course design firms. The case was remanded to the Seoul High Court."
Relevant excerpts from Chosun Biz article by Kim and Lee (2026):
Legal experts say the Supreme Court's decision recognizes the creativity of golf courses. The Copyright Act treats as works the creations that express human thoughts or feelings. However, to receive protection, they must meet the minimum requirement of creativity.
The lower court had found it difficult to recognize creativity in golf courses and design drawings. Because basic components such as the teeing ground, fairway, bunker, water hazard, and green are arranged according to game standards, it viewed it as hard for a designer's creativity to be expressed. The thrust was that the area is effectively closer to ideas.
The Supreme Court, however, saw it differently. It found that creativity can be expressed as designers select, arrange, and combine the overall composition of a hole and the placement of each element, and harmonize landscaping with the surrounding natural environment. Elements that lead users to devise strategies for attack and feel change and tension during play are also the designer's expressions.
Choi Jong-seon, an attorney at Daeryook & AJU representing the plaintiffs, said, "Even if exteriors look similar, like at temples or palaces, each reveals a unique aesthetic through its detailed structure," adding, "Golf courses likewise embody a designer's individuality in how each hole is composed and its difficulty is calibrated."
Lee Hae-wan, a Sungkyunkwan University law school professor, said, "In the process of harmonizing with the natural environment, a golf course allows a wide range of choices that include aesthetic considerations," adding, "There is a strong possibility that a designer's creative individuality will be expressed."
...
The screen golf industry is watching the remand trial closely. Depending on the outcome, Golfzon could face liability for damages ranging from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of won.
However, this ruling does not immediately establish liability for damages. The Supreme Court only set a standard that creativity should not be readily denied; whether there was specific infringement must be reexamined in the remand trial.
Jung Sang-jo, a Seoul National University law school professor, said, "Aside from partially recognizing creativity, the Supreme Court's decision is unfinished," adding, "It will also need to be reconsidered whether Golfzon's simulation footage constitutes reproduction and, even if it does, whether it can be permitted under 'freedom of panorama.'"
Freedom of panorama is an exception under copyright law that allows the photographing and filming of buildings and artworks installed in places open to the public, such as roads and parks.
This may impact some images under Category:Golf courses in South Korea, provided that those images show the entirety (or huge sections) of the golf courses showing the layout. If it was created less than 70 years ago, the Commons hosting of File:Oak Valley Snow Park Korea 11.JPG may become affected by this Supreme Court ruling. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Here is the post of Dentons Lee law firm concerning the issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Also pinging @Piotrus: , who has uploaded numerous images of South Korea, several have been removed from public view due to the restrictive South Korean law on reproductions of public objects. This new court case will restrict more public objects from unauthorized visual reproductions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Mentioning also @Takipoint123: , who commented on this deletion request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please refer to the summary & the original text of ruling in Korean and here is the Korean version of the post of Dentons Lee law firm. They saying that drawings of the golf course (골프코스 설계도면) are copyrighted. Not every golf course is automatically protected; it is subject to copyright protection only "if the overall form and arrangement of the facilities and individual holes, along with the location, shape, and number of the basic elements making up each hole, are selected and arranged according to a certain design intent, forming an organic combination."
- Since the case has been remanded to the High Court, nothing has been fully decided yet. Of course, the ruling is unlikely to be reversed unless new arguments are presented. / And the Supreme Court already ruled in 2016 that golf courses might be protected by copyright. (2016다276467 [10])
- I'm little bit skeptical about deleting files like File:Oak Valley Snow Park Korea 11.JPG. I can see nothing but grass, greens, some bunkers, trees, and a path. How do we judge ski runs, rock climbing routes, or the general view of regular parks that look similar to golf courses? What happens to the golf courses shown on mapping services? Does this mean that files like File:Alpensia Sliding Centre Map.jpg and File:Alpensia Jumping Park Map.jpg should be deleted?--Namoroka (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Pixsy situation - "dronepicr" on Flickr
[edit]Not sure if anyone's discussed this account before, but it looks like we've got another Pixsy client. "dronepicr" on Flickr (who has since deleted their Flickr account and all associated content) has a bunch of CC BY 2.0-licensed images on Commons and is using Pixsy to go after some re-users.
Last year, completely unrelatedly, I reached out to the art publication Hyperallergic to tell them they needed to be more careful with their crediting/license linking practices when re-using images with CC licenses or other free licenses with requirements (I like their coverage but noticed they weren't properly linking to licenses for images with CC BY 2.0, etc.). Just this week, they emailed me to say they were getting Pixsy payment requests from "dronepicr" over use of the CC BY 2.0-licensed photo of Hawaii. I can't see exactly how the publication used the image, but it sounds like they may have neglected to link to the license (though it seems like they did acknowledge the author and link to the file page on Commons, as they do for other images they source on Commons).
.jpg){kind=link}
Mostly just wondering if the "dronepicr" images are something we need to worry about. Obviously the Hyperallergic situation is mostly their own to sort out, but wasn't sure about the Flickr user and their images on Commons. 19h00s (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Strakhov, it looks like you created a category for photos from this user's Flickr stream - have you heard of any other reusers getting Pixsy payment requests from dronepicr? 19h00s (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, I have not. Strakhov (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Old photos from Brazil and Argentina
[edit]I want to bring to Commons hundreds of old photos primarily from Brazil, but also some from Argentina, the Brazilian ones being made between de 20s and 1998, I believe all being under public domain in Brazil but they will be individually checked for artistic creation.
