Commons talk:Currency/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Still working on this prior to putting it up for evaluation on the VP. Dcoetzee 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

British currency is crown copyright. Secretlondon 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

copied from Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_on_bank_notes...

Is there a page somewhere at the Commons (or maybe someone has a link to an external site) where the copyright of bank notes of various countries can be looked up? I'm an administrator at the Afrikaans Wikipedia and am in the process of moving many of our images to the Commons. This takes a long time, since I double check both the source and license information.

At the English Wikipedia, this image of a Brazilian cruzeiros note is tagged as "non-free". On the German Wikipedia, this image of another cruzeiros note is tagged as being copyright free, since it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Then again, this image of a cruzeiros note at the Afrikaans Wikipedia is licensed as GFDL?

Does anyone have any idea what the correct license for these images should be? Either I want to give it the correct free license and upload it here, or it will have to be tagged as non-free and eventually deleted. Anrie 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely great idea. I asked similar questions some time ago on Commons:Village pump. I could contribute information about ex-USSR countries (money are exempted from copyrights in most of them).
Same thing goes to coins.
EugeneZelenko 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The place to put it would be Commons:Currency. That page do do with some input.--MichaelMaggs 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Latvia

Copyrights law of Latvia doesn't exempt money from copyrights (English, Latvian (checked by Kažemaks who know Latvian), so Russian translation is incorrect). Further investigation on Civil Code of Latvia is required. --EugeneZelenko 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

what about Vichy France?

Does it's coins fall under any existing Copyright laws?--Marhawkman 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seychelles

As far as I remember, according Seychelles Copyright Act, revised edition 1991, at a UNESCO site, currency is not exempt from copyright protection. But I have had a hard time understanding that from the copyright act, not in the least because it is in PDF. It was a month ago, and I don’t have the chapter numbers, which, I think, are very useful, if not necessary here. Could someone please confirm if it is NotOK according to the current Copyright Law of Seychelles? Thanks. --AVRS 20:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that coins and banknotes of the Seychelles are covered by copyright as per article 8(1) of that law ("Copyright subsists in every work eligible for copyright which is made or broadcast by or under the direction or control of (a) the Government, ...") for a period of 25 years since they were introduced into circulation as per article 8(2). Lupo 09:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Latvija

User:Szajci added Latvija to this list as "ok" due to the Section 6 Non-Protected Works clause of the copyright law of Latvia.[1] User:Zscout370 reverted, citing Chapter IV, section 17, note 1 of the same copyright law. However, neither of these sections mentions currency explicitly, and so it is evident that both users are making some kind of argument that has been left unspoken. I would appreciate it if they could explain their reasoning in more detail - perhaps this is a case left best unmentioned here if the law for now is not clear and explicit about it. Dcoetzee 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See the thread by Eugene, currency is not exempt in the copyright law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Section 171 was added on April 22, 2004, and is explicitly about banknotes (In the English translation. Don't know if the Latvian original was about currency in general, i.e., including coins). Don't confuse section 171 with article 17(1). Note that the 2003 law which you linked to the UNESCO site above does not yet contain this section. Lupo 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UK coins

Seeing as how my first question here got such an enormous amount of reaction, I thought I'd give this one a try as well:

The Currency page mentions that UK bank notes are definitely "not OK" - does this apply to coins as well? Anrie 07:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Algeria

You might be interested in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Algeria. Pruneautalk 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Banknotes of Bhutan

These are tagged GFDL and CC-by-sa, which certainly is the wrong license. However, I cannot find any information on this page regarding the copyright status of these banknotes. Does anyone know ybout this? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Iceland

{{Icelandic currency}} disagrees with the info on this page. Which is right? One needs to go. /Lokal_Profil 04:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

The following should be relevant to this page.

/Lokal_Profil 04:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Finland

[2] has info on the rules for the Finnish (pre EURO) banknotes and coins.

"Furthermore, use of the features of the former markka banknotes, annulled as legal tender on 1 March 2002, is subject to the bank of Finland's permission and possibly that of other holders of copyright. The purpose is to prevent, in advance, criminal abuse and improper exploitation and to protect banknote copyrights."

Seems to indicate that these aren't ok. /Lokal_Profil 04:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Information about the danish rules can be found here. The problem here might be the following.

"As a main rule, reproduction may not take place if the design itself or parts thereof are in focus, irrespective of size, etc. "

Which would limit derivative works/cropping etc. /Lokal_Profil 04:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the above link: "Banknotes may be reproduced electronically and on the Internet at a resolution not exceeding 72 dpi". In other words: Banknotes = OK, coins = not OK. Philaweb (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

According to http://www.rgaros.nl/money/rules/index.html one-sided images of Dutch money are ok if not on paper (or in sizes clearly different from the original). I intend to change the proect page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thailand

Anyone knows anything? We have (at least) a case here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

German deutschemarks

What's their status? this file has been tagged as problematic. --Eusebius (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia-Herzegovina banknotes

This is good or no? (Copyright) Szajci reci 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

see this, under Copyright section. cite: It is allowed to use and quote the materials from the Web Site, provided the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina is stated as the source of information --CERminator (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hvala. Pozdrav Szajci reci 06:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

isto na bosanskom bosanski. Same in Bosnian--CERminator (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicaragua?

Anyone know the copyright laws for coins from Nicaragua? File:Nicaraguan córdoba.png is what provoked this question.-Andrew c (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam OK?

