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copyright holders of his stuff are an NGO that preserves Sisamouth's work, and despite their registered info being outdated are who I infer to be behind this channel.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@Jmabel As far as I'm aware their contact info is outdated, their website was last updated in 2012.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)

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 សម្រាប់​បម្រើ​ជា​ប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ ដោយមិនគិតរក និងយកកម្រៃ ព្រមទាំង អាចឱ្យយើងខ្ញុំបានជួយប្រទេសជាតិ បានមួយភាគតូចផងដែរ ។” translation: “Everything stored in the eLibrary of Cambodia is the property of all Cambodians, to serve the public interest, without any consideration or charge, and to enable us to help the country in a small way”.

2. The eLibrary of Cambodia also states “សម្បតិ្តខ្មែរណាដែលបង្ហោះលើវេបសាយយើង បើលោកអ្នកជាម្ចាស់ ចង់ឱ្យយើង

ដកចេញ យើងនឹងគោរពតាមសំណូមពរ” translation: “If you are the owner of any Cambodian material on this website and want us to remove it, we will honor the request”. That portrait still remains in the database.

It seems as tons of portraits have been able to be used freely because legal rights over them either haven’t been signed for a long time or do not exist. Regarding Wikipedia taking down former photos on the Sisamouth page, I’m highly sure it was due to people claiming the portrait was entirely their work rather than the use of it in the first place. CiteMeToSleep (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input @CiteMeToSleep, I actually now remember some of the context of at least 2 of the deletions. There was a flickrwasher who uploaded several photos themselves, claiming they were under a free license. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@CiteMeToSleep Do you remember the exact file where you got the photo from within the eLibrary? TansoShoshen (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the late reply. The link is here: https://www.elibraryofcambodia.org/song/%E1%9E%87%E1%9E%B7%E1%9F%87%E1%9E%91%E1%9E%BC%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%9B%E1%9F%81%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%93%E1%9E%B9%E1%9E%84%E1%9E%94%E1%9E%84/ CiteMeToSleep (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I think that the best way to move forward is via an undeletion request, I'm looking at the site, I think that PD-CambodiaGov could be argued as "other instructed circulars issued by state organizations". If that is the case, then what you've unlocked for Cambodian media on Commons will be huge. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Welp, not enough evidence. Undeletion request got denied. TansoShoshen (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you mind expanding on why the un-deletion request was denied? CiteMeToSleep (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@CiteMeToSleep So it was because there was no legal notice provided that the album covers were under the copyright of the government. Even though it likely is, Commons requires written proof. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible we could email the eLibrary staff and receive written proof? CiteMeToSleep (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@CiteMeToSleep

Yes, but we'd have to designate someone to do so while CCing COM:VRT. TansoShoshen (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s a good choice, we should go forward with it. CiteMeToSleep (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   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)
• 👁 Image
   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 👁 Image
   Oppose to this proposal. It would've been a really good thing for Bangladeshi Commons community to have FoP in the new law, like that in the US, even if is through a loophole, but this has to be done through a legal battle, not by establishing consensus in a Wikimedia community. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 09:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: Thank you reading all of these text. While I have labeled it as FoP, FoP is a consequence of the law. The main proposal of this text is if "architectural work" is protected by copyright or not. The law does not have FoP. But you can take pictures of any work that is not protected by copyright. The main body of the text does not deal with FoP, rather with the main question.

I don't know why you are asking for English translation here. Under the Bengali Language Introduction Act, 1987 and Section 128 of the Copyright Act, 2023, the Bengali text is the only legally authoritative version, so any legal interpretation or decision should be based on that. If there is conflict with English and Bengali version of the law, Bengali version will get priority. Any decision has to be made from the Bengali version of the law. As you are a native speaker, I advice you to not read or make any decision from even a single English word. Since 2017-ish every gazette of Bangladesh has been published on http://dpp.gov.bd. If government has not issued a gazette, any translation does not hold any legal authority. You cannot create a translation and make decisions from it.

স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম has the word শিল্প in it. You cannot just exclude শিল্প from the translation. "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" and "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" is clearly defined by the law. You cannot assume they are the same. According to The General Clauses Act, 1897 and existing precedents of Bangladeshi law, you cannot assume something is protected by saying, "law does not say, it is unprotected". The law cannot list every type of unprotectable work, and say these are unprotected. 2(40) artistic work is clearly defined in 2(40), itself. 2(40) does not include architectural work. Same way you say that "does not necessarily exclude architectural works", I can say, "does not necessarily include architectural works". Let's say, the law says you cannot enter military compound. By your logic, I can enter any house regardless of being private property. The law works both ways, it doesn't matter if you think that is right or wrong.

14(5) deals with architectural artistic work. It does not deal with "artistic work", it specifically dictates architectural artistic work. It does not say architectural and artistic work. If someone say salt water, you do not assume he is talking about water also or salt + water. 2(40) says শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন স্থাপত্য বা নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের মডেল বা নকশা; important distinction here is "বা" vs "অথবা", if you read the law carefully, also any Bangladeshi law, the law uses "বা" for combining two words and "অথবা" for combining two sentences or clauses. 2(40) - শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন (স্থাপত্য বা নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের) (মডেল বা নকশা); it is not (শৈল্পিক গুণসম্পন্ন স্থাপত্য) বা (নির্মাণ শিল্পকর্মের মডেল) বা (নকশা).

I am not making a claim that there is FoP in Bangladesh. I am claiming that Bangladeshi law does not protect architectural work.

For sculptures, if a sculpture is made with bricks, it is not a sculpture by Bangladeshi law.

I am not trying to establish a consensus here. I am explaining the law here and the consensus should be reached about whether to implement the explanation to commons.

The law is clear in this regard.

Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state "no copyright exists" for each.

আপনি ক তে কলিকাতা বানাতে পারেন। But you should not tackle the discussion with "Bangladesh has no FoP" and I am trying to change that situation. Rather you should tackle the discussion with, "this is an explanation of the law" Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 10:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tausheef Hassan, Thank you for your prompt reply. But, I believe, this is a technical misinterpretation of both law and engineering.

• In your opinion, there are slight differences among the jargons "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" (architectural works), "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" (artistic architectural works) and "স্থাপত্য" (architecture). Among them, only "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" (artistic architectural works) are protected by the sections 14(2)(c) and 14(5). Laws don't work like that. Bangladesh uses "harmonious construction" to avoid any part of the statute being redundant. According to you, "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" is excluded from the copyright laws rendering section 2(51) redundant. This is not possible as the legislature will never write any redundant clause.
• According to section 2(7):

“কপিরাইট” অর্থ কোনো কর্ম বা কর্মের গুরুত্বপূর্ণ অংশের বিষয়ে নিম্নবর্ণিত কোনো কিছু করা বা করিবার ক্ষমতা অর্পণ করা, এবং কোনো সম্পৃক্ত অধিকারও (related rights) ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে, যথা :-
     (গ) শিল্পকর্মের ক্ষেত্রে,-
          (অ) কোনো একমাত্রিক কর্মকে অন্য মাত্রিক (দ্বিমাত্রিক, ত্রিমাত্রিক, চতুর্থ মাত্রিক, ইত্যাদি) কর্মে রূপান্তরসহ যে কোনো আঙ্গিকে কর্মটি পুনরুৎপাদন করা;
          (আ) কর্মটি জনগণের মধ্যে প্রচার করা;

which roughly translates to:

"Copyright" means the right to do or to grant the right to do any of the following in respect of a work or substantial part of a work, and shall also include any related rights, such as:
     (c) for artworks,-
          (i) to reproduce a one-dimensional work in any form, including converting it into another dimensional (two-dimensional, three-dimensional, fourth-dimensional, etc.) work;
          (ii) to distribute the works among the public;

Therefore any form of reproduction, including a model and a building (which, from the engineering perspective, is a *life-size 3D model*) from an architectural design will be subjected to copyright. Also Section 2(51) defines "architectural works" as "any building, structure or infrastructure possessing artistic character or incorporating design, or any model of such building, structure or infrastructure", which clearly overlaps with the section 2(7)(c), therefore both "architectural works" and so-called "artistic architectural works" must be protected as "artistic works" under section 14(1)(c).

• For sculptures, yes, we can make brick sculptures without carving, casting or molding. But how are bricks made? With molds, of course. This also applies to another form of assembling type of sculptures where we assemble cement blocks or RCC blocks or metal plates, which are previously casted in a mold before assembling. The proposal relating to sculptures totally misunderstand the engineeing processes, for both sculptures and construction.
• As per JWilz12345, the claimed "design choice" totally strips away the copyright from an entire professional class, the architects, which is a serious violation of the international law as a signatory of Berne Convention. The court, if presented, will always prefer an interpretation that will uphold the treaty obligations. (Again, per Kaim Amin, this is a legal process, not linguistic analysis.) Also, this rejects the "fair use regime" intended by the new Bangladeshi copyright law. Last but not the least, if this "loophole" is rejected by any court in Bangladesh, the Wikimedia community has to face the liabilities. Refusal to wait for judicial clarification or professional legal guidance in favor is a failure of archival responsibility.

— Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: ভাই, প্রথমত ভাষ্কর্যের ক্ষেত্রে আপনি লজিক্যাল ফ্যালাসিতে ভুগছেন। Reductio ad absurdum! আইনে ভষ্কর্যের নির্মাণপদ্ধতি নিয়ে আলোচনা করা হয়েছে। ভাস্কর্য কী কী দিয়ে তৈরি, সেটার নির্মাণ পদ্ধতি না। আর আগের মন্তব্যে বলা কলাম বা বিমের ঢালাইয়ের Structural formwork-কেও যদি ছাঁচের আওতায় নিয়ে আসেন, তাহলে পৃথিবীর যেকোনও কনক্রিটের স্থাপনা অর্থাৎ, বিল্ডিং তো বটেই, ব্রিজ-কালভার্টও আইনের চোখে 'ভাস্কর্য' হয়ে যাবে! 

