Commons talk:Currency

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

philippine peso[edit]

is copyright: [1] Zastava S. Jugoslavije.png Szajci pošta 05:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands[edit]

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., [2] 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)

Germany[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#German_currency. Rd232 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Euro[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Euro_notes_and_coins. Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkey[edit]

Is it really correct to put {{OK}} in that section? Isn't the permission only for unaltered copies of the money? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia[edit]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of the United Nations, 2010-Slovenia.jpg. --►Cekli829 15:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ecuador[edit]

Dose anyone know what the status of Ecuadoran Coins is, it is not listed.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico[edit]

Can someone explain Mexican currency. It doesn't make sense to me. Is it copyrighted if it was made before 23 July 2003 or 23 July 1928?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Euro currency of Euro-using countries[edit]

This page is very useful for modern currency, but I've run into some pictures on eo.wikipedia of European currency from before the Euro - for instance, w:eo:Dosiero:100_pesetoj.jpg and w:eo:Dosiero:100 eskudoj.jpg. I'd like to transfer them to Commons, but I don't know whether they are copyrighted by the Spanish and Portuguese governments, respectively. How can I find out their copyright status? —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Granger. I can give you some information regarding Spain. The Spanish copyright law (Ley de la Propiedad Intelectual) does not mention stamps, coins or banknotes and does not clarify their status. Spanish coins and banknotes are issued by the state-owned Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre (FNMT). The FNMT has never sued anybody for reproducing photographs of its works, which circulate widely in all kinds of catalogs, books, etc. As a report of the European Central Bank stated in 1999, no Spanish government has never attempted to prevent currency falsification by resorting to copyright law, as has been the case with other EU countries.(Report on the legal protection of banknotes in the European Union member states)
Given that there is no law and no jurisprudence, and the fact that Spain is a civil law jurisdiction, custom becomes the norm. The custom is that any possible copyright that the FNMT might have on the images of its stamps, coins and banknotes is not enforced, so images can be shared freely. Hope that helps.--Hispalois (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweden[edit]

I've got two pdf documents from the Riksbanken about copyright informations but I'm still not sure about that. I don't want to believe that Riksbanken wants me to ask the original authors for their permission. Probably it would be better just to link the Riksbanken's pictures. Does anybody have precisely information on the use of these pictures?--Mpah (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated on the Realm Bank's website,[3] the copyright belongs to the individual artists, and the Realm Bank only has permission to use the designs on money and in material informing about money. If you want to use an image for some other purpose, for example obtaining a licence compatible with COM:L, then you will need to obtain permission from the original artists. For example, in the event of a one-crown coin, you should ask for permission from sv:Ernst Nordin if the coin was minted in 2011, and from sv:Lars Englund if the coin was minted in 1985.
If the coin was minted before 1916, then I believe that you can always use {{PD-old-90}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright from date of design or minting[edit]

Can anyone help me out regarding when copyright begins (and ends)? For example, if the obverse of a coin was designed in 1960 but minted in 1970 (with the only design change being the date) does a fifty-year copyright expire in 2010 or 2020? I seem to remember a discussion somewhere on here a while ago where the consensus was that a changed date does not constitute a unique design eligible for copyright so the copyright dates from when the design was first used, but I can't remember where exactly that discussion took place or where it is archived. If anyone can point out the location of this discussion or offer new advice it would be appreciated. Thanks. Retroplum (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which country are you talking about? Some countries have a copyright term of 50 years from the death of the coin engraver while other countries have a copyright term of 50 years from publication. If the coin was designed in 1960 but not minted until 1970, then other copies might still have been distributed before 1970. A publication term would count from the year when copies were first distributed whereas a death term would be unaffected by this. A simple modification such as changing a year would not meet the threshold of originality in most or all countries and can therefore be disregarded. On the other hand, if the country has a copyright term of 50 years from the death of the engraver, then it would be completely irrelevant if copies were first distributed in 1960 or 1970. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia[edit]

What is the copyright status of Banknotes of the Independent State of Croatia (not the Republic of Croatia) It isn't particularly clear. Are they public domain or not?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern versus antique currency (for example, Argentina)[edit]

In making this list, has there been an across the board distinction between the reproduction of modern currency versus antique coins and banknotes? Some explicitly state the difference, or whether any or all reproductions of currency are prohibited. However I have found (over the past year or so) that not all of the information is entirely correct.