Vietnam is stated as OK, but without any references. Are we sure about that? --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam is not OK. Look an article in a Vietnamese newspaper and Official document from Vietnam Prime Minister, which say: "The any form of copying Vietnamese bank notes or coins is prohibited". The {{PD-VietnamGov}} covers documents, are you consider every banknotes and coins' design is documents? Vinhtantran (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Bank notes can certainly be considered as documents, but the issue is more: Does it only concerned judicial documents? Yann (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Money design is not legal, administrative or judicial documents. Moreover, there is a law passed by Prime Minister, so we can't be against it. The official document from Vietnam Prime Minister can be seen as guidelines after the law. Vinhtantran (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Local ban notes-reus-tanger 0001.jpg=

This and other bank note files have been tagged with GFDL, which I know is wrong. But is there a liscence tag more appropriate for this and other Spanish banknotes or should it be nominated for deletion? Million Moments (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ancestor of today's "euro": ECU; made in belgium....?

what about the scan of this ECU coin?

background info @ en:European Currency Unit. --JD {æ} 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania, ougiyas

How about Mauritanian currency? I have some scans of banknotes and there are already some images in the Commons, however the legal situation is not explained anywhere. --Emesik (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tanzania

Please consider the status of copyright of tanzanian currency. Tanzanian The copyright and neighbouring rights act ([3]), chapter 12 claims:

7. The reproduction, by photography of sound of video recording*, or electronic storage, by public libraries, non-commercial documentation centres, scientific institutions and educational establishments of literary and artistic works which have already been lawfully made available to the pubic**, provided such reproduction, the number of copies made, and the use thereof are limited to the needs of the regular activities of the entity reproducing the work, and neither conflict with the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

* — It is obvious digitization error; should be «by photography, sound or video recording», see also Tonga Copyright Act.

** — Obvious misprint, should be «public».

I am not experienced enough to make any conclusions. Maksatmp (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't open original PDF, but this article sound like en:Fair use for me. Commons could host only files, which anybody could use for any purpose (Commons:Licensing).
Will be good idea to search for article which contains exemptions from copyrights (for example, currency explicitly listed in such articles in copyrights laws of ex-USSR countries).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Before editing, I'd like to ask the experts:

Monetary Circular Num. 1/1995, 28th February of the Banco de España about using and reproduction of pics of banknotes and coins: more or less it says that you can publicate them if the size is larger or smaller than the original banknote and in the case of coins, they can be reproduced except in metal [4]

The permission has to be given by the "Oficina de Emisión y Caja del Banco de España", and if they don't answer in a month the permission is suppoused.

Does anybody ask for the permission? If not tell me and I'll ask for one--Manu (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malta

I've asked for permission to the Central Bank of Malta. This is the extract of my email:

Dear Sir or Lady, I'm working on a Wikipedia article about the Maltese lira. This project consists in publicate free information to be used for thirds or not, which include text and pictures. I would like to ask about the copyrights of Maltese banknotes and coins. Are these in the free domain or do I need a explicit permission from the Bank of Malta to use this pictures in the web? In that case, could you tell me the steps to ask for that permission? Waiting for your answer, I wish you a nice day

And here is the answer from the Bank:

We refer to your e-mail dated 24 September 2009. We are attaching the Disclaimer and Copyright conditions to reproduce the Lm notes and coins in your article (the relative section is highlighted).

Central Bank of Malta website - Disclaimer and Copyright The website of the Central Bank of Malta contains a whole range of regularly updated information on the Bank's functions and work.

Due to the nature of the electronic media, the Central Bank of Malta does not guarantee that the information contained in the website is comprehensive, complete and accurate. Furthermore, the Bank does not provide a warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, or fitness for any purpose of any information contained in documents produced by the Central Bank of Malta.

Before acting upon the website's contents, especially when affecting business transactions, it is recommended that the information on site is checked. The Central Bank of Malta is not responsible or liable for any consequences or losses arising out of actions taken upon the contents of the Bank's website.

The Bank is also not responsible for losses arising out of actions taken upon the contents of the Bank's website.

The user is granted permission to make use of the Central Bank of Malta's web pages, save files, distribute and reproduce pages. However, the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted.

If a link is established by a business site and/or for promotional purposes, the Central Bank of Malta insists that the link will not include other information and be the sole element of the browser window.

The Bank does not endorse or accept any liability for the content of websites to which a link is provided.

So, I understand that the reproduction of coins and banknotes is permitted, when source is described in the metadata's pictures. Is it possible to create a special permission tag saying the criteria?

I wait for your answers --Manu (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


You're wrong, these copyrights are owned by the ECB (as correctly stated in their displayed licence), not by the Maltese government (even if the Maltese government is now publishing these images under permission by the ECB and EU legislation).
Note also that these images are the result of a collective work (there's no applicable rights for the individual artists that participated to the competition, organized by the ECB).
This would be different if these designs were still projects conducted by the Maltese government or central bank before the adoption of the euro and acceptation of these designs by the ECB, but now that these designs have been adopted and transfered to the ECB, there remains no exclusive rights owned by Malta.
The Maltese legislation only applies to the exclusive rights owned by the Maltese government, and the personal rights of artists don't apply here because it is the result of a collective work (during the competition, all artists HAD to sign an agreement where ALL their exclusive rights on their designs would be transfered, once these designs winned the competition : this was possible because the Maltese government offered a monetary compensation for such transfer, and paid the winning artists).
If you delete those images because you think that a right has been violated, then all images of coins and bills in euros, issued by the ECB so that they will get legal tender in all EU countries, would need to be deleted too, not just the Maltese ones. verdy_p (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Algeria... contradiction??

Hi people. I've read in the Algerian section that banknotes and coins are copyrighted, so I've started to make request for speed deletion of the pictures of banknotes I uploaded a months ago. However, I've found at the English article of the Algerian dinar a picture of a banknote with the tag Template:Non-free currency-DZ. If you go to the picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:200dzd2.jpg) you'll see an explanation about the use. So, are banknotes and coins denominated in dinars (since 1964) permitted or forbbiden in Commons? I wait your answers, regards to all of you--Manu (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As the template already says: The bank note is protected and used on the English Wikipedia under Fair Use. Please see Commons:Fair use for an explanation why we do not allow Fair Use images on Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

I've seen at the Risksbank web that images from this site are free to be downloaded and given the source when used. This includes coins and banknotes pictures only hosted in the Swedish bank. Here is the web (in Swedish): http://www.riksbank.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=9224 --Manu (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Central Bank of Brazil allows the reproduction of coins and banknotes denominated in Cruzeiros and Cruzados, but not Reales. Permission emailed on 21st October 2009. --Manu (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The list on this page does not take into account that electronic representation of currency does not actually violate copyright of the currency because there is no way that the images can be reproduced as the selfsame currency. Any laws that take into account the "moral rights of the artists" ignore the fact that mass circulation of the currency already renders any "moral rights" into ambiguity. I find that we need to adopt a new and specific policy regarding currency as our usage on Commons, and any eventual usage does *not* actually violate the spirit of any of these (often half-thought out) laws. Bastique demandez 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think your objection is straying too deep into the realm of legal speculation. If you'd like to propose a large-scale revamping of the currency policy I'd suggest doing so at Commons:Village pump to get the most input possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey: why PD?