দ্বিতীয়ত, ২(৫১) মোটেও অপ্রয়োজনীয় না। মূল প্রস্তাবনায় ইতোমধ্যে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, আইনের ৩(৩) ও ৩(৪)(গ) ধারায় কোনো দালানের প্রকাশকাল নির্ধারণের জন্য "স্থাপত্যকর্ম" কথাটি সংজ্ঞায়িত করা জরুরি ছিল। যদি কোনো দালানের (স্থাপত্যকর্ম) গায়ে কোনো শিল্পকর্ম (যেমন: ম্যুরাল, ফ্রেস্কো) আঁকা থাকে, তবে দালানের নির্মাণ শেষ হওয়ার দিনটিই হবে ওই শিল্পকর্মের প্রকাশকাল। কারণ খেয়াল করুন, আইনে বলা আছে,  ৩(৩) ও স্থাপত্য কর্ম ও ভাস্কর্যের ক্ষেত্রে, স্থাপনা বা উহাতে অন্তর্ভুক্ত শিল্পকর্মসহ উহার নির্মাণ সম্পন্ন হইবার পর কর্মটি প্রকাশিত বলিয়া গণ্য হইবে।" তাই দালানে কোনও শিল্পকর্ম থাকলে সেটার প্রকাশ সাল নির্ণয় করা জরুরি, এজন্য দালানকে সংজ্ঞায়ন করাও জরুরি। এছাড়াও, ২(৪০) ধারায় থাকা "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম"র (2D নকশা/3D মডেল) সঙ্গে বাস্তব দালানের পার্থক্য পরিষ্কার করার জন্যেও দুটোর আলাদা সংজ্ঞায়ন জরুরি।

তৃতীয়ত, ২(৭)(গ)(অ) অনুসারে আপনি বলেছেন তাই দালান নিজেই নকশার 3D মডেল বলে যে ছবি তোলা যাবে না যুক্তি দিয়েছেন, এই বিষয়ে মূল প্রস্তাবনাতেই যথেষ্ট আলোচনা করা হয়েছে। মূল নকশা ধরে হুবুহু আরেকটি ভবন নির্মাণ অবশ্যই বেআইনি। কিন্তু স্থপতির মূল কাগজের বা ডিজিটাল নকশাটি কপিরাইটযুক্ত হওয়ার মানে এই নয় যে, রাস্তায় দাঁড়িয়ে থাকা আস্ত ভৌত দালানটি নিজে একটি স্বাধীন "শিল্পকর্ম" হিসেবে গণ্য হবে এবং তার ছবি তোলা যাবে না।  কারণ একটা দালানের দুই-চারটা অ্যাঙ্গেলের ছবি দেখেই দেখেই (নকশা ছাড়া) হুবুহু একটা ভবন নির্মাণ করে মূল নকশাগুলোর শতভাগ অনুকরণে ভবন নির্মাণ করে ফেলা সম্ভব নয়!

এরপর আসি বার্ন কনভেনশনের বিষয়ে। ভবনের চবি তোলার সুযোগ দেওয়া মানে স্থপতির কপিরাইট কেড়ে নেওয়া নয়। কপিরাইট আইনের ১৪(৫) ধারা অনুযায়ী স্থপতির ২ডি নকশার অধিকার পুরোপুরি সংরক্ষিত। কেউ ওই দালানের হুবহু রেপ্লিকা বা নকশা চুরি করতে পারবে না। কিন্তু স্থাপনার ছবি তোলা মানেই বার্ন কনভেনশনের লঙ্ঘন হলে পৃথিবীর যেসব দেশে স্পষ্টভাবে FoP আছে, সেসব দেশে স্থপতির অধিকার নষ্ট হচ্ছে না? এক্ষেত্রে কী বলবেন?  বার্ন কনভেনশনের ৯(২) অনুচ্ছেদে (Three-step test) কিছু "certain special cases”-এ সদস্য দেশগুলোকে তাদের নিজস্ব কপিরাইট আইনে 'ব্যতিক্রম ও সীমাবদ্ধতা' রাখার অনুমতি দিয়েছে। বিভিন্ন দেশে FoP থাকার মতো করেই বাংলাদেশের আইনে ভৌত স্থাপনার কপিরাইট না থাকা বার্ন কনভেনশনের অনুমোদিত ব্যতিক্রম।

তাছাড়া, আমাদের সামনে সুস্পষ্ট আইন থাকতে কোর্টের অপেক্ষায় কেন থাকব! কমন্সের নীতিমালা তো সংশ্লিষ্ট দেশগুলোর লিখিত আইনের ভিত্তিতেই তৈরি। ইতোমধ্যে আলাদালতের কোনও রায় থাকলে, কিংবা প্রচলিত নিয়মের বিপরীতে নতুন কোনও রায় এলে তখন আদালতের রায় অনুসরণ করা হয়। কিন্তু এই মুহূর্তে কোনও কনফিউশন হলে, কবে আলাদালতের টনক নড়বে, তারপর আলাদতে সেটার সওয়াল হবে, রায় আসবে সেটার অপেক্ষা করে থাকার তো কোনও যুক্তি নেই। যদি ভবিষ্যতে বাংলাদেশের কোনো আদালত এই আইনের ভিন্ন কোনো ব্যাখ্যা দেয়, তখন কমন্স নীতিমালা আপডেট করা যাবে। অন্যান্য দেশের ক্ষেত্রেও তা করা হয়। কিন্তু ভবিষ্যতের কোনও রায়ের আগপর্যন্ত বর্তমান লিখিত আইনই আমাদের একমাত্র মানদণ্ড।

AI Translationː First of all, regarding the issue of sculptures, you are suffering from a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum! The law discusses the construction method of a sculpture, not the manufacturing process of the materials it is made of. And if you bring the "structural formwork" of casting columns or beams (which you mentioned in your previous comment) under the definition of a "mold", then any concrete structure in the world—not just buildings, but even bridges and culverts—would become a "sculpture" in the eyes of the law!

Secondly, Section 2(51) is not redundant at all. As already mentioned in the main proposal, it was necessary to define the term "architectural work" to determine the publication date of a building under Sections 3(3) and 3(4)(c). If an artwork (e.g., mural, fresco) is painted on a building (architectural work), the date of completion of the building's construction will be considered the date of publication of that artwork. Because, please note, the law states in Section 3(3): "In the case of an architectural work and a sculpture, the work shall be deemed to be published after the completion of its construction, including the structure or the artistic work incorporated therein." Therefore, if there is an artwork on a building, it is necessary to determine its publication year, which makes defining the building itself essential. Furthermore, separate definitions are required to clearly distinguish between an "architectural artistic work" (2D design/3D scale model) under Section 2(40) and an actual physical building.

Thirdly, regarding your argument based on Section 2(7)(c)(i) that a building itself is a 3D model of the design and therefore cannot be photographed—this has already been sufficiently addressed in the main proposal. Constructing an identical building based on the original design is certainly illegal. But the fact that the architect's original paper or digital design is copyrighted does not mean that the entire physical building standing on the street will be considered an independent "artistic work" itself, forbidding anyone from taking a picture of it. This is because it is practically impossible to construct a building that is a 100% exact replica of the original designs just by looking at photographs from a few angles (without the actual architectural plans)!

Now coming to the issue of the Berne Convention. Allowing photographs of a building to be taken does not mean stripping away the architect's copyright. Under Section 14(5) of the Copyright Act, the architect's rights to their 2D design are fully protected. No one can steal the design or build an exact replica of that building. If photographing a structure meant violating the Berne Convention, wouldn't the rights of architects be compromised in countries around the world that explicitly have Freedom of Panorama (FoP)? What would you say in that case? Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention (the "Three-step test") allows member countries to introduce "exceptions and limitations" in their own copyright laws in "certain special cases". Just like having FoP in various countries, the exclusion of physical structures from copyright protection in Bangladeshi law is a permitted exception under the Berne Convention.

Moreover, why should we wait for the court when we have a clear written law in front of us! Commons policies are built upon the written statutory laws of the respective countries. If there is already a court ruling, or if a new ruling is issued that contradicts established norms, then the court's ruling is followed. But right now, there is no logic in waiting around wondering when the court will take notice, when the matter will be litigated, and when a verdict will finally be delivered. If any Bangladeshi court provides a different interpretation of this law in the future, the Commons policy can be updated at that time. This is exactly what is done for other countries as well. But until any future ruling arrives, the current written law is our only standard. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 22:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017 ভাই, সম্পূরক উত্তর:

বার্ন কনভেনশন অনুযায়ী কর্ম সৃজনের সাথে সাথেই স্বয়ংক্রিয় কপিরাইট তৈরি হয় ঠিকই, তবে আইনি সুরক্ষার জন্য যেকোনো প্রণেতা চাইলে নিজ দেশে এর লাইসেন্স রেজিস্টার করতে পারে। আর আপনি তো আইনের ব্যাখ্যার জন্য কোনও একটা কাল্পনিক মামলায় কোর্টের রায়ের অপেক্ষায় আছেন; তবে আমরা এখন এত বেশি অনিশ্চিত ভবিষ্যতের দিকে না তাকিয়ে আপাতত বাংলাদেশের কপিরাইট অফিসের ইন্টারপ্রিটেশনে আসি। এখানে শিল্পকর্ম ক্যাটাগরিতে ভাস্কর্য, রেখাচিত্র নকশা, খোদাই, স্থাপত্যের নকশা ইত্যাদি আছে। কিন্তু আস্ত ভবন রেজিস্ট্রেশনের কোনও অপশন সেখানে নেই। পাশাপাশি হোম পেইজে বাকি যেসব ক্যাটাগরি আছে, সেগুলোর কোনোটাই স্থাপত্যকর্মের সঙ্গে প্রাসঙ্গিক নয়। আইনের আপনাদের ব্যাখ্যা অনুযায়ী ভৌত দালান বা "স্থাপত্য" যদি কপিরাইটযুক্ত হতো, তবে বাংলাদেশ কপিরাইট অফিসের ওয়েবসাইটে আস্ত স্থাপনা রেজিস্টার করার সুযোগ থাকত। (এই পয়েন্টের উত্তর দেওয়ার অনুরোধ রইল!)

