Talk:Indonesian rupiah/Archives/2012

500 rupiah bill

Somebody knows if I can still use the 500 rupiah bill, the Orangutan one?. Thanks. User KingDDD, from Spanish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.186.92 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The 500 rupiahs bill is already obsolete. The 500 rupiahs appears only in coin now. But some store still accept the bill mainly because they do not know that it is alreasy obsolete. 10.31, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.223 (talk)

how about the ISO 4217 decimals issue?

Isn't IDR one of those currencies where the offical ISO4217 stance is that it has two decimal places (the old sen) whereas in reality they don't exist?

New Designs

There are new designs for 50,000 and 20,000 notes.. or perhaps more. Would someone please update the pictures? Thanks 58.178.121.84 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bank Indonesia has recently launched 2,000 rupiah notes for the first time, not sure if/where this should be noted.

Also, re section on receiving sweets in lieu of small change from supermarkets, this is indeed a very common practice in Indonesia as everyone who has shopped in the country should know, so the verification tag could be removed IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.143.129 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article has rightly be tagged for being too long. My suggestion would be to take out the details about the coins and notes and make separate articles Coins of the Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah.
Dove1950 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be done - as it is it needs attention to separate SatuSuro 02:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Additions

As there have been additions and no attempt at communication by recent editors here regarding the length issue - it will be broken up into a number of articles within a reasonable time - hey make an effort to discuss how and which way it will be broken up here please ! SatuSuro 11:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Suggest splitting along the lines of Dove's comments above. SO that makes three article's - one for the currency in general, and one each for the physical notes and coins. Needs more than that but it would be a start. How about adding dated cite tags as you go and coming back in a month or two to remove? --Merbabu (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have culled the monster, but all sections need heavy editing, improvement and maybe the removal of banknote images. Also referencing is terrible for the length. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Calvin Ho Jiang Lim reverted the page back to 30 June 2008 prior to restructuring, and then moved a lot of the content into a 'History' page. Anyway there have been quite a few edits since then, so this isn't really appropriate. I have put the current banknote images back in though. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about reverted the page back to 30 June 2008. I already discussed with some users that they want to make a new page for your history of the Indonesian Rupiah contribution. Because it contains a lot of pictures of old rupiahs. And i guess they are so important.  Calvin Ho Jiang Lim  ^Talk 07:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Rupiah

according to this article, the name Rupiah was not derive from the Indian monetary unit rupee. It was actually taken from Rusian's Ruble and was popularized by the Portuguese to replace the word perak (silver). The name Rupia itself means "silver" in Mongol.
andry (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Ruble, it means a chopped off piece of silver. If you read Rupee it states 'The derivative word Rūpaya was used to denote the coin introduced by Sher Shah Suri during his reign from 1540 to 1545. The original Rūpaya was a silver coin weighing 178 grains (11.534 grams)' Silver rupees from India were imported to the Indies in large numbers during the 17th and 18th centuries as they were favourably valued, and so they would have become familiar coins. The Dutch and British minted silver as well as gold rupees in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and the coins and notes of the Dutch bore the Malay Arabic word 'rupiah' to mean 'gulden'. It seems much more likely that a common coin actually called 'rupiah' was the source of the name, rather than the Portuguese with their Spanish 8 Real coins.Sumbuddi (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete Coins

I am an Indonesian and I know exactly that the Rp 25 and Rp 1000 coins are now obsolete. Please edit the infobox immediately because I don't know how to edit it. Trinary M01 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinary M01 (talk • contribs)

Pics of Obsolete Rupiah bills

I have found some pictures of old rupiah bills in this page: http://uccd.netne.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=192

or http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://uccd.netne.net/viewtopic.php?f=19%26t=192

Perhaps someone with adequate Wiki-ing skill will be able to put the aforementioned pictures on this article?

ThanksWhizzWr 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The new Rp 1000,- coin and Rp 10000,- note

I have heard from some Indonesian news agencies that a new 1000 Rupiah coin and 10000 Rupiah banknote has been released. Can anybody mention it in the article? 110.138.104.119 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I will add the info and photos when I get my hands on the new currency. By the way, please add new edits to the bottom of talk pages. Davidelit (Talk) 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Preference for USD incorrect

I deleted these two sentences. "Within Indonesia, the preferred currency for exchange is the United States dollar. Other currencies are typically subject to a wide exchange spread."