Hi. In the paragraph about Turkey (and in the linked pages), as far as I can understand from automatic translations, I can find only non-copyright restrictions. Where is it said that there is no copyright over coins and banknotes?? --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finland 2

I wrote this, which was reverted by Eusebius ("currency is not a "decision" (if it is a phrasing issue and you have precise legal references, give them"):

Decisions by governmental institution are excepted from copyright. This includes images, unless those are separate works, which is thought to apply only in unusual cases. Thus the images on markka banknotes and coins should be in the public domain, and likewise the images on the national side of euro coins. Counterfeit legislation does apply, for euro notes and coins see above.

My precise reference is the law (here in Swedish):

9 $
Upphovsrätt gäller inte till
...
4) beslut och yttranden av myndigheter eller andra offentliga organ

In the (dated) unofficial translation on Unescos site the corresponding paragraph reads:

Article 9
There shall be no copyright in laws and decrees, or in decisions and declarations of public authorities and other public organs.

This is the basis for my statement. As to being a decision: yes, the design is part of a decision. The question was discussed when the law was made and it was considered that few works would be regarded as independent when being part of a decision (I do not remember when the discussion took part, so finding the links is not trivial). The Finnish Copyright Council regards the designs of Coats of Arms of Finnish municipalities as public domain because of this (1997/tn9711, Finnish). I do not see why designs of notes and coins would be any different. The law on money does not (did not) have any separate clauses about copyright.

As I did not have any up to date reference in English I did not put any in the section I wrote. I will now put the law as such, but is there anything more that should be clarified or that is in need of a reference?

--LPfi (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And still, neither a coin or a banknote is a decision or a declaration, therefore they are not covered by this article, so we cannot declare that their reproductions are PD based on legal ref. About pre-Euro stuff, there's a paragraph above in this talk page explaining why he consider them not ok, but I think that here we only deal with the national side of Euro coins and banknotes here. About the difference between the coats of arms and the coins: the blazoning of the official coats of arms are PD in many countries, and I guess it is covered by the law you quote, because a blazoning is a textual official document and its attribution is an official decision. It may be the case, like in many other countries, that the official interpretations of this blazoning (images of the coats of arms as published by the authorities) are PD as well, but anybody else can draw another interpretation and hold copyright over her drawing. For more information about the special case of Coats of Arms and how it is interpreted here, see Commons:Coats of Arms. (begin crappy comparison) Back to currency, it might be the case that a textual, formalized description of the coins and banknotes is issued by the Finnish Mint (although I doubt it), and thus be PD, but in any case the coins and banknotes themselves are an interpretation of it by an artist and it generates new copyright (end crappy comparison). A coin or a banknotes is not an image, and I can't see, for instance, how an engraving (the coin) can be part of a declaration or decision. Usually, the countries which release the design of their currency in the public domain have a specific law or decree about it, here I find it very difficult, by the sole force of interpretation, to make currency fit in the scope of this copyright exemption article. Rather, in the light of the previous regulations, I would tend to think that Finland would keep the same kind of restrictions over the reproduction of their currency. --Eusebius (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I missed to earlier note and using that reference I found other material: I wrote that only if there was an independent work, that work would not be free of copyright; in fact at least in one banknote an earlier photo was used as base for the portrait on the banknote and the copyright of that photo will be relevant for any derived work. There could be similar cases.
My understanding is that if the design is made from scratch, then there is no separate work subject to copyright. The paragraph cited is mostly about counterfeit, with an addition about possible "other" copyrights.
It is clear that a coin isn't a decision, but the design of that coin is accepted in a decision by someone, presumable a public authority. If the final design is reviewed and accepted, then it should be PD. If only a draft is reviewed, then that draft is PD and not necessarily the final version. But I cannot believe that the final design could be decided by a private party.
And here I am talking about the images, not verbal descriptions. The blazonings are of course parts of the decisions and so PD, but so are the attached designs. Same goes for e.g. road signs. Of course somebody can make his own versions, and if they are creative enough they will have copyright – but the official ones will not.
Back to the specifics of money. I see no strong reason to have any special law about putting money designs in the public domain, when there is the general law. I think BoF would like to have the copyright and at least make it seem they have it (they write they do).
OK. Here I have a more definite link. It is from the above mentioned copyright council, originally statement 1989:13. I cannot find the original, but it is referenced e.g. in statement 2001:3 (pdf, Finnish):
"Lausunnossa 1989:13 oli kyse markan kolikon kuvan käyttämisestä julkaisuissa. Hakija oli käyttänyt ilmoituksissa ja julkaisuissa Suomen rahapajan valmistaman markan kolikon leijonapuolen kuvaa. Hakija kysyi, onko kolikon suunnittelijalla mahdollisuutta vaatia taloudellista korvausta kolikon kuvan mainitunlaisesta käyttämisestä. Tekijänoikeusneuvosto totesi, että liikkeelle laskettavien kolikoiden kuvat julkaistaan Suomen säädöskokoelmassa asetuksen osana. Koska TekijäL 9 §:n mukaan lakeihin ja asetuksiin eli ole tekijänoikeutta, tekijänoikeusneuvosto katsoi, että kolikon kuva ei ollut tekijänoikeudellisesti suojattu."
Summary:
The inquiry was about whether the designer could ask for monetary compensation when the image from a coin was used in publications. The council writes that as the designs are published as parts of the legislation in the statute book they are not under copyright.
Here the case is clear, but it is interesting that using a picture of the coin itself was no problem when probably only a draft was published as part of the legislation. This seems to answer your doubts. Nowadays the designs are not decided by the government as before, but should be decided by public bodies nonetheless.
--LPfi (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your research. The text you have found answers the case of the Marks clearly enough for me, and I guess we can reasonably accept that the same official interpretation applies to the national side of Euros. If you link properly in the formulation of the new paragraph I won't bother you anymore :-) --Eusebius (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
;-)
Two more observations:
  • In the old law on money (rahalaki/myntlagen) there was no mention about counterfeit or copyright. The law has been superseded by regulations related to the Euro. I do not know in which law to look, but I suppose nothing has changed regarding the national law.
  • According to the criminal code (fi/sv, chapter 37, article 7) it is forbidden to publish images that are confusingly similar to ("förvillande lika") legal tender. There is no reference in the chapter to specifications in other laws. Thus the instructions given by BoF are probably only their interpretation of what is similar, without direct legal bearing (the same should be true about the instructions of ECB, in relation to criminal code about counterfeit, but might be enforced through copyright law).
--LPfi (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Your first point seems reasonable, I think we have made such continuity assumptions for other countries. Regarding your second point, it is a non-copyright restriction, quite classical for currency. Just add your first sentence in the guideline paragraph that you'll write, as a kind of warning. --Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When reading your paragraph, it is clearly  Not OK (from your own formulation). An official text from the BoF explicitly says that the banknotes are copyrighted and it is the only one available in English. More importantly, it is posterior to the Copyright Council text (which is not easily translatable). I'm really not at ease with the case and I regret the absence of a good copyright expert here. I won't contribute anymore in this case, I'm not of any help. --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