যদি দাবি করেন, নকশা সুরক্ষিত থাকলে দালানও সুরক্ষিত হতে বাধ্য, তাহলে খেয়াল করে দেখুন, ১৯৯০ সালের ১ ডিসেম্বরের আগে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের কপিরাইট আইন অনেকটা বর্তমান বাংলাদেশের আইনের মতোই ছিল! তখন কেবল architectural drawings, blueprints, plans এসব কপিরাইটেড ছিল। কিন্তু তারপরেও কমন্সে {{PD-US-architecture}} লাইসেন্সের আওতায় ৭৫০+ ছবি আছে। আপনার যুক্তি অনুসারে সেই ভবনগুলো কেন দ্বিমাত্রিক নকশার কপিরাইটেড ত্রিমাত্রিক অভিযোজন নয়? হলে তো অবিলম্বে সেগুলো ডিলেট করা উচিত।

তারপর, বাংলাদেশে অসংখ্য সাধারণ ভবন কোনো পেশাদার স্থপতির নকশা ছাড়াই কেবল স্থানীয় রাজমিস্ত্রিদের দ্বারা নির্মিত হয়। যে ভবনের কোনো 'স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম' (2D Design) আদতেই নেই, সেগুলোর ক্ষেত্রে আপনারা কার নকশার কপিরাইট দাবি করবেন? কোন ভবনের নকশা আছে, কোন ভবনের নকশা নেই, সেটা কীভাবে ডিফাইন করবেন? (করতে পারলেও যে কপিরাইটেড না, সেটা আগেই ব্যাখ্যা করেছি)।

এছাড়া, ১৪(৫) ধারা অনুযায়ী কেবল নকশার শৈল্পিক অংশের কপিরাইট থাকে। আর কোনো ভবনের গায়ে যদি নির্দিষ্ট কোনো শিল্পকর্ম (যেমন: ম্যুরাল, খোদাইকর্ম ইত্যাদি) থাকে এবং কেউ যদি পুরো ভবনে ছবি তোলে, যেখানে ওই শিল্পকর্মটা মাইনর সাবজেক্ট, তবুও তো সেটা COM:De minimis নীতি অনুযায়ী সম্পূর্ণ বৈধ এবং কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন নয়।

এবার আপনার ছাঁচ-দালান-ভাস্কর্য প্রসঙ্গে আসি। আপনার যুক্তি অনুসারে যেকোনো আধুনিক প্লাস্টিক সামগ্রী কিংবা আপনি যে চশমাটি পরে আছেন, তার ফ্রেমটিও কোনো না কোনো মোল্ড বা ছাঁচে তৈরি। তাহলে প্লাস্টিকের বালতি (আরেকটা বহুল ব্যবহৃত প্লাস্টিক-দ্রব্যের নাম মনে মনে পড়ুন) কিংবা চশমার ফ্রেমটিও একটি 'ভাস্কর্য'! তাহলে কি এখন কমন্সে বালতি, চশমার ছবি বা আপনার চশমা চোখে ছবি আপলোড করাও কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন হবে?

আমাদের সামনে বাংলাদেশের সুস্পষ্ট লিখিত আইন রয়েছে যা ভৌত দালানকে কপিরাইটমুক্ত রেখেছে। একে জোর করে কপিরাইটযুক্ত প্রমাণ করার চেষ্টা করাটা আইনের আক্ষরিক ব্যাখ্যার পরিপন্থী বলেই প্রতীয়মান হচ্ছে আমার কাছে।

AI translation: While it is true that copyright automatically subsists upon the creation of a work according to the Berne Convention, any creator can register its license in their own country for legal protection. And you are waiting for a court ruling in some hypothetical case for the interpretation of the law; rather than looking toward such an uncertain future, let's look at the interpretation of the Bangladesh Copyright Office for now. Here, under the Artistic Works category, there are sculptures, line drawing designs, engravings, architectural designs, etc. But there is absolutely no option to register an entire building there. Besides, none of the other categories on the homepage are relevant to architectural works. If physical buildings or "architecture" were copyrighted according to your interpretation of the law, then there would have been an opportunity to register the entire physical structure on the website of the Bangladesh Copyright Office. (I request an answer to this point!)
If you claim that if the design is protected, the building must also be protected, then take note that before December 1, 1990, the copyright law of the United States was much like the current law of Bangladesh! At that time, only architectural drawings, blueprints, and plans were copyrighted. But despite that, there more than 750 images on Commons under the {{PD-US-architecture}} license. According to your logic, why aren't those buildings considered copyrighted three-dimensional adaptations of two-dimensional designs? If they are, then they should be deleted immediately.
Then, numerous ordinary buildings in Bangladesh are constructed solely by local masons without any professional architect's design. For buildings that have no 'architectural artistic work' (2D Design) at all, whose design copyright will you claim? How will you define which building has a design and which building does not? (Even if you could, I have already explained that it is not copyrighted).
Besides, according to Section 14(5), only the artistic part of the design has copyright. And if there is any specific artwork (e.g., murals, engravings, etc.) on a building and someone takes a picture of the entire building, where that artwork is a minor subject, it is still completely legal and not a copyright violation according to the COM:De minimis policy.
Now let's come to your mold-building-sculpture topic. According to your logic, any modern plastic item or the frame of the glasses you are wearing is made in some sort of mold or cast. Then a plastic bucket (also insert a certain widely used "bengali" plastic item here) or the frame of your glasses is also a 'sculpture'! So will uploading pictures of buckets, glasses, or a picture of you wearing glasses on Commons now be a copyright violation?
We have the clear written law of Bangladesh in front of us, which has kept physical buildings copyright-free. Trying to forcefully prove them copyrighted appears to me to be contrary to the literal interpretation of the law. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 17:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017 ভাই, প্রসঙ্গত, COM:De minimis বুঝতে এই দুটো ছবি দেখুন: File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg, File:Louvre at night centered.jpg। এখানে একটি শিল্পকর্ম ছবির একদম কেন্দ্রে থাকা সত্ত্বেও অধিকাংশ এলিমেন্ট কপিরাইটমুক্ত হওয়ায় কমন্সে গ্রহণযোগ্য হয়েছে।

AI translation: BTW, to understand COM:De minimis, please see these two images: File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg, File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. Here, even though an artwork is right in the center of the image, it has been accepted on Commons because the majority of the elements are copyright-free. ≈  MS Sakib  📩 ·📝 12:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@MS Sakib, I don't think you actually read through article 9(2). It states, "… to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases …". Here the word “reproduction” refers to the actual Freedom of Panaroma. The Berne Convention allows each country to enact Freedom of Panorama laws that comply with the Three-Step Test. However, it absolutely does not authorize a state to declare an entire mandatory class of subject matter (as explicitly defined in article 2(1)) to be totally uncopyrightable, as it would be a absolute denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the treaty.

As you mentioned the US copyright law, yes it did not have protection for buildings until 1990. This is when the US joined the Berne Convention and were legally required to protect physical structures to remain compliant.

ছবি দেখেই দেখেই (নকশা ছাড়া) হুবুহু একটা ভবন নির্মাণ করে মূল নকশাগুলোর শতভাগ অনুকরণে ভবন নির্মাণ করে ফেলা সম্ভব নয়!

Of course it's possible. If one engineer can build a building based on architect's design, why another engineer or architect won't be able to build another with the same exterior. This is the reason why copyright laws exist.

Also, Bangladesh Copyright Office has no rights to explain copyright, it simply just registers them. Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention explicitly states that copyright “shall not be subject to any formality”. The structural limitations, digital menus, or administrative workflows of a national copyright office's website possess zero legislative authority, and the absence of a web form does not nullify a statutory right.

Anyway, as long as Bangladesh is a signatory of the Berne Convention, there is no reason to carry on these arguments. Kaim (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You seem to lack a proper understanding of international and domestic statutes, as well as Commons policy. An international treaty like the Berne Convention is a promise made between governments; however, for that promise to be binding for individual citizens and organizations, a country must "translate" those rules into its own domestic law. In Bangladesh, you do not go to court for "violating the Berne Convention"; you go for violating the Copyright Act, 2023.

As pointed out by খাত্তাব হাসান below. "It is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Commons community to act as an international tribunal to decide whether a nation's written law violates an international treaty or not." Per COM:Licensing, works must be free in both the United States and the source country of the work. As Prosfilaes noted below, we can use the Berne Convention for context, but it is not directly binding. To avoid these issues, the Commons community assumes treaty compliance by the sovereign state. I will say this again: "The Berne Convention is not legally binding in Bangladesh or on Wikimedia Commons."

Until a legal verdict is given by Bangladeshi courts, we must assume treaty compliance. Whether the Copyright Act, 2023 is compliant with the Berne Convention is a separate topic entirely. The convention is used only for context on Commons and is not legally binding in Bangladesh or the USA. Since Commons is not an international tribunal, debating compliance is a waste of time and energy.

Regarding compliance with Commons policy under our current logic, User:MS Sakib has already pointed out several precedents and discussions. If you disagree with those, please address every specific point of disagreement rather than cherry-picking minor details to support your agenda. Address the strongest points first. Furthermore, Commons already supports this exact situation via {{PD-US-architecture}}; if you believe these should be restricted, please start a separate thread to have those files deleted. If they are successfully deleted, then rejoin this thread regarding that point of disagreement.

As for the Copyright Office: while it is true the office does not have the authority to interpret the law, it is the body that implements it. We can argue for days about the text of the law, but the Copyright Office’s implementation serves as the practical example of what the law mandates. By looking at their requirements for registration, you can deduce that the law does not mandate the registration of physical structures as copyrightable works.

Your argument against this proposal seems to rely on cherry-picking unnecessary fine details while ignoring the "elephants in the room." Please present your arguments against the core pillars of the proposal, not the fine print. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 11:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, JWilz12345, can you help clarify whether Bangladesh or Commons policy is obligated to comply with the Berne Convention or not? Thanks. Kaim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   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 👁 Image
   Support this proposal. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• 👁 Image
   Oppose. I acknowledge all the efforts Tausheef Hasan has put into his thorough analysis. However, following all the discussions here and previously, I do not believe this community can or should allow images based on the above explanation, given that we can already see how vague this issue is. I agree with Meghmollar that we should wait for a court ruling or any other definitive, reliable interpretation. Copyright is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis. Kaim (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Section 300 of the Penal Code states that murder is illegal. By your logic:

We should wait for a court ruling or another definitive, reliable interpretation to determine what “murder” is. Murder is a serious matter, and this situation demands resolution through absolute legal interpretation, not linguistic analysis.

