Copyright Policy

Effective date: 6 November 2026

1. Respect for copyright Lighthouse supports lawful sharing of completed-project stories, photographs, videos, written material, catalogues, manuals and technical files. Copyright remains with the lawful owner. Registration may be useful evidence, but a complainant is not required to have a registration where the law recognises unregistered rights. A brand, building owner, client, employer, architect, designer or photographer may hold different rights. We assess the relevant permission or contract rather than assume the uploader owns everything or that payment for a project transfers all rights.

2. Uploading and reusing material Upload only material you created or are authorised to use and license for the intended platform purpose. Credit contributors accurately. Attribution alone does not replace permission. Publicly accessible websites and social-media portfolios are not a free image library. Do not copy them into a professional profile without the necessary permission. Obtain photographer rights as well as relevant client/project permission. Do not remove watermarks, distribute private plans, republish BIM/CAD assets beyond a licence, copy protected catalogue photography, or misrepresent another firm’s completed work. Lawful exceptions and valid licences remain available. The limited content licence in the Terms and IP Policy applies. Copyright reporting does not create an additional licence in the reported material.

3. Who can submit a copyright notice A rights holder or authorised representative can submit a claim to [CONFIRM copyright/grievance email or secure form]. Others may flag suspected misuse through the general reporting route. Provide your name and reliable contact; identify the owner and your authority; describe the protected work; give an original/reference location where available; identify each allegedly infringing Lighthouse URL or record; explain why the use lacks permission or exceeds a licence; attach relevant evidence; and sign or electronically confirm the submission. Include a good-faith statement that the reported use is not authorised by the owner, its agent or applicable law, and a statement that the information is accurate to the best of your knowledge and you are authorised to act. Do not send complete confidential project files when a limited extract establishes the claim. Do not falsely claim ownership or omit a known licence or legal exception.

4. Evidence and common disputes Evidence may include original files, dated drafts, publication history, licences, assignments, employment or commission terms, photographer agreements, purchase records and relevant correspondence. Metadata can assist but is not conclusive. An architectural portfolio dispute should identify the work and each contributor’s role. A photograph dispute should identify the image and the photographer/licence. A catalogue dispute should identify the protected expression rather than claim exclusive ownership of all product facts. For employee or contractor work, the applicable law and agreement matter; we do not automatically import a foreign “work made for hire” rule. For a client claim, ownership of premises must be distinguished from copyright in drawings and photography.

5. Review and action We record the complaint, assess urgency and applicable law, and may ask for clarification. Credible risk may justify temporary restriction. We may seek the uploader’s explanation, while protecting sensitive contact information and complying with lawful disclosure duties. Outcomes can include no action, licence or attribution clarification, correction, removal or proportionate account restrictions. A complaint does not guarantee removal. Applicable legal timelines take precedence over ordinary review targets. The Content Moderation & Takedown Policy governs the procedure and urgent action. Copyright notices, contractual disputes and statutory intermediary complaints can have different legal requirements; one generic timetable does not replace them.

6. Counter-statement and review If your content is restricted, you may explain why it is authorised, falls within a lawful exception, was misidentified or is the subject of an incorrect claim. Provide your case reference, content locator, contact, basis and supporting evidence, with an accuracy and authority statement. We consider the counter-statement and any legal order before deciding whether to restore content. Restoration is not automatic and we do not promise a foreign-law restoration timetable for an Indian complaint. A separate jurisdiction-specific statutory process will be identified where applicable. A dissatisfied party can request human review through the grievance channel and pursue available external remedies. Lighthouse cannot conclusively adjudicate complex ownership or licensing disputes.

7. AI and synthetic material Do not use AI to replicate protected expression unlawfully or fabricate ownership evidence. AI-generated material is not guaranteed to qualify for copyright or to avoid infringement. An output label does not cure unlicensed use.

A complaint about alleged model-training use should identify the work, the relevant feature or conduct and available evidence. Private uploads are not licensed for general model training merely by being uploaded.

8. Repeat infringements and abuse Repeated substantiated infringement or a serious deliberate violation may result in account or listing restrictions, suspension or termination. We consider severity, evidence, correction and history; a single disputed report is not automatically a proven strike. False complaints, forged evidence and retaliatory takedowns are prohibited. A verified-rights-holder status, if offered, is not a legal determination of ownership, and urgent legal complaints cannot depend on paying for a priority programme.