True. I noticed this when doing the final checking (the copyright is not mentioned in the main relevant section, only in the introductory text). As the claim of BoF seems to be in direct conflict with the opinion of the copyright council it is not clear that they are right (I have seen governmental cites claiming linking to them is subject to their permission).
It would be good if somebody that knows Finnish copyright would contact BoF and ask on what grounds they claim copyright. I am not a lawyer and I do not have the time right now. I will do it later, if nobody else does.
I put the warning in the first line now, so that it is clear enough until the matter gets sorted out.
--LPfi (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Greece

Here is the response from the Bank of Greece about the copyright on banknotes denominated in drachmes:

"According to the Greek legislation, neither the Bank of Greece not any other Greek authority is competent to provide you or any oyher interested party with any kind of permission to use the image of the Greek drachmae banknotes. However, without prejudice to the moral right of the designer recognized under Greek law (Law 2121/1993, as in force), there is no legal provision prohibiting the reproduction of the images on banknotes in drachmae".

Is this a PD free or not? --Manu (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, apparently not. There seems to be a copyright exception, but as I understand from the letter it covers only "reproduction", which is not enough. --Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
OK Thanks Eusebius, then I'll put this text on the project page --Manu (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As specified in my letter sent to the Bank of Greece, they told me to ask for the reproductions of greek drachma coins to the Ministry of Finance, and here is their response:

"In reply to your letter of 23/12/2009 addressed to Bank of Greece regarding the use of Greek drachma-coin pictures in the electronic encyclopedia named Wikipedia, which was send to us because it lies within the competence of our department, we inform you that no special permission is required for the reproduction and use of Greek drachma-coin designs, which do no longer consitude legal tender since 1/1/2002, with prejudice to moral right"

Is a PD-free or the same as the banknotes? --Manu (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, nothing said about commercial use and derivative works, only reproduction. --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian coins

Why is there no mention of Canadian coins at Commons:Currency#Canada? According to the Royal Canadian Mint the copyright for the coins belongs to them[5]. --JD554 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hum. This is probably the case, but the document you point out, as many mint and central bank documents, mixes copyright with other considerations. It doesn't seem copyright is dealt with separately, they claim an indefinite mix of copyright, trademark, patents, industrial designs and trade secrets. Furthermore, it is unclear to me whether they talk about the design of coins or the images of coins they have taken themselves.
To answer your initial question, many countries are missing in this list because it is difficult to find and evaluate copyright claims, because they are almost always mingled with non-copyright (mostly anti-counterfeiting) restrictions, and institutions seem to have interest in maintaining the confusion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia

This is good or no? (Copyright) Szajci reci 06:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We (at mk.wiki) are working on it, since we can't find (for now) the specific law that regulates this question. --Brainmachine (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Syria Pound banknotes

This is good or no? (Copyright) Szajci reci 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Look for Syria in here. feydey (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

South Africa

Does anybody know if {{PD-SAGov}} (out of copyright after 50 years, as with crown copyright) applies to coins? —innotata 14:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

There is a note above suggesting that non-circulating (that is, pre-real) Brazilian currency is freely reproducible. I have attempted to confirm this through the available translations of Brazilian laws and have not succeeded. It would be good to pin it down one way or the other. Currently there is no Brazil section on this page. Thanks. Chick Bowen (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Germany

concerning Deutsche Mark banknotes refer to official site http://www.bundesbank.de/bibliothek/bibliothek_sammlung_bildarchiv.en.php >>Since D-Mark banknotes of all series are no longer legal tender, the restrictions imposed by section 128 of the Act on Breaches of Administrative Regulations (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten - OWiG), the provisions in criminal law concerning the protection of monetary tokens pursuant to section 146 et seq of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) as well as any regulations derived from them in respect of the size, resolution, identification requirement or similar for the reproduction of such banknotes are no longer applicable; under criminal and administrative law, they are therefore generally freely reproducible.<< (quoted text) --Drdoht 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar?

Does anyone know anything about the laws with Malagasy currency? I don't speak French very well, but it might be covered here. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Argentina

According to Argentine copyright law: The ownership of anonymous intellectual works belonging to institutions, corporations or legal persons shall last for 50 years from the date of publication of those works.[6] So the currency designs from before 1961 are in Public Domain? feydey (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Status in the Oman?