Therefore, your objection does not meaningfully address the issue. Please specify what exactly you disagree with. The law is clear on this point.

Architecture is not included in the list of protected works under Section 14. The definitions in Section 2 remove any uncertainty or ambiguity. It is not possible for the law to individually list thousands of types of works that fall outside copyright protection and explicitly state “no copyright exists” for each.

There is little room for ambiguity here. The text already covers all aspects relevant to architecture under Bangladeshi law, which is why the explanation is necessarily detailed. If you have read the full text, it should not appear vague. Please state clearly which part you disagree with and explain why you believe it is ambiguous. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tausheef Hassan, I don’t see any way the Penal Code of murder is relevant in this discussion. We want to have a constructive discussion and hope to obtain a fruitful outcome from this. Bringing unnecessary arguments makes this discussion pointless.

Your reasoning mostly consists of linguistic interpretation of words. It can create many problems and vagueness in the matter. For example, you claimed that architectural works (স্থাপত্য কর্ম) are not copyrightable by law, and it is different from architectural artistic work (স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম). But section 14 (6) states:

(৬) নিম্নবর্ণিত ক্ষেত্রে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকিবে না, যথা:- … (গ) কোনো স্থাপত্য কর্মের ক্ষেত্রে, যদি কর্মটি বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত না হয়।
(Copyright shall not subsist in the following cases, namely: … In the case of any architectural work, if the work is not located in Bangladesh.)

So what about architectural works inside Bangladesh? I believe every sentence of the Act has a purpose, and this is not just a Fallacy of the Inverse. This could only imply one of the following:

1. Architectural works inside Bangladesh are, in fact, copyrightable by law.
2. The terms Architectural works and Architectural artistic works refer to the same thing, and are used in the act interchangeably.

If either of these is true, then it voids your whole argument. Of course, analysing the law with the meaning of words can cause such confusion and is bound to create contradictions.

Still, your claim of architectural works not being copyrightable is pretty extreme, and I don’t believe any other major nation has given such a generous liberty. Given this, we should not consider implementing this speculation, and the fact that Bangladesh would be breaching the Berne Convention if your claim were true makes this discussion kinda redundant. Kaim (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

আমার প্রস্তাবনার প্রাথমিক অংশে এই একই প্রশ্নের উত্তর ছিল। পরে ফরম্যাটিং করতে গিয়ে সম্ভবত হারিয়ে গেছে। যাইহোক, আপনি আইনে উল্লেখিত ধারার বাহিরে যাচ্ছেন। আইনে ধারা ২ এর সজ্ঞার বাহিরে যাওয়ার কোনো সুযোগ নেই আমাদের। ধারা ২ তে স্থাপত্য কর্ম শব্দদ্বয় উদ্ধৃতির মধ্যে থাকা অবস্থায় সংজ্ঞায়িত। এই সজ্ঞার বাহিরের কোনো কিছু ঢোকানো সোজা বাংলায় আইনের লঙ্ঘন। ধারা ২তেই শিল্পকর্ম উদ্ধিতির মধ্যে সংজ্ঞায়িত আছে। শিল্পকর্মের এই সংজ্ঞার বাহিরে যেকোনো কিছুকে কপিরাইট আইনে শিল্পকর্ম বলা, আইনের পরিপন্থী এবং স্পষ্ট লঙ্ঘন। ধারা ২ আছেই যাতে ভাষাগত বিরোধ না হয়। এই ধারা ২ই স্পষ্ট করে যে ভৌত দালান শিল্পকর্ম না। এটাই আইনে সরাসরি আছে। এর বাদে শিল্পকর্মের মধ্যে কিছু ঢোকানোর সুযোগ নেই। ধারা ২ নিজেই ভাষাগত বিশ্লেষণ। আইন মূলত এখানে স্পষ্ট। আর বাংলাদেশি আইনে যাকে সুরক্ষা দেওয়া হয়নি, তাকে সুরক্ষা আছে বলার সুযোগ নেই। এই যুক্তিতে কমন্সের বেশিরভাগ pd ineligible বাংলাদেশে বৈধ নয়। আমার যুক্তি শুধু যুক্তি নয় বরং ব্যাখ্যা। আপনি আমাকে এই প্রশ্নসমূহের উত্তর দেন।

1. আইনের কোন ধারার ভিত্তিতে আপনি বলছেন যে স্থাপত্য ও স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম একই? আশা করি আপনি কোনো speculation দেবেন না। বরং আমার মতো যুক্তি দেবেন ।
2. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন ধারা ২ এর সংজ্ঞার বাহিরে আপনি গিয়ে কোনো কিছু যোগ করতে পারবেন। কেননা আপনার মতামত বলছে যে আপনি পারবেন।
3. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন যে আইন যদি সরাসরি না বলে যে "সুরক্ষা নেই", তাহলে সেটি সুরক্ষিত? কেননা তা হলে কমন্সের অনেক লাইসেন্স বাংলাদেশে অবৈধ বলে বিবেচিত হবে। যেমন নৃত্য, ফন্ট, সাধারণ লেখা, সাধারণ পতাকা ইত্যাদি।
4. আপনি কি বিশ্বাস করেন যে ধারা ১৪(১) বাদে অন্য কোনো ধারা সুরক্ষা দেওয়ার ক্ষমতা রাখে? কারণ আইন সম্পূর্ণ দাঁড়িয়ে আছে ধারা ১৪ কে বিশ্লেষণ ও পরিণাম বর্ণনা করার জন্য।
5. ধারা ২ এর কর্ম এর সংজ্ঞার মধ্যে ভৌত দালান নেই। তাহলে কপিরাইট প্রসঙ্গে ভৌত দালান আসে কিভাবে?

আইন এখানে স্পষ্ট, আইনে সরাসরি স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা দেওয়া হয়নি। ধারা ১৪(১) এ নেই, মানে নেই। ১৪(১) এর বাহিরে কারো যাওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্সের পূর্ববর্তী প্রাকটিস যা বলে সেটা হলো যে, বর্তমানে স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা নেই। যতক্ষণ না পর্যন্ত কোন আদালত বলছে যে "আছে", ততক্ষণ পর্যন্ত ধরে নিতে হবে যে সুরক্ষা নেই। পরবর্তীতে আদালত বিশ্লেষণ দিলে, কমন্সের ডিলিট করার নজির অনেক। কারণ আইনের বর্তমান ব্যাখ্যা হলো "সুরক্ষা নেই" ধারা ১৪ ও ২ এতে স্পষ্ট। আদালত ভিন্ন ব্যাখ্যা দিলে, ব্যাখ্যার আগে ছবি হস্ট করার জন্য কমন্স কোন শাস্তির শিকার হবে না, এবং কমন্স আগের ছবি ডিলিট করে দিবে। বৈশ্বিক ও বাংলাদেশি প্রাকটিস তাই বলে। আমার ১৪ ও ২, ঠিকই আছে। বর্তমান অবস্থায় আদালতের ব্যাখ্যার প্রয়োজন নেই। বরং, স্থাপত্যের সুরক্ষা প্রদান করতে আদালতের বিশ্লেষণ প্রয়োজন।

বাংলাদেশ কপিরাইট অফিসের কাজ কপিরাইট রেজিস্টার করা। বার্ন এর মতে কর্ম অটো সুরক্ষা পায়। কিন্তু তারই সাথে অফিসিয়ালি কপিরাইট রেজিস্টার করারও উপায় থাকতে হবে। কপিরাইট অফিসের আইনের ব্যাখ্যা দেওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। তবে তারা আইনের প্রয়োগ করে। শেষবার যখন গেছিলাম তারা সংবাদপত্রকে সংবাদপত্র হিসেবে রেজিস্টার করেন না। সংবাদপত্র তাদের মতে NC-ND। তারা স্থাপত্যকেও রেজিস্টার করেন না। বাংলাদেশের সরকারি কর্মকর্তা কর্মচারীদের কাছে লিখিত চাওয়া নেহাত বোকামি ছাড়া কিছুই না। তাই এই জিনিসটা আমি আমার মূল প্রস্তাবনায় অন্তর্ভুক্ত করিনি। তার বদলে প্রমাণ হিসেবে কপিরাইট অফিসের online register পদ্ধতি দেখুব [5]। এখানে ভৌত দালানকে অফিসিয়ালি রেজিস্টার করারই সুযোগ নেই। যেখানে রেজিস্টারই করার সুযোগ নেই সেখানে কপিরাইট আছে বলা হাস্যকর।

বর্তমান প্রয়োগ দেখায় যে, স্থাপত্য সুরক্ষিত নয়। একে সুরক্ষিত দাবি করার জন্য, আদালতের ব্যাখ্যা লাগবে। কমন্সের সাধারণ চর্চা অনুযায়ী এই ব্যাখ্যা না আসা পর্যন্ত ছবি পাবলিশ করা যাবে। আর বিপক্ষে রায় এলেও, কমন্সের দায় থাকবে না এবং ডিলিট করে ফেলার নজিরও অনেক আছে এবং এটি সাধারণ চর্চা।

আর বার্ন এর বিষয়টা উপরে MS Sakib ভাই ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন। আমি যদি আরও বলি, বর্তমান ব্যাখ্যায় আমি বলেছি যে, যেহেতু আইনে স্থাপত্যকে কর্ম হিসেবে দেখে না, তাই কোনো বাধা, non-copyright বাধা। আবার এইভাবেও বলা যায় যে, এই বাধা যেহেতু কপিরাইট আইনে আছে, তাই এটি কপিরাইট বাধা (সুরক্ষা নয়)। কোনো আদালত চাইলে এই ব্যাখ্যাকে আন্তর্জাতিক আইন এর সামঞ্জস্যতার জন্য বলতে পারে যে এটি কপিরাইট বাধা এবং তাই এটি আন্তর্জাতিক আইনের সাথে সামাঞ্জস্য রাখে। কমন্সে এরূপ কপিরাইট? বাধা সত্ত্বেও ছবি হোস্ট করা হচ্ছে, যা আমি মূল প্রস্তাবনায় রেখেছি।

আর আপনার মূল প্রশ্নের উত্তর আমি খানকিটা এইভাবে রেখেছিলাম খসড়া অংশে

প্রশ্ন ৪) ধারা ৩(৩) - "কোনো কর্মের প্রকাশনা এবং বাণিজ্যিক প্রকাশনা " অংশে "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর প্রকাশকাল নিয়ে নির্দিষ্ট করে উল্লেখ করা কেনো আছে? কপিরাইটযোগ্য না হলে তা তো উল্লেখ করার প্রয়োজনীতা ছিল না। ধারা ১৪(৬) - কপিরাইট থাকে এইরূপ কর্ম এর (গ) অনুযায়ী "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" বাংলাদেশে না হলে তার কপিরাইট বহাল থাকবে না। তাহলে বাংলাদেশে অবস্থিত হলে কপিরাইট বহাল থাকবে?

