Open main menu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Currency.


Philippine pesoEdit

is copyright: [1]   Szajci pošta 05:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Philippine piso coinsEdit

What it says in this section with regard to Philippine coins is either wrong, or obsolete. states: Section 10. No person or entity, public or private, shall design, engrave, make or execute in any manner, or use, issue, or distribute any object whatsoever bearing the likeness or similitude as to design, color or the inscription thereon of any legal tender Philippine currency coin or any part thereof, in metal form, irrespective of size and metallic composition, without prior authority from the Governor, BSP or his duly authorized representative.

Note that it says in METAL FORM This clearly is not referring to photographic or digital images. John Elson (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It also says "legal tender" so it wouldn't apply to the flora and fauna series or earlier series in any case since they are no longer legal tender. John Elson (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that section 11 refers to activities in violation of section 10, so does not apply except where section 10 applies. John Elson (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a typical restriction to prevent counterfeit money. It dosn't sound as if they are trying to use that restriction for copyright purposes. See also {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it is quite clear that the wording does not agree with the source, the rules of the BSP do not establish a copyright per se and forbid only metallic copies of legal tender coins and images of legal tender notes. The way it is worded uses far too broad of a brush, lumping coins and notes together and ignoring the metallic clause with regard to coins and the legal tender clause with regard to both. John Elson (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


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)


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


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


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)



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


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 countriesEdit

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 ever 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)


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 mintingEdit

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 CroatiaEdit

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

Poland - rules of using currencyEdit

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, BhutanEdit

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 banknotesEdit

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 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 okEdit

Here i saw: 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 tidyingEdit

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?  Not OK? to simply   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 ( 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)

With regard to Philippine coins: You neglected to note the part about in metal form which is clearly not applicable to photographic or digital images! John Elson (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2018 (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)


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?

-- 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 📱.
-- 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


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   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)


Suriname's guilder and dollar banknotes (see Category:Banknotes of Suriname) all make reference to article 260 about the prohibition on forging/counterfeiting. Does that mean slavish reproductions/photographs of said banknotes are not allowed on Commons? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Barbados and Belize dollars copyright?Edit

Hi, Are Barbados and Belize dollars images copyright? Szajci pošta 09:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


I raised a deletion discussion last week about banknotes from Colombia.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Colombia, 2018-03-29

Posting it here for some additional attention. I hope to write a section for this page after the discussion is closed.

seb26 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, based on the result of this DR and the many others also closed as delete, I have now created a section #Colombia. seb26 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


Recently I have come across two files, File:ธนบัตร 1000 บาท.png and File:ธนบัตรแบบ 17 ราคา 1000 บาท.png, which are two files of Thai Baht. However, there is no specific copyright status for Thai Baht. Can anyone tell me the status of Baht and help to determine how should these files should be dealt with?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the Bank of Thailand, Baht banknotes are non-free, so I have deleted these files. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


Recently, I found two files File:Billete de 20 bolivares soberanos HD.jpg and File:Billete de 10 bolivares soberanos HD.jpg, two files of Venezuelan banknotes. However, there is no specific country information about its copyright status. Can anyone help to determine the files, and also add those information to this article? 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the Venzuelan copyright law, the only works exempt from copyright are "text of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts" apart from the usual copyright expiry date. Usually, if currency is exempted from copyright, it is because governmental works are exempt, but I see no such provision here. Short answer:   Not OK. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, then the two files may be deleted? 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged the files as "no evidence of permission" since no evidence of the CC licence was present on the linked page ( --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan, New Taiwan DollarEdit

A total of 5 images of NT$50 coins were recently found, which they were produced in 2016. As there is no specific information on COM:CUR, can anyone give some explanations for these files? As a reference, such files of NT$ on zh.wikipedia are labelled as fair use.
The files regarding are listed here:

--廣九直通車 (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Respective Wikiepdia page?Edit

Is there a respective Wikipedia page of this kind of money copyright topic? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. If there was, it would mean there are sources about money copyright and our—still incomplete—currency page would probably not have taken years to assemble. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


This image of Laotian currency on enwiki was tagged PD by the uploader because he scanned it himself. This is obviously a bad reason. However, are the images on Laotian currency PD? I'd like it cleared up before I copy the image to Commons. DS (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Note that our {{PD-Laos}} and COM:CRT#Laos reference a law from 2007, but the current law seems to be from 2011,[8] so don't assume that the information on Commons necessarily is up to date. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
So that's "better not copy it to Commons", then? Confirm/deny DS (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


Recently I have been splitting out sub-pages for specific countries from Commons:Copyright rules by territory, making pages like (for example) Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Afghanistan. It should be easier to maintain the smaller pages. Assuming no objections are raised in the next week or so, I will start moving/merging content from this page into the country-specific pages, replacing the content here with a template to transclude from the country-specific page. Thus


on the Commons:Currency page will render the content shown in the box below.

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/

No information available

This is not the only list holding a specific type of information about a country. Others include Commons:Freedom of panorama, Commons:Copyright tags, Commons:Stamps/Public domain and Commons:Threshold of originality. This is inconvenient to contributors, who may not know the lists exist, as well as hard to maintain when a country updates its laws. A similar approach may be taken with them.

The move to country-specific pages should help with maintenance when we spot a new law or revision to a law in a given country, because all updates can be done in one place on the country-specific page. This page will continue to provide an overview of all the currency sections. The link boxes to the right will making editing from this page easy. If anyone has serious concerns, please point them out below. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Austrian coinsEdit

The Austrian mint is allowing the use of self-produced pictures of their coins.

It's the 4th question in their FAQ section.

--Perseus1984 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean that if I take a photograph of the national side of an Austrian Euro coin I can use it commercially? If so that should be noted at COM:CUR Austria. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the statement is less clear than that. In the first sentence, what they say is that "if you take pictures of coins yourself or commission someone to do so, the pictorial rights ["Bildrechte"] rest with you". Which is (obviously) correct. However, under Austrian law, every use of a picture of a coin is a use of both (1) the photograph and (2) the coin, and that sentence does not address the copyright status of the coin at all. They proceed by saying that "for pictures provided by Münze Österreich AG, you always need to obtain written permission for publication" and continue by giving a list, without any additional context and with the following first item: "self-produced pictures of coins only (reverse/obverse side) -> no permission required". I find that very hard to understand. What do the bullet points even refer to? To particular acts of "publication", as it says in the sentence before? (That is at least how I read it.) Well, if so, the statement is insufficient for purposes of the Wikimedia projects since we require quite a bit more than that. (For instance, the rights owner also has to agree to the publication of all sorts of future derivative works. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses.) — Pajz (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC) (By the way, I had some doubts at first whether Münze Österreich AG even hold the copyright in these designs, but that seems to be the case - at least for Euro coins -, according to Röttinger M, "Das Urheberrecht an den Euro-Münzen und Euro-Banknoten" (2000) 11 ecolex 654).
Return to the project page "Currency".