The first sentence is vague and can be misunderstood to mean that Indonesians prefer to use the dollar over the rupiah. That is not the case. Domestics transactions use rupiah. I think the original editor meant that in Indonesia the USD is preferred over other currencies when it comes to international trade. This is true. International trade or anything involving a significant international component is often denominated in USD rather than in IDR or the partnering country. E.g., dealing with a New Zealand client, I got paid in USD rather than IDR or NZD. This owes more to USD's de-facto status as a global currency though. But given the recent financial crisis, I see anecdotal evidence that Indonesians are shifting into other currencies. It's probably possible to reword the first sentence to be more precise, but for now the potential for misunderstanding is big and I'd rather delete it.

The second sentence is just incorrect. One can easily go to the website of any Indonesian bank and check the daily spread and see that for major currencies, the spread is nominal. E.g., 25 Feb 2011, 15:18 WIB BCA rate: USD 9000/8750 (2.78% spread), SGD 7074.05/6850.05 (3.2% spread), GBP 14492.60/14036.60 (3.1% spread), EUR 12399.50/12027.50 (3% spread). Yes, the USD had the lowest spread, but the difference between the spreads of various currencies are small. To a foreign exchange trader, maybe 3.2% (for SGD) is "wide" compared to 2.78% (for USD). But for the general public that 0.42% difference is trivial. The wikipedia is aimed at the general public and as such I feel we lose nothing if we delete that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.144.25 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

• The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
• Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
• If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are going overboard. See Wikipedia talk:Fair use overuse#Currency notes. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not overboard. its standard practice. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, it most definitely is not standard practice, and it appears highly likely that the images are actually PD to boot. Continuing to revert without discussion here will be considered vandalism. Jpatokal (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

removing mass usage of NFC is standard practice, if you re-insert you will be blocked for copyright violations. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. Make my day. Jpatokal (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Three different people have removed the images from this article now. Edit warring against that is not a pathway to success. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of banknote images

Copied from User talk:Δ

I corrected the tags of various images, to indicate that they are public domain, as clearly stated on the page, using the standard Wikipedia Indonesia PD template, and in accordance with Indonesian law, which you could easily verify by reading before reaching for the 'revert' tool, but you have reverted them all. Please undo your changes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove that they are in fact released under pd? They are published by Bank Indonesia which is a private company, NOT Indonesian government ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

You need to look more closely. The images in question are in fact all published by the government, which prior to about 1965 had the right to issue currency of less than 5 rupiah/gulden. The images are clearly marked 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republic Indonesia Serikat', etc., whereas those published by Bank Indonesia display the same.

Separately, Bank Indonesia is certainly not a private company; until 1953 it was a private basically Dutch-owned bank, however it was nationalised then by the new Indonesian state. In 1999, it was distanced somewhat from the state, a reform intended to stabilise the currency/economy. Under that law, 'Bank Indonesia is an independent state institution'. This was amended in 2004 to provide that 'Bank Indonesia exists as an independent public entity'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please either provide proof that they are released under a PD license, As it stands it looks like they are publications from a non-governmental source and are thus not PD. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS independent public entity means not controlled by the government, thus your PD-gov claim is invalid. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully.

I have explained this already once, I do not intend to explain it again:

Prior to 1965 there were two bodies issuing money - 1: the government, issuing small denomations (as well as large denominations during the revolutionary period), and 2: the central bank issuing larger denominations.

The notes tagged with public domain were issued by the government, and are nothing to do with Bank Indonesia, and once again if you bothered to look rather than reverting everything on sight you would see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

again you need to check your facts the PD-gov only applies to items created after 2002, because the law you are citing does not back date its effectiveness. and anything previously published is still under its previous copyright. And the bank in question has been separate from the government since before that act. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive looked for proof to back your claims up and I cannot find it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's bad news for your deletionist zeal, because the 2002 law is merely a restatement of the 1982 law, which in turn originates from the 1912 Dutch Copyright Act, which makes the same provision. So it was there all along.

And what is more, Bank Indonesia was nationalised in 1953, and it was only given independence as a public body in 1999, so all those banknotes published between 1953 and 1999 are most certainly public domain images too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide third party reliable source stating what you are claiming. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

LMGTFY? I suggest you start off by reading Dutch copyright law, which links to the 1912 Act. There is a brief summary here on Indonesian law: [1], which explains that the copyright law originates from 1912, was replaced in 1982 [2] and then again in 2002, you can also read this [3]

It is explained at [4] about government and Bank Indonesia money - those notes I tagged were issued by the government and are therefore unquestionably public domain.

As for the status of Bank Indonesia itself [5] 'BI was originally conceived of as very much a part of the government – central bank independence in Indonesia would come much later', with the footnote 'The lack of independence of the Bank Indonesia from the government would raise alarms repeatedly as banking and financial developments became more complex over the next three decades. In fact recommendations to create an independent Central Bank feature regularly in World Bank reports issued between 1968 and May 1997. In the end, an independent Central Bank was not created until May 17, 1999 (Law No. 23/1999 on Bank Indonesia) after the damage to the financial sector by the 1997 crisis was done.'

