Países / Bangladesh

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Bangladesh

Bangladés: vía legal condicionada para obras digitales basadas en TI; 'persona' incluye entidades. Hay avisos oficiales de solicitudes con nombres o títulos vinculados a IA, incluido Aoporupa con un solicitante/autor denominado AI Legal & Governance Agent For Bangladesh, pero ningún aviso prueba concesión, examen de GenAI ni output autónomo. La capa humana o institucional probada es más sólida; película, fonograma, software y datos deben analizarse por separado.

Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.

Explorar Bangladesh en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

The Copyright Act, 2023 expressly protects information-technology-based digital works, defines the maker as the person who prepares the work, includes legal entities in person, and contains a commissioning/employment first-owner rule. It does not expressly regulate GenAI or allocate output among user, developer, provider and model. Human or institutional expression must be separated from model-determined material and from software, database, film and sound-recording objects.

Limitaciones documentadas

No official English translation of the Copyright Act, 2023 was located; decisive attribution terms were checked in the official Bengali Gazette and a Unicode secondary transcription. No Bangladesh judgment applying the 2023 Act to GenAI authorship, originality, ownership or registration was located in the indexed Bengali/English searches. The only verified Supreme Court authority is a non-AI High Court Division jurisdiction/remedies case under the repealed 2000 Act; no Appellate Division GenAI authority was located. No public exhaustive title/author index or AI-disclosure field was available. Rule-based indexes may require fee-based or physical inspection; portal reports require authentication and exact certificate identifiers. Application-stage notices exist, but no individual final GenAI certificate, final entry, reasoned refusal, Copyright Board appeal or judicial review was verified. This is a limited negative about public final outcomes, not a claim that none exist. The meaning of the Bengali terms প্রণয়নকারী and নিয়োগকারী for model developer, provider, commissioning entity and prompt user remains untested. The statute uses creative activity for digital works, but no GenAI-specific originality test, percentage, prompt threshold or separability rule was located. Classification does not decide training legality, copying of recognizable expression, trade marks, designs, publicity/personality/voice, privacy, contract, passing off, unfair competition, employment terms or chain of title.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
unverified
Resumen
Bangladesh has a statutory register and issues certificates after appropriate inquiry; entries and certified copies are prima facie evidence under section 57. The office publicly posts application-stage opposition notices. Aoporupa and AI DARK & LIGHT are therefore documented filings/candidates, not verified grants or refusals. No final GenAI certificate, reasoned refusal, Board decision or judicial review was located.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

    Procedimientos conocidos

    Qazi Anwar Hossain v. Government of Bangladesh and others

    Nombre
    Qazi Anwar Hossain v. Government of Bangladesh and others
    Cita
    Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division, Special Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No. 4650 of 2020
    Tribunal
    Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division
    Instancia
    High Court Division — judicial review procesal
    Fechas
    Decisión
    2021-12-13
    reported appellate action
    2022-08-08
    Estado
    resolved-hcd-procedural-subject-to-reported-appellate-stay
    Resultado
    Rule discharged as not maintainable; no costs; HCD stay recalled and vacated.
    Resumen
    No. The impugned order was not a conclusive decision that Qazi infringed copyright; it indicated possible next steps under the Act. Because statutory appellate and civil routes remained, the HCD would not decide the disputed issues in Article 102 review.
    Antecedentes
    On 2019-07-29 Sheikh Abdul Hakim applied to the Registrar under sections 71 and 89 of the Copyright Act 2000, claimed authorship of books in the Masud Rana and Kuasha series published by Qazi Anwar Hossain, alleged infringement, claimed royalties and sought relief. The application was not an application to register a work, an assignment or a licence. The Registrar issued notices dated 2019-08-20, 2019-09-20 and 2019-10-21. Qazi appeared and objected to jurisdiction. The Registrar made the challenged order on 2020-06-14; Qazi demanded withdrawal on 2020-07-27 and then sought constitutional review.
    Historia procesal
    Complaint 24/2019; Registrar notices and 2020-06-14 order; Rule Nisi/stay on 2020-09-10; HCD hearings and 2021-12-13 discharge; later 2022-08-08 leave/stay/status quo reported by BSS, with primary appellate order unlocated.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether, on the record and statutory alternative remedies, the Article 102 writ attacking the Registrar's proceeding/order as an extra-jurisdictional infringement adjudication was maintainable.
    Criterio
    No. The impugned order was not a conclusive decision that Qazi infringed copyright; it indicated possible next steps under the Act. Because statutory appellate and civil routes remained, the HCD would not decide the disputed issues in Article 102 review.
    Fundamento decisivo
    The characterization of the administrative act controlled: a nonconclusive order pointing to statutory procedures, coupled with appeal under sections 94-96 and civil remedies under sections 75-81 of the 2000 Act, defeated the writ's maintainability. The court recorded the amicus view that registration/refusal may require factual inquiry but did not convert that submission into a broad merits holding on AI or originality.
    Límites
    Non-AI case under the repealed 2000 Act. It does not decide originality, 2023 sections 2(10), 2(23), 2(31), 14 or 15, an individual registration, or GenAI output. The later reported appellate stay prevents treating the HCD stage as an undisputed final merits endpoint.
    Relevancia
    procedimiento-relacionado
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      Narrow procedural authority: do not infer a registration grant, a final authorship determination or a general power/lack of power from the Registrar's activity without reading the operative act and available statutory route. Integración/votación: Unanimous two-judge bench: Md. Ashfaqul Islam J.; Md. Iqbal Kabir J. expressly stated 'I agree.'
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Qazi Anwar Hossain v. Government of Bangladesh and others
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division
      Tipo
      Supreme Court High Court Division authority on registrar jurisdiction, fact inquiry and remedies; not a GenAI or originality merits case
      Tipo de evidencia
      official_full_procedural_decision
      Localizador
      PDF pp. 1-4 (Rule and facts), 7-10 (arguments, amicus and statute), 10-13 (characterization, alternative remedies and disposition)
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Autoridades reportadas