For example – Argentina. The list states that it is not okay and that there is no exception for currency in Argentina’s copyright law. A link is provided. I’ve read both the 1998 and superseding 2009 Copyright Laws (as linked to list). There is no mention of coins, banknotes, or currency of any kind. There are fairly standard terms for copyright expiration (roughly 70 years beginning the year after the intellectual property holder’s death). Unless I have made an error in reading the linked copyright laws, is there any objection if I alter the Argentina section to reflect this information? This is also a project I have thought about taking on (very gradually). Thanks in advance for any insight/opinions.--Godot13 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Spanish currency really okay?[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is Spanish currency really okay? --Ahecht (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Poland - rules of using currency[edit]

The rules shown there are not good - here they are: taken from the National Bank of Poland site Ukraroad (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Ukraroad

United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Bhutan[edit]

I wonder if United Arab Emirates dirham (banknotes and coins) are free to publish on Wiki Commons, if an expert could help me on this [4] or [5], I guess it's free to publish under with mention of the author. An expert help is appertained. Regards. ה-זפר (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Also If an expert can help learn if the banknotes of Lebanese Pound and Bhutanese Ngultrum are free to publish on Wiki Commons? Regards ה-זפר (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Separate files for different banknotes[edit]

It would be good to add an advice (or maybe a template?) to avoid uploading images of different banknotes via the "Upload a new version of this file" link (i. e., if your banknote differs from the one pictured in design, serial number or any other aspect, please upload it as a new file). --Djadjko (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As suggested here: Commons:Help desk/Archive/2016/10#Banknotes, perhaps it's already covered by Commons:Overwriting existing files. --Djadjko (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is uganda shilling ok?[edit]

https://www.bou.or.ug/bou/currency/Reproducing_Currency.html Can me help everbody? I want to upload to commons the images of banknotes. Szajci pošta 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Szajci: No. The bank owns the copyright, and requires prior permission for reuse. Licenses that require prior permission are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. - Reventtalk 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

macau banknotes are ok[edit]

Here i saw: http://www.amcm.gov.mo/en/currency/currency-in-circulation-in-macao Reproduction of banknotes of Macao for educational and promotional purposes In accordance with article 14.2 of the Decree-Law No. 7/95/M of January 30, requests for reproduction of banknotes for educational and promotional purposes with justifiable reasons could be approved by the Government. In practice, such requests should be made to the Monetary Authority of Macao (AMCM). Szajci pošta 18:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Szajci: Licenses that require approval for reuse are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. - Reventtalk 11:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: thank you, and UAE dirhams? [6] or [7] Szajci pošta 19:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say UAE dirhams are not ok either. The UAE copyright law does not explicitely exclude banknotes or coins but works of applied and plastic art as well as drawings are protected. So unless the original artist has been dead for fifty years, we can't use images of UAE currency. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Updates and tidying[edit]

I made some grammar and wording changes to all sections of this page today and yesterday: summary.

The major changes:

  • Mexico – I removed large quoted sections, and changed the: ✓OK?X mark.svg Not OK? to simply X mark.svg Not OK. The Mexican ministry of finance (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público) holds the copyright and says reproductions are only permitted with their authority. That is sufficient enough for us to reject images of their designs on Commons.
  • Peru – I removed a section discussing the Central Bank's website's terms of use, which was raising the question that because banknote images appear on the website, then the terms of use may be relevant (because they state that "information can be reproduced totally or partially with credit"). I would say this is not relevant because reusing images based on a statement that speaks about 'information' might be a step too far. Besides, while the protections for Peruvian currency are not specifically detailed anywhere that I could find, the prohibitions on reproductions in Law 26714 (ocn.gob.pe) and the lack of exception in the Peruvian copyright law for government works seem to speak more strongly than the loose wording of a terms and conditions webpage.
  • Philippines – Added NotOK and reworded it to summarise why, because of written permission, education-only and no derivative clauses.
  • United States – the section on banknotes was unclear on the distinction between illustrations and reproductions, which appear in two separate statures. Replaced the broken sources with support this.