9. Records, updates and contact We preserve evidence required by law, valid orders or an identified dispute under the Data Retention Schedule. Access is restricted and retention does not authorise promotional reuse. Contact and appeal information must remain available to logged-out complainants. This policy is read with the IP Policy, Trademark Policy, Terms and moderation procedure. It preserves statutory rights and lawful exceptions. Publish the confirmed reporting contact before adopting this policy.

10. Rights clearance for older and externally sourced material Copyright does not disappear because a project is old, an image is widely shared or a firm’s website is public. Attribution, a backlink, a watermark or a statement that material will be removed on request does not by itself authorise republication. Before importing a project, identify the rights in the photographs, text, drawings, video, music and other material separately. The architect may control the design but not the commissioned photographer’s publication rights; a homeowner may authorise disclosure without owning those copyrights. Staff must obtain a licence from the correct person or document the specific lawful exception relied upon. A rights record should identify the asset, source, rights holder, authority of the person granting permission, permitted editing and channels, territory, duration, attribution and withdrawal/expiry terms. Keep unapproved draft stories restricted. Silence following a review request must not be treated as approval to publish.

11. Editorial treatment and derivative content A service licence may permit resizing, thumbnails, accessibility descriptions and formatting for the approved display. It does not authorise materially changing the design, removing credits, generating a false “after” image or selling the photograph as stock. An AI paraphrase, crop, collage or summary can still reproduce protected expression. Do not use transformation as a reason to bypass rights clearance. Facts can be independently verified and described in original language, but copying the original article or image requires an appropriate legal basis.

Where lawful quotation or an exception is relied upon, assess the jurisdiction, purpose, amount and context rather than applying a universal word or percentage rule. India’s fair-dealing provisions and US fair use are not interchangeable.

12. Expanded complaint record Provide the complainant’s name and secure contact, capacity to act, identification of the protected work, each affected Lighthouse URL or asset identifier, the nature of the right and evidence, a good-faith statement that the use is unauthorised by the rights holder or law, an accuracy/authority statement and signature where applicable. A person concerned about privacy or being depicted in a photograph need not falsely claim copyright ownership; route that complaint under privacy or moderation rules. Where notice details will be shared with an uploader, explain the necessary disclosure and protect unrelated sensitive information. We may seek missing information, disable access, contact the uploader, preserve evidence and assess the response. No response from an uploader is not conclusive proof of infringement, but it may leave the asserted publication rights unsubstantiated.

13. United States DMCA procedure For qualifying US hosting activity, Lighthouse must designate and register an agent and publish the agent’s actual contact information before representing that the DMCA programme is operational. Agent name, address, email and telephone: [COMPLETE IF US PROCEDURE ACTIVATED]. A US notice must contain the signature, work and material identification, sufficient location information, contact details, good-faith belief and accuracy/authority statement under penalty of perjury required by section 512. We act expeditiously on compliant notices and notify the affected uploader where appropriate. A counter-notice must identify the removed material and former location, contain the subscriber’s signature and contact details, a good-faith statement under penalty of perjury of mistake or misidentification, consent to the specified US federal court jurisdiction and acceptance of service from the claimant or agent. For a compliant counter-notice under that procedure, provide it to the claimant and follow the statutory restoration process, ordinarily after 10 and within 14 business days unless notified of the relevant court action. This is not the automatic rule for an Indian complaint or for content independently prohibited on another valid ground. Legal review must distinguish each basis. Knowingly material misrepresentations can carry legal consequences. Apply and communicate a reasonable repeat-infringer policy and accommodate applicable standard technical measures. A statement in a policy alone does not establish safe-harbour eligibility.

14. Removal propagation, appeals and other countries A restriction must cover controlled thumbnails, cached display, recommendations and derivative public summaries where they reproduce the affected material. Preserve only the evidence needed for the dispute or legal obligation. Prevent repeat uploading of a

specifically restricted asset where technically and lawfully appropriate, while allowing review of mistakes. An appeal should include the licence, ownership evidence, exception or court order relied upon. Reinstatement must consider any continuing privacy, safety or separate legal restriction. Notify affected parties of the outcome where lawful. For EU services, apply the relevant DSA notice and decision requirements alongside copyright law. For other countries, assess territorial copyright rules and local complaint mechanisms. Lighthouse does not claim automatic worldwide immunity merely because this policy provides a reporting route.

