Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1929 Belgian banknote redux

1929 Belgian banknote redux
Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 03:12:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:From the original nomination by Brandmeister, "A very arty example of the oldschool banknotes, with inscriptions in several languages, notable designer. The bleed-through of the original scans has been largely fixed.". I addressed the dirt issues, but it was late in the nom and so this may not have had enough time for feedback. Worth another shot
 * Articles in which this image appears:Belgian franc
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
 * Creator:Constant Montald, scanned by the Museum of the National Bank of Belgium Brandmeister and retouched by Crisco 1492


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Actually it was Museum of the Belgium's National Bank that sent me the scan. Brand meister talk   15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per myself last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support  ■ MMXX  talk  12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Have copyright concerns from last nomination been addressed satisfactorily? Does this actually count as a free license? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pine's not here to give us his feedback, so I'll email the bank. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From the email: "In practice, the National Bank does not pursue possible infringements of its copyright on Belgian franc banknotes which were issued prior to 1944. The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters. These banknotes have no residual monetary value. As a result, there is no objection against the reproduction of a 1929 Belgian franc banknote on the internet (even without respecting the ECB decision referred to above), at least as far as the National Bank's copyright is concerned."
 * The email also directed me to this document, pointing to section 2.3 f), which reads essentially that digital reproductions are considered legal (not necessarily copyrightwise, but from a currency law POV) that digital reproductions should be no greater than 72dpi and have "SPECIMEN" written across it in large, easily legible font.
 * I'm still confused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since they are no longer legal tender they should just be treated as an artwork. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, that one is a mess. Ordinarily, I can't speak for Belgium, ordinary copyright protection applies to the note/stamp/etc. This is held by the bank. What are standard Belgian copyright terms? The problem here is that "In practice, the National Bank does not pursue possible infringements of its copyright on Belgian franc banknotes which were issued prior to 1944. The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters. These banknotes have no residual monetary value." sounds like a mixture of this and the below point.
 * There is then a separate set of rules that affect things like banknotes only, that deal with the possibilities for misuse. Obviously what that is aimed at is minimising forgeries. If you can no longer use a forgery of it, then common sense says that that sort of protection shouldn't apply – but that doesn't mean the law necessarily reflects common sense. (Assuming Belgium works like the other systems I've seen.) If we trust the template, and I don't know on what basis it was drawn up, then it seems to check out? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Would PD Belgium apply? 1929 + 70 = 1999. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather no. But the Bank gives a green light per above so it is safe to have the file in Commons (although there should be a credit to the Bank). Brand meister talk   10:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the description page or in the article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The current license looks ok for me, but you may send the Bank's e-mail reply to OTRS to wipe out all concerns. Brand meister talk   19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I object. The bank may claim copyright even if the content is in the Public Domain. We have seen this happen in the past. Who is the artist? The bank can hold corporate copyright maybe, but those too expire. The law is unclear about this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The current license does not cover notes no longer accepted as legal tender. The bank does not have anything to protect as they are just pieces of paper with artwork on them. They have no more legal standing or protection than a lithograph from the same time. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not reason enough for a free license on its own. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to support that opinion? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not-free until proven otherwise had been the standard practice on Wikipedia since it's creation more or less. "They probably wouldn't care" has never been a free license. My point is what the bank thinks is irrelevant if the files are old enough to count as free. If bank still holds the copyright (somehow) asking them to release the old currency with a free license is a difficult task. The government probably owns the copyright, not the bank. Currency IP may for example belong to the Belgian monarchy. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree. These are no longer currency. As such the bank has no standing in the matter with respect to protetion of legal tenders. Given this, the notes fall under usual IP protections. Looking at the date they are PD in the coutry of origin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The OTRS volunteer who replied to the email seems to have construed it as being "you can only use this on Wikipedia"... another snafu in a day full of them Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The key words seem to be "there is no objection against the reproduction of a 1929 Belgian franc banknote on the internet (even without respecting the ECB decision referred to above), at least as far as the National Bank's copyright is concerned". The Bank's copyright is concerned in the file, so don't see any obstacle in OTRS confirmation and subsequent promotion. Brand meister talk   10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see why people tend to not bother with OTRS... Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So what's the story here? Makeemlighter (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The OTRS reply I received seemed to think that the email indicated that the file was okayed for Wikimedia use by the bank (which is nowhere in that email, so...). I think PD-Belgium may apply as well, as it was published more than 70 years ago by an institution and not individual author.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced here. The bank has said that it would not be within their policy to persue copyright complaints of this type, and that they have no objection to it appearing online. This is very different from it being in the public domain or them giving carte blanche with regards to its use. That said, if this genuinely is an anonymous work, PD-Belgium would seem to apply for the artwork. I'd recommend that this is clarified on the image page. IANAL. J Milburn (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Soo.... Whats happening here? Its been quite a while... Dusty 777 02:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a definitive statement on copyright, we cannot promote this. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally closing this. Pine✉ 00:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)