So it is clear that all money prior to 1999 is public domain, and the status of that issued post-1999 is more ambiguous.

May I suggest everyone e-mail the bank and ask for an answer, it might work and if there are various replies that are the same we can say it might be settled. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

y the== Copyright status of Indonesian banknotes ==

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". Jpatokal (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to tage them as so. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont, it is currently disputed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out who's dispusting it and where (apart from you on this page). cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He is just disputing it now, nothing on commons though, I think the user is making things us as they provide nothing for their defence, so I will go ahead unless they cough up. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Jpatokal#Indonesia_banknotes I asked someone very familiar with researching copyright to look into this issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, you mean? You're too kind, sir. Jpatokal (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Zscout370. who has a long track record for resolving these issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the copyright law, which uses the phrase '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)

Well, there we go -- I don't imagine it will be possible to get any more clear than that. Δ, darling, what do you think? Jpatokal (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not that simple, take a look at commons:Commons_talk:Currency#Indonesia I still question the PD ability of the files. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, and one which goes beyond banknotes -- I've raised this at Commons:Licensing to get some additional views. However, even Article 14 works do seem to qualify as free content under Commons (since they impose no restrictions on use), so while the exact template may need tweaking, fair use is not longer necessary. Jpatokal (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I still wouldnt call it PD-gov yet see Zscouts comment to why I still question it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's unclear if it's PD-gov, but do you have any reason to doubt it's free content? Seems to tick all the boxes at Commons:Licensing as far as I can tell. Jpatokal (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

its unclear exactly what license they are under. Please revert your re-licensing to PDgov. From what I can see they are still under full copyright of the government because according to Zscout and what I have read, money is not listed among the items that are exempt from copyright. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So, there's presently a bit of a funny situation with the PD-gov-ID template: the law it quotes to justify placing them in the public domain is apparently the section of the code (Article 14) that describes things that are copyrighted, but may be published and reproduced at will. (In other words, the template itself is busted!) We'll probably need to do a bit of a rigmarole to retag all currently PD-gov-ID images — including the banknotes — with some new template that describes Article 14 content more accurately, and reserve the PD-gov-ID template for content that falls under "true" public domain, namely Article 13.

Nevertheless, as explained above, it seems quite clear that the banknotes do fall under Article 14 — or do you still doubt that they are "published on behalf of the Government"? Jpatokal (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Zscouts post. There are just a few things that are release to be used freely, everything else is still copyrighted. Money is not one of the things that is listed there so it is not released under a free license. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the content on Wikimedia Commons is 'copyrighted', Creative Commons content is copyrighted, GFDL is copyrighted, it just happens that the copyright is licensed in a manner which Wikimedia Commons chooses to accept (CC-by is ok for instance cc-nc is not)

In this case the content is, like most of the content on Wikimedia/Wikipedia, copyrighted but you are allowed to use it with no restrictions, which, short of public domain status (which in fact some of the images will be having exceeded Indonesia's fairly brief 50 year copyright term), is as free as it gets, and certainly more than free enough for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011

Zscout was referring to Article 13, which places a limited list of works (not including banknotes) in the public domain. However, Article 14 places all government works, including banknotes, in a copyrighted-but-freely-usable category akin to the BSD license, which also qualifies as free content. Jpatokal (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting to the point of obstruction and disruption. --Merbabu (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you have identified 3 restrictions on the reuse of the images stated by their owner, that means WP cannot redistribute them as "free" content, commons or en.wiki. They must be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to "...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"? Those are exceptions that define some works that are not covered, not restrictions on what can be done to those works that are covered. Jpatokal (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this is just like a photographer saying 'All my work is published under the Creative Commons licence, except for some photos, which are not: I will let you know when this applies.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every government license has similar conditions: see eg. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, which specifies (among other things) that works produced by government contractors and "certain" agencies may still be copyrighted. This is, of course, no easy way to differentiate content produced by a government employee vs. a government contractor, or to determine exactly which "independent agencies, corporations and Federal subsidiaries" are exempt. Should we thus delete all US government work from Wikipedia? Jpatokal (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Last but not least, it has been pointed out on Commons that the wording of the statute has been inherited from former colonial masters the Dutch, whose copyright act of 1912, article 15b says the same thing, and which forms the basis of the widely used Commons free content template commons:Template:PD-NL-Gov/en. Jpatokal (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So, do we still have any factual objections left, or is the free content status of the banknote images confirmed now? Going once, going twice... Jpatokal (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

They are still non-free. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds? Please spell them out in detail, and in particular, how they differ from the widely accepted Dutch version of the same. Jpatokal (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, read what we have posted the pd-gov only applies to a very very narrow set of items and currency is not one of them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read anything here? The "very very narrow set of items" is Article 13 (public domain). This discussion is about whether banknotes fall under Article 14 (copyrighted but free content), helpfully quoted at the top of this discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are effectively two questions we need to answer:

1. Do works covered by Article 14b of the Copyright Law qualify as free content? If yes, they can be used on Wikipedia and Commons freely. (See [7].)
2. Are Indonesian banknotes published "by and/or behalf of the Government" of Indonesia? If yes, they are covered by Article 14b of the Copyright Law. (See above.)