What about those Category:Banknotes of Oman? Probably the same for the coins. One uploader I asked did not have a clue what's correct here - or if they are allowed at all. I thought it may be a better way to ask here before posting a mass DR... So: does anybody know? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Go to here and read relevant info and report here? feydey (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. However I did not find banknotes, money or currency in the first document. The other documents seem to not have a matching title. On page five (article 4) there were mentioned only "Official documents" which are not protected. But the given examples seem not to include currency: "laws, regulations, decisions, agreements [...]".
On the website of the central bank http://www.cbo-oman.org I was unable to find anything regarding copyrights. Hmm... Then it seems I have to post a deletion request. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalia/Somaliland

I have images of Somalia and Somaliland bank notes but have only uploaded an image of a stack of Somaliland notes because my Somalia (as opposed to Somaliland) images are single 2D. Any info would be appreciated.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Latvia Banknotes and coins

I wanted to make sure the my tagging of Latvia currency as copyvio was correct. However, I notice that the links provided in Commons:Currency#Latvia eventually takes you to this page. It would appear to me that Latvia currency may be more like the US currency, rather then an exclusive  Not OK. If a list of criteria are met (like US currency) then to my laymen's read, it would appear that the image maybe ok for used on commons. However, it doesn’t help with the images currently in Wikipedia, since they don't meet those criteria.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I read the link the more I'm not sure that alot of the images on Wikipedia are copyvios. As I read it, images are ok, if the following is meet:
For Banknotes:
Per section 3:
  • 1 The image is least 125% of both the length and width or at most 75% of both the length and width of the banknote;
  • 2 The image of the banknote is not depicted on a background resembling the color and design of a banknote.
and per Section 5:
  • 1 The word SPECIMEN is printed diagonally across the reproduction on the obverse and reverse of the banknote. The length of the word must be least 75% of the length of the reproduction and the height is at least 15% of the width of the reproduction. The word SPECIMEN cannot be transparent.
  • 2 The resolution does not exceed 72 dpi.
For Coins:
Flat images (ie. photos, painting, etc.) of Coins are OK per 5.1.
However, I'm not sure if this applies to all forms of use, i.e. commercial, that is required for an image to be on commons. Dose this only apply to non-commercial image use? I am not a lawyer and I don't want to even attempt to make this change until someone else chimes in.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What free license can you suggest for Latvian money? If I'm not mistaken, we can upload in Commons only that images, that: a) can be reproduced; b) can be modified; c) can be used in commercial aims. Can we reproduce, modify and use in commercial aims images of Latvian money free? Dinamik (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I’m not sure. However, reading page it would appear to me that, as long as the conditions are met, images of banknote/coins can be reproduced, modified, and used in commercial aims. I think a new tag similar to {{South Korean currency}} would have to be made. However, again, I'm not sure about this.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The more I read the more I'm starting to think that I am correct. The statement on the Bank of Latvia English copyright statement reads "Any reproduction of banknotes is prohibited, except where the Bank of Latvia, the European Central Bank, the central bank or country having issued those banknotes has provided a written permission or the requirements of the Bank of Latvia, European Central Bank or the relevant country for the reproduction of banknotes have been met." Note that "or". This means that, if the criteria are meet, then written permission is not needed. Nothing I have read contrary the "reproduced, modified, commercial" rules on commons. Therefore I have created a template ({{Latvian currency}}) similar to {{South Korean currency}} and am going to change the Latvian listing.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
One of Latvian wikipedia users contacted bank of Latvia via e-mail. They say they want to foil conterfeiting atempts. Therefore historical currency, which somebody got deleted, is certainly OK. They asked the lats to be deleted and reuploaded with watermarks. I`ve asked the user to e-mail back asking if the laws they apply indeed work retroactively and if their copyright would be compatible with CC-BY-SA if money is reproduced in accordance with rules you`ve linked ~~Xil (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW I and another user have requested undeletion of images depicting Latvian currencies. I am not certain what has allready been deleted, so if you were the one tagging the images for deletion, can you list them. I am no lawyer, so would be nice, if somebody who is could help. The general consensus on Latvian Wikipedia (where we don`t have any users who are lawyers well versed in copyrights) is that legal principles dictate that laws that were in force when copyrights were created should be applied. Such principle, for example, is described in Civil law (I believe, but am not complitely sure, that general provisions of Civil law apply to copyrights). Now in this case the copyright law was amended in 2004 to include article stating that Bank of Latvia owns copyright of Latvian money, the rules on reproduction were issued in accordance with this amendment in 2009. Before the amendment the law (and also the previous copyright law which came into force in 1993) stated that the money is not protectable i.e. in Public domain. I am not certain if current money was designed when any of the laws was in force, but if it was, it would seem that pre-2004 money is still in Public domain ~~Xil (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I tagged alot of coin for deletion, but no banknotes, none were actually been deleted and I have " I withdraw my nomination" since this issue is now up in the air. I am not opposed to this undelete, I just think it slightly premature. I see four issues:
  • As to contacting the bank. I would be happy to have them clarify what the rules are, however, I would like to point out that, unless the person is authorized to make a statement, how can we go by what they "say" when the "official" document has been published. I think that anything they tell you should be used to "clarify" only, unless we can get a OTRS ticket that applies.
  • The 2004 date is in error you refer to is in error. You say "Applying this law to reproductions of pre-2004 money is against legal principle that laws should not be applied retroactively” the problem is that statement isn't true everywhere. The term is known as Ex post facto law. In the US, and those listed on the page (of which Latvia isn't list but mayby it should be), is true that "retroactive" laws are unconstitutional, but not every counties laws includes the "Ex post facto" principle and per COM:L the image has to be free in both the US and Latvia. If Latvia decides to make this a "retroactive" law, unless there legal system has decided "Ex post facto laws" are illegal then the images are not free.
  • Even if "Ex post facto" applies, You haven't shown where pre 2004 the currency was PD.
  • Latvian copyright law, Chapter IV, section 171, #2 dose not make the distinction between "lat" and “rubles” only saying "It is prohibited to reproduce banknotes in any way, except in the case, ...." where the Bank of Latvia gives permission.
--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think, phrase "The word SPECIMEN is printed diagonally across the reproduction on the obverse and reverse of the banknote. The length of the word must be least 75% of the length of the reproduction and the height is at least 15% of the width of the reproduction. The word SPECIMEN cannot be transparent" in {{Latvian currency}} is contrary with phrase "Publication of derivative work must be allowed" in Commons:Licensing. If I see some image with some word and publication of derivative work is allowed, I can delete this word and publish image without it, but I can't do it with Latvian money. Dinamik (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the guy missed my plea to ask bank additional info, if you don't think it is necessary I won't do it either. I don't know how OTRS works, so someone else should try that. Also I didin't fully understand your comment on US law, but in any case, I believe that retroactive laws are illegal in Latvia, unless maybe it is explictly said otherwise. The money was PD per same law pre-2004 and per previous law, as evident even here on commons [7] I don't understand the issue here. Finaly the law explictly says that bank owns copyright of Latvian lats, and representatives of bank also confirmed that it dosen`t apply to rubles - you are trying to interpret a passage taken out of context word for word, without taking into account that the aim of the law apparently is to foil counterfeiting atempts of currency in circulation. As for derivative images - it dosen`t ban production of deravitive images, it limits it. Note that several currencies listed here as OK acctualy have very similar rules. Also I belive that section 3 of the rules don`t apply here as there is seperate section 4 and shouldn`t really be mentioned in template - the rules of section 3 contradict the section 4 and also pose extra trouble for using images on Wikimedia projects (i.e. article 4.2 says that there can be reproduction at original size and 3.3 calls for design element to be reproduced on distinctly different background). This was also evident by the fact that the representatives of bank replied that the images on Wikipedia should be deleted, but the only issue to be fixed that they pointed out was that we should print "specimen" on images before reuploading them. As such I suggest the template should contain copy pasted section 4 (legal texts are PD ;) ) and the bit on coins being okay to reproduce on flat surface ~~Xil (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Turns out the e-mail letter was sent, but the bank was taking its time to answer. Now we have an answer in which they say that rules on reproduction apply retroactively to all currency in circulation produced after 1 January 1992, but not to lats produced after the date and no loger in circulation. This is because the rules are considered public rights (i.e. concern interests of the state), they don't say anything about copyright law and agree that private rights don't apply retroactively - so partaialy the question is if copyrights are private rights, even if they concern bank copyrights, or not. They didn't give a clear answer about compability with CC-BY-SA, just reaserted that we must follow these rules. They also said that for banknotes we must only follow article 4 of the rules, the article 3 concerns reproduction non-electronicaly, so this probably should be excluded from lincence tag.~~Xil (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Derivative works and requirement for word "SPECIMEN"