উঃ প্রথমেই বলি ধারা ১৪(১) এর বাহিরে যাওয়ার সুযোগ নেই। আমার ধারণা "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" বা "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর উপর কোনো "শিল্পকর্ম" অঙ্কিত থাকলে তাকে সজ্ঞায়িত করার জন্য তা দেওয়া হয়েছে। কপিরাইটযোগ্য না হলেও "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর 2D রূপান্তর "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। "স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম" কপিরাইটভুক্ত। তাই "স্থাপত্য কর্ম" এর কপিরাইট না থাকলেও আইনের দ্বারা indirect কিছু সুরক্ষা আছে। তাই এসব বিষয়কে সংজ্ঞায়িত করার প্রয়োজনীয়তা আছে।

মূলত আমার ব্যাখ্যা আইনের সাথে আক্ষরিক। এবং আপনার ব্যাখ্যা প্রমাণের জন্য আদালতের রায় প্রয়োজন। আশা করি আপনি শুধুমাত্র বিরোধিতা করার লক্ষ্যে বিরোধিতা করছেন না।

Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 15:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   Support This interpretation appears consistent with the structure of the Bangladesh Copyright Act, 2023.

Section 14 lists the categories of works in which copyright subsists, and physical buildings are not included in that list. In addition, Section 2(11) defines “work” (কর্ম) to include architectural designs or models, but not the constructed building itself. Section 2(40) similarly treats the design or model (নকশা) of architecture as an artistic work (শিল্প কর্ম).

Taken together, these provisions suggest that the law protects the architect's designs and models, while the completed physical structure itself may not constitute a copyrightable work. Therefore, photographs of ordinary buildings would not reproduce a protected work and should generally be acceptable on Commons. — Delwar • 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Physical buildings can be treated as an exception under current law. I don’t see any issues with this, and we can allow them on commons. 👁 Image
   Support —MdsShakil (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• 👁 Image
   Support It took more than two days to read all of the above with my current busy schedule but I tried. Whatever, I strongly support the proposal here.

First of all, the argument that interpreting the law literally would mean Bangladesh is breaching the Berne Convention is entirely misplaced here. As someone above also mentioned, Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention clearly allows member countries to introduce "exceptions and limitations" in certain special cases. And, It is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Commons community to act as an international tribunal to decide whether a nation's written law violates an international treaty or not. Commons policies should be strictly guided by the written copyright laws of the respective countries. If the written law of Bangladesh currently excludes physical buildings from copyright, Commons must follow that reality, rather than policing treaty compliance.

Secondly, if we look at the legally binding Bengali text, it clearly separates the 2D design ("স্থাপত্য শিল্পকর্ম") from the physical structure ("স্থাপত্য কর্ম"). We can't just merge two entirely different legal terms based on assumptions or rough translations.

Furthermore, as above mentioned, the practical reality is that the Bangladesh Copyright Office doesn't even allow the registration of physical buildings. We have to follow the written law exactly as it stands today, rather than blocking images based on the fear of some hypothetical court ruling in the future.

Again, As MS Sakib also mentioned, We cannot just sit around waiting for a court decision. If a court gives a different interpretation in the future, policies can be updated accordingly. For now, we must prioritize the current written law. খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Legally, we don't have to host anything. We have no obligation to accept any file whether or not Bangladesh considers it a copyright infringement. We can certainly take into context the Berne Convention and other laws. I'm more inclined to accept this because the US (for WMF) and so many countries have exceptions for photos of buildings, but we're generally going to assume that a country's laws are compliant with Berne, just to simplify these types of problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   Support বিস্তারিত প্রস্তাবনা আনার জন্য ধন্যবাদ ও সমর্থন জানাই। আইনে যে জিনিস কপিরাইটমুক্ত রাখা হয়েছে তাতে কপিরাইটযুক্ত করে রাখার কারণ দেখি না। বিস্তারিত কিছু লিখছি না, আমার মনে হয় না আমার নতুন করে অতিরিক্ত কিছু যোগ করার আছে। -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   Support I support the proposed interpretation regarding the situation in Bangladesh after the enactment of the Copyright Act, 2023 (Bangladesh).

A careful reading of the law suggests that ordinary architectural structures are excluded among the categories of protected artistic works. While architectural drawings, models, and certain sculptural works may be protected, the law does not explicitly extend copyright protection to the physical buildings themselves. If that interpretation is correct, photographs of buildings located in public places should not constitute copyright infringement.

In practice, treating Bangladesh as a strict “no Freedom of Panorama” jurisdiction may therefore be overly restrictive. Bangladesh has a large amount of culturally and historically significant architecture documented by contributors on Wikimedia Commons, and a blanket prohibition on photographs of buildings could unnecessarily limit the documentation of the country’s built heritage.

At the same time, the distinction highlighted in the proposal allowing photographs of buildings and infrastructure while remaining cautious about sculptures created through carving or mould-casting appears to be a reasonable and legally cautious approach based on the wording of the law.

Given the current ambiguity in the legislation, adopting this interpretation would allow Commons to remain consistent with the law while avoiding unnecessarily restrictive deletions of architectural photographs from Bangladesh.--ROCKY (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@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;

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।

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:

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}}. It is not retroactive, so only US buildings completed after 1990 are protected. But fortunately, they introduced FoP rule for architecture at the same time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I don't know much about international law. But I can say is Section 2(40) does not recognize architecture as artistic work by not including it in it. Section 2(11), does not recognize it as "work" in context of the law. As "architectural work" is separately defined, it does not fall within the residual "other" category either. Bangladeshi general clauses and practices does not provide protection unless stated.

However the law does provide indirect protection to architectural works. I have explained them in #Additional Restrictions section and compliance of these restriction with commons policy in #Compatibility of Reproduction Conditions with Commons Policies section.

Architectural drawings are protected by copyright law. (Section 2(40) & 14). And converting these drawing from 2D (drawing) to 3D (architectural work) is prohibited by section 2(7). As explained in Additional Restrictions section, If I make a physical 1:1 reproduction of architectural work with the same material, one can argue that I have made it by deriving the work from the architectural drawing, which is prohibited. This type of indirect protection can not be argued from the law for photograph of architecture. So, making architectural drawing and physical reproduction of architectural work is prohibited. So, architectural work is not fully unprotected. It enjoys some indirect (Non-copyright?) protection. May be this can be counted as not breaching the Berne Convention.Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 10:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tausheef Hassan, "...I can say is Section 2(40) does not recognize architecture as artistic work by not including it in it." I think it's the opposite. The website of Bangladesh Copyright Office lists "architectural designs" under "artistic works". See here: [7]. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 10:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: , it lists স্থাপত্যের নকশা, not স্থাপত্য. Two different things and inline with my explanation. And Bangladesh Copyright Office has not rights to explain copyright. It simply just registers them. Their office is viewable from my window. Last time I went there, the officer there redirected another person to me to give her legal advice. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 11:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We have another case of a national subsidiary YouTube channel uploading copyrighted material under a CC BY license at Category:Videos by Capcom France and Category:Files from the official Capcom France YouTube channel.

Is it possible for someone to contact whoever does the licensing for Capcom to clarify whether or not these videos were intended to be released freely? We have seen before at videos from Vogue Taiwan and Cartoon Network India that the releases were illegitimate and thus the files were deleted from Commons. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: there is currently an ongoing deletion discussion regarding one of the Capcom France videos here, but for some reason that deletion discussion does not include every other video by that channel. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this website is where to contact Capcom's licensing dept. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted them yet? I just want to make sure before I attempt an email. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I believed nobody has done it yet. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor: nobody has done it yet, but if you attempt it, make sure to be formal and precise about the matter. Make sure their message is also confirmed by VRT. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Commons is not my area of expertise: what exactly does "confirmed by VRT" means? I think I know what VRT is. It's essentially a way for copyright holders to confirm that a certain file is licensable under a license that is considered free by Commons standards (E.G.: File:Celeste box art full.png). Does this mean I have to run the email by the team running VRT first? I just want to handle this situation with utmost care. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The Volunteer Response Team (VRT) handles verification of copyright status and permissions for Commons, this includes potential copyright violations. If Capcom clarifies that the Capcom France YouTube videos were not legitimately released under the Creative Commons license, they should email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org so that the VRT can ensure it is an official statement. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I have a draft for an email set up.

Good day,

There is an inquiry regarding the licensing of YouTube videos on the official Capcom France YouTube channel. Ever since 15 December 2017 with the release of the “[ Monster Hunter - World ] - Palico - PS4, Xbox One, PC” video, the vast majority of videos on the Capcom France YouTube channel have been licensed under Creative Commons Attribution. It is important that you confirm that the licensing of these to be legitimate and not merely an error.

If this was an error and you did not wish for these videos to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, please email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org at your earliest convenience clarifying the mistake.