Seb26 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: You also added a section regarding Israel.... this seems problematic to me, as you quoted a specific restriction... "provided that they do not modify the colors or designs". This is a prohibition on derivative works that makes the images incompatible with Commons. - Reventtalk 23:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm aware that you didn't create the licensing template, you just documented it here. - Reventtalk 23:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see that now, from 2 weeks ago. Thank you for pointing that out. (It is a shame I didn't notice it while going through it. I guess in some ways I learned quite a bit on the restrictions in the last two days and missed the mistake from earlier.) However it is indeed also a shame the effect of that clause. But given this I think it might mean we should move to the next step, and consider the status of the 189 images in Category:Money-IL and the tree Category:Money of Israel. At the very least, the images could be transwikied to the Hebrew Wikipedia if they support local uploads and have a policy that would permit no-derivative licenses. seb26 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I will start a discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. seb26 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Honudras[edit]

Does anyone know the copyright status of money from Honduras? Especially in regards to these files: File:HND001.JPG, File:HND002.JPG, File:HND003.JPG. Thanks. Seagull123 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Historic Vietnamese money 💴.[edit]

This law doesn't mention historical Vietnamese, and French Indochinese money such as these, it merely speaks about money 💴 issued by the State Bank of Viet Nam which was created after these notes were issued, or are they retroactively protected?

--58.187.168.230 07:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I could claim a few more arguments : I could claim a few more arguments as to why historic Vietnamese banknotes should be excluded from this rule, first of all the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is the successor state of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, and the Republic of South Viet Nam (Viet-Cong), neither North Viet Nam nor the Republic of South Viet Nam recognised South Viet Nam, by comparison South Viet Nam saw itself as the sole legitimate government of all of Viet Nam and didn't recognise those two governments either, so I could see how the North-Vietnamese Dong (Democratic Republic of Viet Nam), and Liberation-Dong (Republic of South Viet Nam) could be seen as “copyright © protected”, but to claim that the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam claims copyright © over the South-Vietnamese Dong is like saying that the United States of America claim copyright © over any scrip issued by la Casa Nostra, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is a merger of 2 countries that neither recognised the legitimacy of South Viet Nam, and to say that somehow South-Vietnamese money is somehow included in what the Communist Party of Viet Nam (a merger of the Workers’ Party of North Viet Nam, and the Revolutionary Socialist Party) would consider “Vietnamese money 💴” is not only unfounded, it’s simply bonkers.
Second argument, officially anything smaller than Ð 200,- is demonetised, that means that It’s no longer money 💴. Ð 100,-? Not legal tender, and neither are any Vietnamese coins, Ð 100,- Ð 200,- Ð 500,- Ð 1.000,- Ð 2.000,- and Ð 5.000,- coins? None of those are legally considered “money” by the Vietnamese government. The law clearly state that there’s copyright © on the money 💴, and I respect that, but the word “demonetised” literally means “made no longer (a form of) money 💴”.
And thirdly, has anyone here contacted the governments and asked them if the copyright © on older currency is still valid?1 I highly doubt so, theoretically copies of e-mails confirming/debunking this could be used on this page, but I don't see anyone doing the footwork for this.
Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.
--58.187.168.230 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh[edit]

We don't have an entry for that country in COM:CUR. On en.wp, there are a bunch of images in en:Bangladeshi taka that are non-free/fair-use. I just tagged File:Old coin of Bangladesh.jpg for deletion here on commons, presuming that indeed they are non-free by nature. Does anyone have a ref for the official regulation for this country? DMacks (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-Bangladesh}} says "government work or a work of an international organisation and 60 years have passed since the year of its publication", and the country itself became independent in 1971–1972. I don't see why that PD rule wouldn't apply (but its cited website is timing out when I tried to read it), so no currency could possibly be old enough to be free. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:50 poisa and 1 taka coin of Bangladesh.jpg, User:Ronhjones comments "suspect should be similar to India, Pakistan, UK", which are all listed as X mark.svg Not OK. DMacks (talk)
I said that, as all the countries are originally UK dependents, and a lot of their laws will be based on what was there before independence. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)