I think, this license are not suitable for Commons:

Commons:Licensing: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed". If I see some image with some word and publication of derivative work is allowed, I can delete this word and publish image without it, but I can't do it with images of banknotes, that can be reproduced only with word "SPECIMEN". Dinamik (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is true then those banknotes are still copyrighted, since this is a requirement for those Banknote image to use. However, I'm not sure that it is. Per Derived_works a Derived work cannot "cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work." Again, I am no lawyer, but the way I see it, I can release and image for use that includes a watermark or excludes a parts of the original photo I took and If you then go and take that image and modify it back to the image I didn't release (a derivative work under your argument) that doesn’t mean that my copyright on the original image that I did not release is no longer valid. I guess in a nut shell what I am saying is there are two copyrights here. A. The Banknote itself B. The Banknote with "SPECIMEN" on it. The respective banks have released the copyright for images of banknotes with "SPECIMEN" on it, but not for images without, and if you remove “Specimen” you are no longer have a valid copyright release.
It's the same as with US money. I can use a Dollar bill, even to make money with it and put my own face on it, but if I make the bill exactly the same size as a real dollar bill (even with my own face on it), I violate the law and it is no longer free.
dditionally the same argument can be made for any rule regarding {{Counterfeiting}}. This is true then any restriction on adjusting of an image would violate the "Publication of derivative work must be allowed" rule, so even US currency would not be "Free enough" for commons since the US government wont allow for certain types of “Derived works” when it comes to it’s money.
However, again, I'm am by no mean an expert here. I'm just trying to get this figured out.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
"I guess in a nut shell what I am saying is there are two copyrights here. A. The Banknote itself B. The Banknote with "SPECIMEN" on it. The respective banks have released the copyright for images of banknotes with "SPECIMEN" on it, but not for images without, and if you remove “Specimen” you are no longer have a valid copyright release" - yes, this is the main idea. If I remove "Specimen", I will have no valid copyright release, but Commons demands images, that can be modified. To upload images, that can not be modified, we should change Commons' rules firstly. Dinamik (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it looks like the banknotes in question are not copyrighted, but there are non-copyright restrictions, on counterfeiting. I don't think following and noting these non-copyright restrictions on certain types of reuse and even modification makes these unfree, any more than restrictions such as personality rights or trademarks. —innotata 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have photo. I say "here it is image with sign "Dinamik", you can publish and modify this photo, if you save sign". Can I upload this photo to Commons or not? Dinamik (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I can comment only on Money-CZ: The coins and banknotes are in the public domain (free of copyright protection) as an official work. Nobody can apply any copyright license on them. The rules for reproductions are an additional public-law obligation. If you create a reproduction of a banknote not adhering to the limitations, you won’t be sued by the copyright holder, you can “only” be fined (or possibly prosecuted as a counterfeiter). --Mormegil (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure, that we can consider banknotes and coins (images) as official work (there are documents as an examples), that are not copyrighted?
If banknotes are not copyrighted, can we upload banknotes without sign "specimen", because banknote as an image, as you think, is not copyrighted? Dinamik (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That is the prevailing legal opinion (which has been confirmed as the prevailing legal opinion by an (non-legally-binding) e-mail from the Czech National Bank). If you (or somebody else outside the Czech jurisdiction) upload such an image, it would probably be accepted here on Commons, however, I am afraid no Czech user should touch it, or he/she could possibly be subject to a prosecution. --Mormegil (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think my personal confusion then is why is it that any currency is allowed to have any restrictions when it comes to commons. What is the difference between mandating that "Specimen" be put on these bills vs. the resolution does not exceed 72 dpi requirements. Even the sizing restrictions on a US bill would violate “Publication of derivative work” since I should be allowed to resize the image anyway I want. If I sized File:1-fed.jpg 2.61 inches wide and 6.14 inches long, then the image should be deleted. If the "Publication of derivative work must be allowed for any rule doesn’t allow for any "Restrictions", like "Specimen", then it doesn’t allow for any of the other "Restrictions" that I've seen ether, so even {{PD-USGov-money}} or {{South Korean currency}} arn't vaild.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions? --Mormegil (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No, but now that I have, I'm still not quite seeing the difference between the restrictions places by {{EEK banknote}}, {{Latvian banknote}}, {{Money-CZ}}, {{Slovenian currency}} and others like {{PD-USGov-money}} or {{South Korean currency}}. Where is the threshold between "Specimen", 72 dpi, and size requirements being a "Non-copyright restrictions" vs. "copyright restrictions"?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don’t get the first part: What difference are you talking about? The threshold between restrictions because of anti-counterfeiting laws and restrictions because of copyright is that the former is relevant when [the images] are used in particular circumstances or in particular ways, while the latter is universal. “It is neither possible, nor desirable, for Commons to release people from all laws which they may find inconvenient.” While you as a US citizen can freely distribute images depicting Nazi swastika (which is not protected by copyright) in practically every context; I, in the Czech Republic, could possibly face legal charges when displaying the swastika as a propagation of neo-nazi beliefs (while I’d probably be safe when using swastika for educational purposes). But you cannot distribute copies of a recent Czech book, even though you are outside of the Czech jurisdiction, you could be prosecuted for copyright violation. So: copyright is nearly-universal, meaning a non-free work can be used by (practically) nobody, no matter what the context is, non-copyright restrictions are very country- and context-specific, and obeying every existing non-copyright restriction would be very difficult and would probably mean the end of Commons. (Note the example at COM:NCR: any picture could be used as a tool to commit fraud, libel, etc., which would be illegal; does that mean that no picture is “really free”?) (That’s how I see it.) --Mormegil (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As per what I said above on Lats, I think the purpose of these rules is to limit derivative works somewhat, to reduce conterfeiting atempts, not to forbid them. I suspect most of Category:Currency license tags are for similar purposes, notably there are minor limitations on Euro too. ~~Xil (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess my question is what make "Specimen" a "copyright restrictions" and therefor a limit on the "derivative work" rule, vs all the other that are "Non-copyright restrictions" and not 'derivative work" limits?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish currency