How does this sound? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Make sure you provide URL links to the following pages in your inquiry:

1. YouTube licensing types
2. Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0
3. Capcom France YouTube channel
4. [ Monster Hunter - World ] - Palico - PS4, Xbox One, PC

Make sure to also introduce yourself by mentioning that you are a volunteer editor on Wikimedia Commons, seeking clarification on if videos from the Capcom France channel are released under the Creative Commons Attribution license. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is an improved version of the email, based off of your recommendations:

Good day,

I am a volunteer of the free media repository to which anyone can contribute to known as Wikimedia Commons. There is an inquiry regarding the licensing of YouTube videos on the official Capcom France YouTube channel. Ever since 15 December 2017 with the release of the “[ Monster Hunter - World ] - Palico - PS4, Xbox One, PC” video, the vast majority of videos on the Capcom France YouTube channel have been licensed under Creative Commons Attribution. Creative Commons is a type of way to license a work or part of such work. It is important that you confirm that the licensing of these to be legitimate and not merely an error.

If this was an error and you did not wish for these videos to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, please email commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org at your earliest convenience clarifying the mistake.

Was there anything more I missed? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor: I believe this should be acceptable. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like an invitation to people who are releasing material under a Creative Commons to back down on what they've been doing for years.

I can't understand why WE assume the people who is for free licenses are some kind of weirdos. (Not because of this message, I feel as if the very own Commons community does not believe in free licenses).

Why instead of sending them messages asking if they are doing things wrong, we try to send them messages congratulating for doing things right? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

So, it appears that the website you have linked is for licensing out characters as organizations exclusively and not for anything else. In order to contact Capcom Europe (which I presume would be the intended target as Capcom France is their subsidiary), we need to send a letter in the mail. I do not live in Europe. What is the best course of action here? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor: I'll send them a message myself. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 I appreciate your work for this! Boneless Pizza! (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

After some difficulty, I have managed to properly mail in the letter. I specified in the letter that they ought to contact VRT and provided the relevant email addresses. Nevertheless, if they contact me instead I will instead relay the response to a trusted Commons user who will post it publicly, as I will be on an extended break from Commons from tomorrow onward. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I have now found out that a file from Capcom France did indeed survive a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phoenix Wright in Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney.png, which was closed by @Josve05a.

Also, the concern about holding up the FAC is no longer present as it was agreed that the FAC could be promoted without the images and the images could be added after the deletion discussion was concluded. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Just want to comment that Josve05a's reasoning (and, by extension, that of @Qzekrom) is flawed. Under Pinkham v. Sara Lee Corp., "the apparent authority defense ... is generally unavailable in the context of copyright infringement". Although there are cases suggesting otherwise, I have not seen Pinkham criticized by other judges or legal scholars. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have since read more on this subject and am open to reopen that discussion… --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's very unlikely it's an error when Capcom France account does indeed select which licenses they use, and have historically also uploaded videos under non-free licenses (Paris Games Week 2024 videos aren't free licensed Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and 5).

Capcom France does select wether they want (or not) to release a video under a Creative Commons. This is not Cartoon episodes, this is promotional material, it makes sense for them to want it to spread as freely as possible (they don't sell videos, they sell games). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Possibly worth mentioning Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ace Attorney - Ici, Ace Attorney TV!.webm as another Capcom France file that survived a deletion discussion. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This was already mentioned above, and you just repeated yourself. The closer has also acknowledged they may reopen it. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Auckland, New Zealand by Planet Labs.jpg and other versions.

This seems to originate from ESA, accessed through Planet Labs. The author is specified as Planet Labs, and the wikimedia page says the license is CC-BY-SA. Planet Labs doesn't seem to release imagery under that license.

Do these need to be deleted? Confuciou (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

These aren't ESA images; they were made by one of Planet's RapidEye satellites. It's possible that Planet originally released the file under that license and later changed it. Unfortunately, Internet Archive is having issues right now and a lot of things aren't working, so we'll have to check this later once the site has stabilized. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The archived source page (http://web.archive.org/web/20161205080621/https://www.planet.com/gallery/auckland-20160630/) doesn't work correctly as the original would have, because you should be able to click on the (i) beside "Auckland, New Zealand June 30, 2016" to pull up a download link, description, etc. However, the page code shows that the image was indeed originally licensed as CC-by-sa-4.0. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Indonesian government works are not really public domain by default. Instead, Article 43 provides for "free uses" of copyrighted works, including works of the Indonesian government.

If these rules are under the "copyright limitations," then it means Indonesian government works are not public domain. How can these works be in the public domain if the law provides uses that are not infringements on copyright? We have been confusing ""public domain" with "acts are not considered Copyright infringement." The fact that the law allows free uses of certain works does not magically erase the copyright.

Being in the public domain means there is no copyright in the first place, which is not in this case. In the case of Indonesian government works, there is copyright, but the law provides free uses for such works.

This template must be moved to {{Copyrighted free use-IDGov}}, similar to {{Copyrighted free use}} and {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}.

Free use (an "act not considered as Copyright infringement") is not the same as public domain (unprotected work that does not require "free use" rules).

Pinging every individual from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia: @Mdaniels5757, David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, Nat, Jeromi Mikhael, RaFaDa20631, Liuxinyu970226, Bennylin, and Adamant1: . I felt it was best to post this concern here, because it is very certain only a few users "watch" the CRT/Indonesia talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Just took another look at this. I think it's worse than that.

• First, let's look at Articles 41 and 42, which begin "Works that are not protected by Copyrights include:" and "There is no Copyright to works of" respectively. Both of these articles, which are not mentioned in the template, operate to exclude works placing the covered works in the public domain.
• By contrast, Article 43 begins "Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include". As you note, this makes clear that this is effectively a limited license to do certain acts, not a statement that any works are in the public domain (i.e. free of copyright).
• Assuming that this is analogous to a license, in order to move it to e.g. {{Copyrighted free use-IDGov}}, the rights provided by Article 43 would need to be an acceptable license per COM:L. As we will see, they are not.
• Article 43(a) allows "Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" (emphasis added). That's not a free license, because it does not allow modifications/derivative works.
• Article 43(b) allows "Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made". The most natural reading of that, to me, is that the government does not need to follow copyright laws, but I appreciate that something may have been lost in translation. Even assuming that this means that that "Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction" of works created by the government is allowed, it's not a free license, because it doesn't allow modifications/derivative works.
• Article 43(e) allows "Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/nonministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations." This doesn't allow modifications/derivative works, and also would seem to prohibit e.g. use of an unmodified photograph in a context that makes the subject appear undignified. That's not a free license.

What to do? It could be that some images tagged with this are actually exempt from copyright under other articles of Indonesian law. So probably (assuming someone else confirms I'm not crazy) we'll need a bunch of mass DRs. (I'm showing 47k uses of the template.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 Article 43 is under "BAB VI

PEMBATASAN HAK CIPTA" (which translates [by Google Translate] as "CHAPTER VI COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS". This means all provisions under this chapter, including Chapter VI that PD-IDGov relies on, are all limitations or exceptions to copyright. Chapter VI (copyright limitations) covers Articles 43 to 51. By the way, here is the original Indonesian text of the law.

In verbatim Google Translate of the entire Article 43:

"(a) Announcement, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of the national emblem and national anthem according to their original nature."

"(b) Announcement, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of anything carried out by or on behalf of the government, unless otherwise protected by statutory regulations, a statement on the Work, or when the Work is announced, distributed, communicated, and/or reproduced."

"(c) Taking actual news, in whole or in part, from news agencies, broadcasting institutions, newspapers, or other similar sources, provided that the source must be fully cited."

"(d) Creating and distributing Copyrighted content through information and communication technology media that is non-commercial and/or benefits the Creator or related parties, or the Creator states that they have no objection to such creation and distribution."

"(e) Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of state institutions, heads of ministries/non-ministerial government institutions, and/or regional heads shall be carried out with due regard to dignity and propriety in accordance with statutory provisions."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Refining the copied text on Google Translate to convert newlines into spaces, the resulting translation of 43(b) became: Announcement, Distribution, Communication and/or Duplication of anything carried out by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by statutory regulations, statements on the Creation, or when Announcement, Distribution, Communication and/or Duplication of the Creation is carried out.

This is the original text, by the way: "Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, pernyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan."

Perhaps "penggandaan" can also mean reproduction (not only duplication). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The English Wikisource version of the text reads:

Article 43
Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include:
a. Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature;
b. Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made;
c. taking of actual news, either in whole or in part from a news agency, Broadcasting Organization, and newspaper or other similar sources provided that the source is fully cited; or
d. the production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question.
e. Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/nonministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: perhaps Article 43(b) might not be relevant for Wikimedia Commons after all.(?) Upon repeated reading, it appears to concern the government's use of copyrighted works. The provision is for the Indonesian government itself and not relevant for Wikimedia Commons. This is similar to Article 184.1(h) of the Philippine copyright law: "The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use." Here, the Philippine government can use copyrighted works, if the purpose is public interest and within the bounds of fair use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

A phrase about "dignity and appropriateness" is not a prohibition on derivative works. It's more like personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

On NL Wikipedia a discussion is happening (in Dutch) about photographs, taken in a metro station, of images of comic characters by Hermann, who recently died. 48 of these are in Category:Comic strips in the Janson metro station (Charleroi). The question is twofold: (a) is this location a public place in the sense of the Belgian law, (b) what is the interpretation of the sentence "as it is found there". Can these images be used according to Commons PD of CCBYSA licensing? Please also note this deletion request.

Ping @Romaine, @IIVQ @Geertivp for courtesy.

Ellywa (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I raised the original question, which was about whether the NOS (Dutch state-sponsored but independent news organisation) was allowed to use a picture from Wikimedia with as only credit "Dupuis" (the publisher of Hermann's cartoons).

But then I started wondering whether the image File:Charleroi - station Janson - Jeremiah - 01.jpg has the right license at all. As-is it has a CC-BY-SA 4.0 and the template:FoP-Belgium applied to it.

In the discussion we wondered about

1. does the space where the image is visible consist a public space?
2. does the way of showing the image consist of the work is as it is found there (which an image like File:Janson Metro Station, Charleroi 04.JPG more clearly does.)

Discussing the first question about whether the space where the object is visible consist of a public space, the photos are taken from the platform, not the station hall of the station of the Belgian Charleroi Light Metro underground station of Janson. This station consist of an underground platform with two entrances from street level. There are no physical barriers to enter the platform until passage of the last metro, afterward doors or rollblinds to the entrances are closed, so it certainly is not a 24/7 publicly accessible space. It is not possible to see the artworks as depicted here from the public street level.