If the answers to both questions is yes, then images of Indonesian banknotes can be used on Wikipedia and Commons. Jpatokal (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a large volume of evidence (cf. the plentiful documentation on the identical Dutch provision) that Article 14b is public domain/without restrictions/free. So that is settled and certain.

So in general Indonesian government publications are definitely ok for Wikimedia/pedia. The pertinent question for this page is whether banknotes (and coins) fall into this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And we have seen zero proof of that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 08:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, have you actually read this thread? The banknotes are issued by Bank Indonesia, which per ACT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 23 OF 1999 CONCERNING BANK INDONESIA Article 4 (1) "is a Central Bank of the Republic of Indonesia" and (2) "is an independent state institution". Article 19: "Bank Indonesia shall be authorized to prescribe the type, value, characteristic of currency to be issued, the material used and the effective date of such money as a legal tender." Who "authorizes" BI to do this? The Act spells it out: the House of Representatives of Indonesia, ie. the Government, and hence BI is acting on behalf of the Government. What part of this do you dispute? Jpatokal (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of pre-1961 banknotes

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ

Exactly, the issue is that no one has proven beyond a doubt that the images are PD, and per copyright law, we need to assume them as non-free, and per the Foundation, minimize their use or delete them when not used. Now, the latter as pertaining to lists of currencies is still under discussion, but the present consensus is to remove excess non-frees from any list-type article, which is what Delta did, even after Hammersoft warned the Numismatics group of this coming issue in March.--MASEM (t) 12:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues for post-1961 images, but I have yet to see any reasonable doubt cast on the public domain rationale for pre-1961 images. Indonesia'sCopyright Act Article 29(1) decrees that copyright on "all forms of arts, such as paintings, engravings, sculptures ... shall be valid for the life of the Author and 50 (fifty) years after his death."; Article 30(3) clarifies that "The Copyright on works as referred to in ... Article 29 paragraph (1) which are owned or held by a legal body, shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of from the first publication." Bank Indonesia and its predecessors are legal bodies, it published the notes before 1960, and hence their copyrights expired on or before 2010. Full stop.Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Δ did not remove "excess" non-frees, he removed all non-frees and caused the deletion of all non-frees -- and because of the page protection, it wasn't even possible to rescue a selection of them. Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And that point - who owns the images, if the Bank is a legal body (the WP article suggests its commercial with gov't oversight) and thus what their copyright is - is still doubted based on the that discussion, as well as how that would apply to the US.

But as to removing all the images, that's norm when dealing the non-free overuse on lists. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Under the 1953 law '‘Bank Indonesia adalah badan-hukum kepunyaan Negara yang berhak melakukan tugas-tugas berdasarkan Undang-undang ini.'

I.e. 'Bank Indonesia is a corporate body belonging to the state with the right to perform the duties granted under this Act.'

Under the 1968 law ‘Bank Indonesia adalah milik Negara’ – i.e ‘Bank Indonesia belongs to the state’.

And under the 1999 (current) law 'Bank Indonesia adalah lembaga negara yang independen, bebas dari campur tangan Pemerintah dan atau pihakpihak lainnya, kecuali untuk hal-hal yang secara tegas diatur dalam Undang-undang ini.'

Bank Indonesia is a state institution that is independent, free from government and other parties’ interference, except as provided for under this law.

According to Dutch precedent from their identical law, as cited and relied upon Wikipedia, state-owned companies are within the scope of the law.86.163.86.216 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More clearly: The Bank, being the legal body that commissioned and published the images, owns them. (Article 9: If a legal entity announces that a work has originated from it without mentioning a person as the author, then legal entity shall be deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise.) Jpatokal(talk) 14:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sooo, how about labelling all pre-1962 banknotes with {{PD-Indonesia}}? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Half the pre-1962 banknotes already had the PD template, I changed the rest. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Language

You don't indicate in which language the bills are written. Lele giannoni (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the History

Imma gonna split the history, because it is getting too long to navigate properly. Awewe (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)