RE: Changes made by User:Saper Snaper changed Poland to: 

{{OK}} Article 4 of the Polish Copyright Law from 1994 ([[:en:s:Polish Copyright Law#Chapter_2._Owner_of_the_Copyright|Wikisource (in English)]], [[:pl:s:Prawo_autorskie#Rozdzia.C5.82_1.Przedmiot_prawa_autorskiego|Wikisource (Polish)]]):

Article 4.
The copyright shall not cover:
    1) legislative acts and their official drafts,
    2) official documents, materials, logos and symbols,
    3) published patent specifications and industrial design specifications,
    4) simple press information. 

Polish National Bank says on [http://www.nbp.pl/home.aspx?f=disclaimer_banknoty_en.htm Approval for the reproduction of the money designs - Polish National Bank rules their website] that they require written permission for reproduction of Polish banknotes and coins of all emissions in physical or electronic form, however, but there is no legal basis cited.

I question the logic of this change to Polish currency and have reverted it. I see nothing in Article 4 that would suggest that it applies to Currency. Many counties have Goverment Public Domain laws, such Article 4, but Currecy is still coprighted. For Example, Vietnam has {{PD-VietnamGov}}, but Banknotes of Vietnam are still copyrighted. I would think the Polish National Bank would know the law. Why would it claim the copyright when it has no legal claim to it? Just becuse "no legal basis" was cited dosn't mean the Bank isn't correct, only the the website didn't list a cite.

Additionally, the default should be on the side of caution, not on the side of allowing it. User:Saper should have to show that the Polish National Bank is wrong. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

Article 14 item b of the Indonesia Copyright Law No 19, 2002:

There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:

  • publication and/or reproduction of the symbol of the State and the national anthem in accordance with their original nature;
  • publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by and/or behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or
  • repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other sources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited.

The only question left is thus whether banknotes published after 2000 by Bank Indonesia are "by and/or behalf of the Government". I would say the answer is "yes". Any further comments Enlil Ninlil2 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can even upload the currency images with that statement. According to the US Copyright Office, "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." So this means reproduction of the state symbols and government publications will not be seen as infringements by the government. Yet, Article 13 states what exactly is not given copyright protection and it is only legal texts and court decisions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The question is not whether the notes are public domain, but whether they are free content, and a status of "copyright retained by Government, but all uses permitted" (= no infringement possible) would seem to qualify, no? Compare with Euro notes, where the ECB retains copyright but allows all use short of counterfeiting, which are permissible on Commons. Begarding behalf-ness, I'll take the liberty of reproducing a comment by the esteemed 86.162.117.177 below. Jpatokal (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The original Indonesian of the law is Pengumuman dan/atau Perbanyakan segala sesuatu yang diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak oleh atau atas nama Pemerintah - i.e. Publication or reproduction 'by [oleh] or [atau] on behalf of [atas nama] the government [Pemerintah]'. Bank Indonesia has a .go.id website, which suggests that it is governmental. A quick check of the Bank Indonesia website indicates that it acts 'atas nama Pemerintah' in numerous respects:
Bank Indonesia juga bertindak sebagai kasir Pemerintah yang menatausahakan rekening Pemerintah di Bank Indonesia, dan atas permintaan Pemerintah, dapat menerima pinjaman luar negeri untuk dan atas nama Pemerintah Indonesia. - 'Bank Indonesia acts as government cashiers and maintains the government bank account and at the government's request receives loans for and on behalf of the government of Indonesia'. It has acted 'Atas nama Pemerintah' at numerous international conferences [6] as well as in many other respects.
The money issued by Bank Indonesia is clearly 'di atas nama Pemerintah'. The government authorises the Bank to issue money, it would otherwise have no power to do so, and indeed no other body in Indonesia is so authorised. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, Template:PD-IDGov currently assumes that 14b above is enough to place works in the public domain. If this is not the case, then this will affect many more works already on Commons, and I've raised this at Commons_talk:Licensing#Indonesia: "No copyright" vs "Does not infringe copyright". Jpatokal (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Indonesian copyright situation seems sorted out now (see Licensing#Indonesia and its talk page), with 14b works qualifying as free content, so I'm going to propose the following wording for Indonesian currency:

OK Article 14b of the Indonesian Copyright Act No. 19, 2002 states that "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published" is not an "infringement of Copyright". Indonesian banknotes are issued by Bank Indonesia and its predecessor Bank Negara Indonesia, which from 1953 to 1968 was "a corporate body belonging to the state" (Act No.11 of 1953), from 1968 to 1999 "belongs to the state" (Act No.17 of 1968) and from 1999 onwards is "a state institution" (Act No.23 of 1999 concerning Bank Indonesia, Article 4(2)), and they thus fall under the aegis of Article 14b.

Comments? Jpatokal (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Policy updated. Jpatokal (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-existant countries

What is the copyright for South Vietnam, East Germany, Biafra, Katanga etc? Enlil Ninlil2 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cape Verde

ok or not ok? Category:Banknotes of Cape Verde, [8] Szajci pošta 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK and Not OK tags

We need to establish a standard usage for the OK and Not OK tags on this page. Right now, it's not clear if they're intended to advise a re-user or an uploader, whether they're applicable to people outside of the country listed (local laws can only be enforced locally), and whether the restrictions are copyright, non-copyright or both.

For example, Commons:Currency#India documents a non-copyright restriction: "Not OK Reproduction of motifs / design of coins / currency notes are governed by the provisions of Section 489 [sic] of Indian Penal Code, which is not governed by Reserve Bank of India." That applies in India to uploaders and re-users. The cited code is insufficient to determine whether there are copyright restrictions on Indian currency (but we should presume that there are, since copyright exists in India). I'm going to amend the text to reflect this, but we should still decide whether the Not OK tag is appropriate. (Maybe Inconclusive is better, since we don't know with certainty that Indian banknotes are copyrightable?) TheFeds 08:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan

Could someone with more knowledge in the subject fill in the details for Japan? Right now the Yen banknotes seem to be used with the {{PD-Japan-exempt}} license. Is this correct? Also, are labels akin to "SPECIMEN" on top of the image required by any anti-counterfeiting laws (I am asking because the {{Watermark}} tag on File:SeriesC 1000yen Banknote of Japan-1.jpg, meaning that someone thinks these should be removed). —Quibik (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands (2)

Can anyone provide a clear source that the "Not OK" holds for all money including coins and 'muntbiljetten'? Especially the latter have been issued *directly* by the Dutch state, not by (semi-)private entities such as De Nederlandsche Bank. They may be subject to art. 15b of the Dutch copyright act, see, e.g., [9] and are then exempt from copyright, unless the copyright is reserved explicitly by the State:

“Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een door of vanwege de openbare macht openbaar gemaakt werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, waarvan de openbare macht de maker of rechtverkrijgende is, wordt niet beschouwd verdere openbaarmaking of verveelvoudiging daarvan, tenzij het auteursrecht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Ook als een zodanig voorbehoud niet is gemaakt, behoudt de maker echter het uitsluitend recht, zijn werken, die door of vanwege de openbare macht zijn openbaar gemaakt, in een bundel verenigd te doen verschijnen.”

I just noticed a mass deletion last year that included a lot of coins and some 'muntbiljetten' ('coin vouchers'?), hence bringing this up here. Pbech (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Iceland2

Since coins and Banknotes older then 70 years, (just like stamps, see {{Icelandic stamp}}), are no longer under copyright, shouldn't Iceland read:
    Not OK for coins designed after after December 31, 1953. See the Central Bank of Iceland.

Iran

Please help me figure this one out also.

{{PD-Iran}} discusses the rules that prohibit Iranian currency. (the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights). While it dose appy to coins it also reads, "In the following cases images fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16):" #2 reads "In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality." Since Iran banknotes and coins are copyrighted and their copyright belong to Central Bank of Iran then #2 applies, as it is a "legal personality". Therefore Banknote from Iran older then 30 years should be out of copyright.

So Iran read:
    Not OK for coins designed after December 31, 1993. According to the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights, Iran banknotes and coins designed after December 31, 1993 are copyrighted and their copyright belong to Central Bank of Iran.

I think that this t is pretty clear that if the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights is the reason that the Central Bank of Iran holds the copyright, then at some point the copyright expires per the same law. The issues is, is it 70 year or 30 years. I think it's 30 years since the Central bank is a "legal personality" (see {{PD-Iran}}).--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia

In regard to the supposed restriction of the display of images of post 1969 Australian coins, due to claimed "copyright" issues, it should be noted that the references contained supporting this supposed policy point to dead links, and are in contrast to the following "fair dealing" exceptions

The Commons does not accept images for fair dealing/fair use. Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying - clearly the issue here is the uploading (or transferring) of images to "Commons", rather than the use of images within the standard articles on Wikipedia, which unfortunately has seen over-zealous individuals restrict informational/educational use of images within articles.

We don't tell what Wikipedia to do with their images; they have their own policies and things like that. The problem with sending the images here is that, though they are widely going to be used on other projects and we know they have a value (no pun intended), coins from 1969 from that country will have a copyright. However, you did bring up the issue of a dead link. http://www.ramint.gov.au/designs/ram-designs/using.cfm is the new link and it says there "The Commonwealth holds copyright in the designs and images used on Australian currency coins which were created after 1 May 1969." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Category:Banknotes of Sri Lanka licince is right or copyright? Szajci pošta 12:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Подебљан текст

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Currency/Archive_1&oldid=107164948"