On the website of the operator of the metro, the Opérateur de transport de Wallonie (OTW, publicly known as LETEC and formerly TEC), in the Conditions Générales d’Utilisation des titres de transport TEC I can not find any sentence judging it to be necessary to have a valid ticket to be on the platform or that a platform is or is not a public space, although it has the sentence "les personnes présentes dans tout véhicule TEC accessible au public, aux arrêts de bus, tram et métro, ou dans les espaces accessibles au public destinés à assurer l’exploitation de l’OTW" (article 2.1, emphasis mine) which alludes that TEC's vehicles and spaces like bus, tram and metro stops are accessible to the public. I could not find any other conditions on being on the platform of the station, but it might be that the platforms themselves are not owned by the OTW(LeTEC) but by the city of Charleroi. I could not find any legal mentions there either.

Dutch Internet legalist (I don't know the official denomination of his profession, but his opinions are highly regarded by the Dutch community) Arnout Engelfriet wrote an article Fotograferen van kunst op openbare plaatsen (photographing of art in public spaces) and by his definitions, the platform is not a public space (and he also describes how this cutout does not fall under the work as it is found there). Engelfriet however describes the Dutch situation. Belgian copyright law is similar but generally seen as a little stricter.

This discussion should be about what consists a "public space", in Belgium and more general in other countries where that has consequences for whether photographing copyrighted works for Wikimedia.

I put in the original deletion request in on question of @Ellywa, with as goal to flywheel this discission.

IIVQ (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ellywa@IIVQ speaking of Belgian FoP, there appears to be the very first real life casefile from Belgium. See this LinkedIn post. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @JWilz12345, I will add it to the DR. It seems the mural can be reproduced in an advertisement, but it was not supposed to be altered. Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the DR? IIVQ (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@IIVQ, the Deletion Request. Ellywa (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh... Thx! IIVQ (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@IIVQ: you may find COM:Glossary useful. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I only discovered Buzz and Jessie today. Per Commons policy, these files are allowed because they were taken at an official Disney resort in China which has FoP. Though, if Disney files a DMCA claim they'd be gone.
So these photos are free in China, but if you print these on postcards and try to sell said postcards anywhere outside China, Disney will likely sue you. The photos were taken in China, but the characters originate in the US. These files can hardly be reused outside of China, and the majority of reusers is not going to be in China. Is it wise to host photos like these? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: As far as I know, "these files can hardly be reused outside of China" is not really correct as per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Map similar FoP provisions for 3D artwork in public spaces exist in at least 80 other countries. Excluding China, this still leaves at least a population of 2 billion people. We can never tell who the "majority" of reusers will be in any case. Commons currently hosts US works published as recently as 1989 whose authors are still alive, but the works are PD in the US per {{PD-US-1978-1989}}. In the vast majority of countries, copyright is determined by date of death of the author without regard to the circumstances of its publication. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 06:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, DMCA is a US copyright law, only applies in the US and not China or anywhere else. Disney may have a case in the US if they were to sue, as the question of whether foreign FoP applies in the US is apparently legally unsettled. Per {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, Commons consensus is that it would be permitted and overturning Commons consensus on foreign FoP works as it applies to the US would require a broader discussion than simply China or Disney, as I see it. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 06:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Howardcorn33, As far as I know, "these files can hardly be reused outside of China" is not really correct You're mostly right. I'm not sure why I thought that. You're not entirely right because some of those countries have additional rules, for example in the Netherlands where FoP may not apply if an entrance fee is charged. And the park charges an entrance fee, but I don't know if Buzz and Jessie would also be visible from public land. COM:FOP Netherlands also states "Parliament stated that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) is not permitted." And these two are tightly cropped to the subject. So these photos won't be PD in all the countries that are green on the map. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Cam Ward 10 26 2025.jpg, it seemed this screenshot is not from a BY-CC licensed video, related page is https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LLXhOa3_T1s, However, the uploader directly revert my tagging. Could someone look into that? Lemonaka (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Lemonaka, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXhOa3_T1s says Creative Commons. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as Alexis Jazz mentioned above, the video has a CC license. To license-review YouTube shorts, you will need to change the YouTube URL so it displays as a regular video, then you will be able to see its CC license. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how to deal with the shorts. Lemonaka (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Lemonaka, {{YT short|https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LLXhOa3_T1s}} outputs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXhOa3_T1s. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

ok, THANKS. Lemonaka (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I was directed here, so copying what I wrote at COM:HD: Before I upload a photo of this building at Dollywood with a butterfly on the facade, I wanted to ask if this would be fall under COM:FOP US. The butterfly appears to be part of the building and not a sculpture. APK (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at File:NotoSans - Circled_Information Source - 1F6C8.svg, File talk:NotoSans - Circled Information Source - 1F6C8.svg#Apache 2 license and fonts? Is this icon even copyrightable? The icon is just a circle, a rectangle and a rounded rectangle composed together. D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not copyrightable in the U.S., for sure. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Afaik, since its an SVG and not a raster image, the underlying code would be copyrightable, no? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point! The face itself is probably not copyrightable, but the program might be (depending on how the program was created). That's why I didn't touch the image by myself and decided to ask here first. I doubt that it can be considered a derivative work from Google's font (different program formats, at least), but how the image itself was created is a good question. It was uploaded by the author, who is responsible to choose the license for his work. But if it's just an automatic transformation of a symbol to svg, which can be done by anyone with the same result, it probably won't pass the threshold of originality, am I right? But can it be considered a derivative, if it was rendered as svg by the font software directly from the font instructions? D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, probably I found the answer by myself: [8]. Google says that their fonts can be used as text without any restrictions, including the case when you convert the text to a path in Inkscape. D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be pretty surprised if that particular SVG rose to the level of copyrightability. If someone literally duplicated it, I cannot imagine a court upholding a claim of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There are 13 files related to en:Carl Randall uploaded by three different accounts all claimed as "own work".

1. File:Artist Carl Randall.jpg by Hawkeye press in 2013
2. File:'Carl Randall - Japan Portraits' catalogue on sale at The National Portrait Gallery London.jpg by Hawkeye press in 2013
3. File:Carl Randall Japan Portraits signing.jpg by Hawkeye press in 2013
4. File:Carl-Randall---National-Portrait-Gallery-Travel-Award.jpg by CRimage in 2016
5. File:Carl-Randall---Mr.Kitazawas-Noodle-Bar-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
6. File:Carl-Randall---Roppongi-Nightclub-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
7. File:Carl-Randall---Tokaido-Highway-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
8. File:Carl-Randall---Subway-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
9. File:Carl-Randall---Shinjuku-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
10. File:Carl-Randall---Tokyo-Portrait-painting.jpg by CRimage in 2016
11. File:Carl randall-london-portraits-paintings.jpg by JPNUKart in 2016
12. File:Carl-randall-tokyo-painting-cityscape.jpg by JPNUKart in 2016
13. File:Hibakusha-drawings-set-carl-randall.jpg by JPNUKart in 2016

Of the first three files, #3 lacks EXIF data but seems to be "oww work" as described. Files #1 and #2, however, are described as being previously published (#1 and #2); so, perhaps their respective licensing needs to be assessed.

The seven files uploaded by CRimages (#4 to #10) all are sourced to Randall's official website and contain a link to a general licensing statement posted here. I'm assuming that sufficient for Commons, though the wording might be construed as applying to only Commons and other similar sites. The same site, for what it's worth, is selling prints of the same works. Commons can assume that Randall knew what they were doing when they provided a blanket license for all their works that they've hosted on their website, right? Of these seven files, the only one that might be problematic is #4 because it isn't of artwork and doesn't look like a selfie per se; it's also the only one I haven't been able to find on the website.

The last three files uploaded by JPNUKart are claimed as "own work", and two of the three (#12 and #13) also contain links to the same general licensing statement mentioned above in their respective descriptions.

It seems like there's a reasonable chance that the three accounts might be the same person (Randall), but that's just a guess. Are these all OK as licensed? Do any of the need further verification? None of the account have edited Commons or Wikipedia since 2016, but yet another new account was asking about the article at en:WT:JAPAN#Request to add Japanese language version of article earlier today; so, they could be the same person back yet again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

On #4-#10, "not subject to copyright" shows ignorance of how copyright works (though the intent is clear enough); "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0" is quite unambiguous and meets our requirements. I agree that #4 could have an issue in terms of who snapped the shutter. I'd be inclined to accept it, but I know that others are more inclined than I am to be strict about that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I am going to be pursuing a Featured Article nomination of w:Campbell's Soup Cans. I am trying to have someone look at the propriety of the image uses in the article as an advance WP:FAC image review. At w:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Campbell's_Soup_Cans, two files were mentioned as potential issues in need of closer look: File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 01.jpg (for Commons:2D copying, Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging) and File:The Souper Dress, American paper dress, 1967 (cropped).jpg and (for Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing). I would appreciate a fresh set of eyes on the whole set of images and consideration of these specific issues.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I could be mistaken, but I think at this point the Campbell's Soup can design is protected only by trademark, and not by copyright. That would need to be verified, though. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That is interesting. So does that mean minimizing usage is not required?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: That's my guess. File:Campbell's Tomato Soup -1927A.jpg certainly is old enough that the basic design of the can cannot be copyrighted. I can't guarantee that Warhol or the dress designer could not possibly hold a copyright, but clearly Campbell's has expired. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Jmabel, what about the artistic content in the legacy section?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I have no idea what you are asking. The phrase "artistic content" does not appear in w:Campbell's Soup Cans#Legacy. Could you be more specific? - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• TTT is referring to the various images used in that section. File:Warhol exhibition.jpg would benefit from Template:FoP-UK, and File:Tomato Soup (11430470175).jpg would benefit from Template:FoP-Canada. That's assuming the items are not PD-Simple, which could potentially be a thing for the Canadian example. File:Cooke-Sasseville, L'Odyssée, 17 juil 2015 (1) (19980897641).jpg would also benefit from Template:FoP-Canada, and that one is certainly not PD Simple. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/metal-gear-rising-revengeance This is my first time trying to upload something, so I'm not sure even after reading the Copyright FAQ. Is it okay if I upload this file while using the {PD-textlogo} and {Trademarked} templates (ofc also providing the source link)? Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Just above the download button, I see a copyright notice, which states that the vector image is only for non-commercial use. Also, a PNG version was already uploaded to Commons (but I'm surprised that it is marked as not copyrightable). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, if the image comes from Japan, it can have its own threshold of originality: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan#Threshold_of_originality. Such pages can be helpful too when determining the copyright status. I wonder how they deal with programs in Japan. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I was mainly confused because I saw another SVG image from the same website (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metal_Gear_Solid_4.svg) which made me inclined to believe it would be okay to upload the logo, but I still wanted to ask before doing so. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