      Suraiya Rahman v. Skill Development for Under Privileged Women

      Nombre
      Suraiya Rahman v. Skill Development for Under Privileged Women
      Cita
      49 DLR (HCD) (1997) 222; 17 BLD (HCD) 284; 1997 PTC (17) 295
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division
      Fechas
      Reportado
      1996-12-09
      reported decision
      1996-12-09
      Referencias relacionadas
        Estado
        texto-judicial-parcial
        partial decision date
        1996-12-09
        read scope
        Metadata del reporter nacional y pasajes materiales reproducidos por la Calcutta High Court en AIR 2002 Cal 33, paras. 17-18.
        Antecedentes
        Suraiya alegó que personal de oficina tomó sus diseños. La fuente judicial posterior reproduce que trabajó con salario mensual entre 1982-03-01 y 1986-01-31, que su función principal era producir diseños y que las autoridades concluyeron que las obras se hicieron durante el empleo.
        Historia procesal
        La orden del Registrar de 1987-01-12 favoreció a la entidad empleadora y rechazó la solicitud de Suraiya. La HCD confirmó el registro respecto de 19 diseños el 1996-12-09. No se obtuvo el texto nacional completo ni historia apelativa posterior.
        Criterio reportado
        Según la reproducción judicial posterior, las autoridades encontraron contrato de servicio y creación durante el empleo; rechazaron la versión de obras preexistentes o realizadas fuera del empleo.
        Límites
        No AI, no prompts, no output autónomo y ley histórica. El texto nacional completo está restringido; sólo se usan metadata del reporter y pasajes reproducidos por un tribunal posterior.
        Fuente
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        Chancery Law Chronicles reporter index; corroboración judicial posterior
        Localizador
        decision date, Registrar order and 19-design outcome; AIR 2002 Cal 33, paras. 17-18
        Verificación documentada
        No
        Tipo de evidencia
        primary_judicial_partial

        Referencias extranjeras comparadas

        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

        Referencias de contexto

        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

        Doctrina supranacional

        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

        Fuentes de la ficha

        Alcance de la confianza documental

        Alta sobre texto vigente, derogación, procedimiento y valor prima facie; media sobre la posible vía para output autónomo porque las expresiones bengalíes decisivas no han sido aplicadas a GenAI; media-alta para afirmar que existen avisos públicos de solicitud, pero sólo media para su caracterización tecnológica y baja para cualquier resultado final no publicado.

        Búsquedas y límites de los resultados sin casos

        verified absence
        Sí
        Fecha de búsqueda
        2026-08-31
        Búsquedas
        18
        vocabularies
        • current_law_official
        • current_law_amendment
        • gazette_amendment_2024_2026
        • ai_registration_bengali
        • ai_registration_english
        • ai_art_certificate_bengali
        • portal_public_index
        • supreme_court_ai_bengali
        • supreme_court_digital_work_bengali
        • supreme_court_ai_english
        • registrar_jurisdiction_case
        • originality_jurisprudence
        • ai_originality_scholarship
        • registration_process_official
        • official_notice_title_sweep
        • exact_candidate_outcome
        • Qazi_appellate_status
        • AI_policy_status
        Nota
        No se localizó una decisión nacional de mérito sobre GenAI, originalidad o autoría del output. Qazi es una resolución procesal de maintainability y remedios alternativos; Suraiya queda como texto nacional parcial/reportado porque el fallo completo no fue recuperado.
        Alcance
        Casos o actos individualizados relevantes para autoría/copyright de output GenAI en fuentes públicas accesibles. No prueba inexistencia de expedientes no publicados, privados o no indexados.

        Reportes de actos registrales

        Enlaces a expedientes individuales