15. Asset-by-asset rights clearance A single project may require separate permissions for the architectural work, photographs, video, soundtrack, written story, illustrations and editable models. A clearance record must identify the relevant asset and permitted use rather than simply state “firm permission obtained.” If an agent approves, record the basis of the agent's authority. For commissioned photography, inspect the licence actually granted to the commissioning party, including platforms, promotional channels, territory, duration, cropping and sublicensing. A receipt for a photoshoot does not necessarily establish a transferable unlimited licence. If the rights cannot be established, obtain clarification or use a properly licensed alternative.

16. Joint authorship, former employees and disputed credits A contributor must describe the work they actually performed and must not claim another person's contribution as their own. Where employment, partnership or commissioning terms govern ownership, the relevant documents and law must be considered. A former employee's access to files does not itself authorise a new firm's portfolio use. A credit dispute can coexist with a valid publication licence. Lighthouse may correct attribution where supported without deciding every ownership issue. Where the authority to publish is genuinely unresolved, it may restrict the disputed assets while retaining separable, lawfully usable factual information.

17. Licence conditions and exceptions A licence may require credit, prohibit material alteration, limit commercial promotion or require separate approval for external syndication. Users must comply with those conditions. Cropping out a watermark, translating a full protected article or replacing a few words with AI does not automatically create an independent lawful work. If a user relies on a statutory exception, the explanation should identify the use and applicable basis. Lighthouse will consider the facts and jurisdiction rather than demand permission where a valid exception applies. No fixed percentage of copying is declared universally safe.

18. Notice integrity and minimum disclosure A notice must identify the disputed material sufficiently for Lighthouse to locate it. Where a complainant cannot access a private workspace, they may describe the available evidence

and suspected location without attempting unauthorised access. Lighthouse may request clarification necessary to investigate. Contact and supporting evidence will be handled for the complaint and related legal purposes. Relevant allegations may be shared with the respondent where appropriate; unnecessary addresses, identity documents and unrelated private contracts should be withheld or redacted. A lawful compulsory disclosure remains subject to the applicable process.

19. Counter-statements and restoration safeguards A respondent should identify the actual licence, ownership basis, exception or misidentification relied upon. A bare statement that content was “found online” is not sufficient evidence of permission. A purchased stock licence should be checked for the relevant use and any restriction on redistribution. Before restoration, Lighthouse must consider other continuing lawful grounds for restriction, such as privacy, safety or a binding order. A successful copyright response does not automatically cure those issues. Conversely, a separate policy restriction must not be misrepresented as a legal determination of infringement.

20. Repeat infringement and linked records Assessment of repeated infringement should distinguish substantiated violations, withdrawn or mistaken claims, valid counter-evidence and serious deliberate conduct. Linked accounts may be considered where reliable evidence establishes common control or evasion; shared premises or a common surname alone is insufficient. When a record is removed, review controlled thumbnails, copies and derivative public displays connected to it. Preserve a restricted evidentiary record where required, and avoid restoring the material automatically through a catalogue refresh or backup recovery.

21. Remedies and dispute boundaries Platform removal does not itself award damages or decide contractual ownership. Rights holders and respondents retain available judicial and statutory remedies. Lighthouse remains responsible for its own licensed uses and cannot treat a staff-created unlicensed import as solely the uploader's act. The applicable US counter-notice procedure applies only within its stated legal scope. Indian and other territorial complaints must be handled under the relevant law; a foreign process must not be used as a universal substitute.

22. Third-party service access and imported media A public URL, account connection or user ownership confirmation does not by itself authorise downloading from the hosting service. Verify both the underlying media rights and the service’s permission for the proposed access, download and reuse method; server-side processing does not avoid those obligations. For third-party audio/video, retain explicit source authorisation required by the relevant store rules. Record provenance and rights confirmations, preserve supplied photographer credits and allow exclusion of assets before generation and publication. Unauthorised source access must remain disabled even where

the uploader owns the underlying work. See P04 section 18 for the dated policy basis and I05 for release controls.

23. Audio, social clips and reused media Rights to a project photograph or video do not necessarily include the music, narration, people or other protected works within it. A track available in a social platform’s library is not proof of a licence to reproduce that track in Lighthouse or an advertisement. Credits identify creators but do not replace required permission. Preserve rights records for the specific assets, territories and uses authorised. Where rights to embedded audio cannot be established, obtain a cleared version or omit that material.