In the United States, the logo would probably not be copyrightable per the decision about the Cyberpunk logo. In Japan, COM:TOO Japan suggests that this logo would not be copyrightable. The copyright notice on the website is therefore not a concern for Commons. I'm not sure how copyright with the vectorization file would work, but I doubt it could obtain copyright if the original logo was uncopyrightable and the text of the file contains no copyrightable text. Based5290 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I have read in the FAQ regarding SVG files that the code for such an image can be copyrightable, even if the image generated from it is not. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay so I've looked into it some more, and it seems that the logo is simple enough that it is not copyrightable and is only protected by a trademark. Also, there is an entire category on Commons only for logos derived from this specific website, so I think it should be fine. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

About what is already present on commons, I wouldn't rely on it if I were you, take a look at Category:U+1F6C8, for example. Three primitive and not so different images are all marked as copyrighted, with different licenses and authors. It doesn't make sense if such an artistic logo as the provided one is thought to be not copyrightable. Something doesn't add up. D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Well now I've already uploaded it. I can only cite from what I read before doing so, but I agree that it's pretty strange that these three images are copyrighted, but maybe we're both missing important information in this specific case. From what I've read uploading trademarked logos with the right disclaimer on Commons that are too simple to be eligble for copyright is fine (in most cases) and has been done so thousands of times already (the category with logos from brandsoftheworld.com has over 500 files), but I am quite new to this, so of course I could've misinterpreted some things. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically, as I understand it, U.S. courts have consistently ruled that typography and calligraphy are not copyrightable. (A font set as such is copyrightable—you can't freely add a copyrighted font set to a piece of software, for example—but for text created with that font set, that is apparently not a consideration.

Japan is a little trickier, because at least some calligraphy is apparently copyrightable there. - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That's how I understood it as well, and since all logos of the other Metal Gear games have already been uploaded on Commons a long time ago without being deleted, I think it's save to assume that those logos do not meet the threshold of originality in both the japanese and US jurisdictions. Pfannkuchenwaffel (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded this file a bit ago, but I'm not sure if I used the right templates and things. It was taken in 1937, and was first published in 2000 by an author who found it in the Archives of Ontario. Thanks! InfernoHues (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That seems wrong to me. There are a couple of issues, but in particular: how do you know the creator died prior to January 1, 1972? That's only 35 years after the photo was taken. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The photo was created before 1947, so I thought the creator death date doesn't matter. InfernoHues (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues: My apologies, I missed that that was an or. I hate these templates that cover multiple different cases without any way to indicate which one applies. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues Yes, that looks to be correct. Any Canadian photo created prior to January 1, 1949 is Public Domain. It was already in the Public Domain by the URRA date of January 1, 1996. There’s a good chance it would have been ‘published’ much sooner than 2000, closer to its time of creation, before it went to the Archives. PascalHD (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it already have been Public Domain by 1996? Wouldn't the public domain entrance date be farther back back then? I wasn't sure about that or how to find out. I also don't know if it would fit

2. it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,

because I don't think it was published at all before 2000, since it was taken for internal use within an insane asylum. Those were my two main questions, which I should have made clear in my initial post on second thought. InfernoHues (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues Under the old copyright laws, a photo would enter the Public Domain 50 years after creation. So 1937+50=Jan 1 1988 - before 1996. If you’re certain it was never published prior to 2000, then it probably isn’t PD in the USA. Would be interesting to hear what the Archive has to say about the item, they might have more info on the photos? They obviously changed hands at some point to go to the Archive. PascalHD (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I found the photo within a book that originated from a PhD thesis that examined Ontario archival material relating to asylums. The archive website isn't working for me right now, but when I looked before I believe the asylum donated all their files to them once it shut down. I assume this means that I should take the photo off Commons then. Would tracking down who took the photo help with the copyright at all? InfernoHues (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It's unclear. If it wasn't published by someone who held the copyright, the general opinion is that it wasn't legally published for US purposes, and thus it was unpublished in 2002, which means it's life+70 in the US. A more literal reading of the law, held by one of my fellow Wikisource admins, holds that publication is publication; the US Copyright Office and other sources support my interpretation, but a strict reading of the law does not. In that case, if it was published in 2000, it would get the longer of until 2048 or life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to track down the original creator. If I can't find it after a bit I'll take it off Commons. Appreciate the help :) InfernoHues (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mount Albert Ōwairaka 1845.jpg was painted in 1845 and the author died in 1854; however, it seems the first publication of the work may have been in 1974. If that is the case would this affect the US copyright status? Traumnovelle (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Prior to 1978, U.S. law generally counted public exhibition as publication (it's a little trickier than that, but let's start there). When you say, "first publication of the work may have been in 1974," do you mean that it may never have been publicly exhibited? - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I cannot find any information on the painting to suggest it was displayed/published originally. In 1974 it was purchased from Sotheby's London, presumably the auction displayed the work and that could be considered publication, if not it was exhibited in 1990 in the Auckland Art Gallery. If you were to count either of these dates as the first publication would that mean these works are copyrighted in the US?

According to [9] his works were forgotten about until the 1974 auction and it does not mention any displays/exhibitions during Milford's lifetime. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

From 1978 onwards, "publication" is more narrowly defined in the U.S.; exhibition does not constitute publication (though posting to the Internet does). - 19:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, if that 1974 publication was the first: I believe that to be still in copyright in the U.S., either that 1974 publication would have had to conform to U.S. copyright law (the copyright notice was required) or (if that publication were in New Zealand) it would have had to still be in copyright in New Zealand in 1996 when the URAA was applied. I'm guessing that neither of those was the case. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The 1974 auction was in London, although the file was PD in New Zealand by the time according to the 1962 copyright act which stipulates: 'If apart from this clause the copyright in any unpublished work subsisting by virtue of the Copyright Act 1913 would expire at the commencement of this Act or at any time between the commencement of this Act and the 31st day of March 1973, that copyright shall continue to subsist until the 31st day of March 1973, and shall then expire.' Traumnovelle (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been under proper copyright in the UK in 1996. The 1974 auction would be counted as general sale and thus publication. I don't even want to think about the 1990 case; it would have been given automatic copyright in the US, but at that time, wouldn't have been published, I don't think, but if it was published before 2002, it would be under copyright until 2048. I don't think that's an issue, though; I believe we can take it as out of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

So what would the US copyright tag be for the file? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

PD-1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I've corrected the US tag for the file. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:ECR Group logo (2020–present).svg is licensed as {{PD-logo}}, but it seems kind of close per COM:TOO US and possibly not OK per COM:Belgium or COM:TOO France (assuming either of those countries is considered the country of first publication). Is logo file OK to keep as licensed? If it is, then perhaps en:File:Logo of the European Conservatives and Reformists Party.svg uploaded locally as non-free content to English Wikipedia could also be treated as "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for not understanding the exact way the website works regarding images licenses. I am new in this wikipedia editing so I really could use some help, mainly (but not only) with the images/licenses/etc. I saw that by now all 4 images I uploaded are deleted, regarding license issues.

I've got them from the official site, after contacting with my friend Alkis who is the president and administrator of the race and owner of the web page. He said it was OK to use them in order to enrich the wikipedia article about the race. After the deletion of the images, we talked again for this issue and I told him I am going to need his "written approval" uploading the images again (and even more in the future).

I read the FAQ and found the email template and forward it to him. I sure could use some help on how to correctly fill the needed information and (if/what/from whom) license I need to get in order to upload the images in the future without any new problems and how he can prove that he is the copyright holder of the said images in the first place. Also, can I get a "general copyright agreement" for multiple images from the same source?

A user (don't know if its OK to tell who) contacted me on March 18th 2026, warning about the deletion and I replied to the next day, yet I had no answer till today so I am asking here for help.

Thanks in advance and again I am sorry for any inconvenience and problems I might caused.

Sincerely yours Nektarios F. Nek Food (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nek Food: probably the best overall guide to this is COM:THIRD (and, for the specific issue of a third party granting a license, COM:VRT, but it is narrower and won't give you the overall picture; among other things, COM:THIRD gets into what mistakes people commonly make). Please read those, and continue here with more specific questions if you still have any. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to upload the current British Superbike Championship logo to update the article British Superbike Championship, which currently has an outdated logo. The current logo can be found here: https://imagesv1.msv.com/bsb/manual/header-logo-300.png (from the official BSB website, https://www.britishsuperbike.com/).

I was told on WP:MCQ that the logo might be below the rheshold of originality under COM:TOO US and COM:TOO UK, in which case it could be uploaded here instead of as non-free content on the English Wikipedia. Could someone please take a look and let me know if this logo meets the requirements, or whether it's simple enough to be uploaded here? Thank you. Kasparkelk (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kasparkelk: Certainly fine in the U.S., and almost certainly in the UK with the recent decisions that seem to raise the acceptable TOO there.

If you could find a higher-resolution version than the one you linked here, that would be better. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Highest quality version I've found is 400px and the one I linked is 300px. I hope that's good enough Kasparkelk (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue of Niwano.JPG is a photo of a statue of en:Nikkyō Niwano. Given that Niwano died in 1999 and the statue seems to show him at a later stage of his life, I'm not sure this meets COM:FOP Japan. The statue also appears to be installed within the headquarters of the en:Risshō Kōsei Kai, which most likely would be considered a private, not public, place. Several other photos of the interior of the headquarters (e.g., File:Rissho Kosei-kai (principal image of the Great Sacred Hall).jpg) found in Category:Great Sacred Hall, Rissho Kosei-kai might also need to be to be assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)