But a concern of mine for some of the Brazilian photos, as well as all the ones from Argentina (for Argentina they are only from 1994-95) is that they depict (1) paintings as the only subject in the photo; (2) paintings as part of a larger photo (like from a segment from an art gallery); (3) sculptures as the only subject; (4) sculptures as part of a larger photo; and (5) sculptures during the sculpting process.
I also don't understand very well the requirements for the photos also being in the public domain in the united states, but it can be considered that they were never published there.
That being said, I want to know which photos from this selection (i) can be brought to Commons; (ii) cannot be brought to Commons, but can be brought directly to Wikipedia in Portuguese and (iii) cannot be brought anywhere. Otto Von Heim (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Otto Von Heim: If the photos contains artworks, then the artworks also need to be in the public domain. The USA is part of the Berne Convention, so photos don't need to be published in the USA to be copyrighted there. Photos taken in 1994 in Argentina are definitively no PD in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, this helps with the Argentinian photos, but says very little about what I can actually bring to Commons, some of the Brazilian photos are from the sculpting process of sculptures that would also be placed in public spaces, in agreement with freedom of panorama in Brazil such sculptures are fine and I also don't know if they being incomplete in some photos also change something. The photos from the 20s (none of which containing art) are very clearly to me public domain on both Brazil and the united states, but I have no clue from when do they stop being in the united states. The vast majority of the photos (maybe all of them) also have unknown photographers. Otto Von Heim (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, for anything first published in Brazil, if it was first published in 1931 or later, it would still be in copyright in the U.S. Further, if a known author lived into 1955, it would still be in copyright in Brazil.
- If it is previously unpublished and there is a known author who died in 1954 or earlier, that would be PD in both countries ({{PD-70}}, {{PD-US-unpublished}}). If it is previously unpublished and there is not a known author with a known death date, only works from 1905 or earlier are PD in the U.S. (also {{PD-US-unpublished}}). - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think you are thinking about the artworks themselves, {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} says that the photos are public domain in Brazil if created before 1998, as opposed to known author dying in 1954 as you mentioned. My assumption was that, even though all the photos are public domain in Brazil (I'm already disregarding the photos of paintings), I could only bring to Commons the ones from before March 1989, as per item 2 in the template mentioned. If that is not the case and I have to wait until 2118 to upload all the photos I will simply put the ones I am actually going to use directly on Wikipedia, as per en:WP:NFCI items 7 & 8 (equivalent in Portuguese: pt:WP:PID), although it saddens me about the loss of image quality. Otto Von Heim (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the non-artistic photo thing for Brazil. So, yes, anything published before 1 March 1989 without conforming to U.S. formalities and considered non-artistic would be OK for Commons, but for anything not published by that date, those remarks I made about U.S. status of unpublished works apply: it would still be copyrighted in the U.S. if the author was alive in 1955 or later, or if there is no known author (or an author who is not known to have died earlier than 1955) and the picture is less than 120 years old. Plus, in a really screwed-up quirk of U.S. law, anything created before 1978 and first published 1 March 1989 through 31 December 2002 is copyrighted in the U.S. at least through 2047, regardless of creation date. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think you are thinking about the artworks themselves, {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} says that the photos are public domain in Brazil if created before 1998, as opposed to known author dying in 1954 as you mentioned. My assumption was that, even though all the photos are public domain in Brazil (I'm already disregarding the photos of paintings), I could only bring to Commons the ones from before March 1989, as per item 2 in the template mentioned. If that is not the case and I have to wait until 2118 to upload all the photos I will simply put the ones I am actually going to use directly on Wikipedia, as per en:WP:NFCI items 7 & 8 (equivalent in Portuguese: pt:WP:PID), although it saddens me about the loss of image quality. Otto Von Heim (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, this helps with the Argentinian photos, but says very little about what I can actually bring to Commons, some of the Brazilian photos are from the sculpting process of sculptures that would also be placed in public spaces, in agreement with freedom of panorama in Brazil such sculptures are fine and I also don't know if they being incomplete in some photos also change something. The photos from the 20s (none of which containing art) are very clearly to me public domain on both Brazil and the united states, but I have no clue from when do they stop being in the united states. The vast majority of the photos (maybe all of them) also have unknown photographers. Otto Von Heim (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Bella_Thorne_-_43579510474.jpg
[edit]
File:Bella_Thorne_-_43579510474.jpg and File:Bella_Thorne_-_42488771060.jpg - copyright tags in EXIF not corresponds username on Flickr. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Information about the copyright status of a map
[edit]Appreciated community: I need your advice.
I'm considering upload this map from 1960 done for the Pakistani airline PIA. However, I'm confused about the copyright status of this map.
The Pakistani copyright rules say that the copyright expires after 50 years, which the linked map achieving that limit in 2010. However, the linked page says that Gordon Davey (the one who drew the map) died in 1991, which confuses me about how to proceed.
Please, advise me: Can I upload this map in current times or do I have to wait until the copyright expires?
Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)