Commons:Deletion requests/File:500-Million-Dollar-Series-1934-Federal-Reserve-Note-Cleveland-Ohio-Coupon-Bond-D-45183601-A-Obver.jpg

According to the Federal Reserve, the US government never issued such bonds. As such, this is not a US government publication and cannot be readily identified as public domain and should be deleted.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don't think this justify a deletion anyway. If it is a fake, it is obviously an anonymous work for which the author cannot claim a copyright. There was a similar issue discussed on the VP recently. Here is the discussion. It concerns these files which are considered fakes by some experts. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have that it is real. --Hans Barbosa (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonymous works attract their own copyright, and without anything to indicate that this was produced in the US before the copyright law changed (if it is a fake, the date on the bill is useless for such purposes), it can still have a copyright. The Precautionary principle recommends deletion in such cases. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems here that you evoke the precautionary principle when you don't have any argument whatsoever. Even if there was a copyright in the first place, which is quite doubtful (there is no copyright notice, and it can't be renewed either), the author can't claim any copyright because he would be in jail immediately. It has always been the policy here to keep illegal works for which a copyright can't be claimed. BTW the precautionary principle is not a blank check to replace any reasonable argument. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright notice is only neeed if it was first published before 1 March 1989. Also, most legal systems have prescription so that you safely can sue anyone you like for copyright violation some ten or twenty years after the original forgery or fraud. Also, while waiting for prescription to occur, you can keep a record of whoever violates your copyright so that you can sue them later. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see that it was made in 1934? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the year on the bill, not necessarily the year the bonds were made. For a forgery like this, we'd have to track it back through reliable sources (and the earliest I have found is about 2002) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final time I'll say this-these bonds are real. Their origin can be traced back to two freemasons in 1871 who conspired to start two world wars and to force all of the nations to exchange their gold for these bonds that were essentially safekeeping receipts for the gold. After WWI the Treaty of Versailles was set up to help rebuild the world and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) was created by the founders of the Federal Reserve. All the gold in Europe—and, it appears, everywhere else—went to the US Government in exchange for these Series 1934 safe keeping receipts / bonds. It is rumored that 8 ships departed China for the US with gold so it could not be by looted by the Japanese occupiers. In 1998 the 60 year hold ended, the boxes were dug up, and the people who originally gave their gold for paper wanted it back. The US said no such exchange occurred. Later, in a secret court in the Hague, the US lost the litigation of the claim and was ordered to turn over the gold by September 11, 2001. The US did not turn over the gold and the Twin Towers were attacked, accompanied by a mysterious collapse of the World Trade Center number 7. Their existance is now covered-up due to secrecy. --Hans Barbosa (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you smoked, but it's a good one... Yann (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I updated the license and the description. Yann (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that counterfeit money requires that it be based on an existing design, which this is not. Just because it is attempting to draw on the public knowledge of the Series of 1934 Federal Reserve Notes does not mean it was executed in 1934... I'm not sure the updated license is accurate.--Godot13 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a blatant counterfeit, but of a bond, not exactly a banknote. It's not trying to pass for money in the U.S., but only trying to look legitimate enough in a foreign country for people to pay money for it in the hope they could redeem the fake bond coupons. Distressingly, it sounds like it worked in some cases.Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I'm not a frequent contributor here, but I noticed this image and the related deletion discussion and wanted to comment. Firstly, this isn't real. No such note, bond or coupon was ever produced by the United States government. Secondly, this was not produced in 1934, which is the date on the currency item which was modified to make this. To elaborate a bit, the upper part of the design is based on a series 1934 Gold Certificate depicting Grover Cleveland. That portion was modified by someone to include the 'denomination' of $500,000,000, which again is completely invented. This image was created at some point in modern times, specifically to lend credence to the absurd conspiracy theory presented above, or another one like it. To be very clear, the date of 1934 is absolutely spurious. The upper part of the image is based on a genuine item of U.S. currency (which has been heavily modified), but the rest is not. Since we don't know when it was made or who made it, we cannot assume that it is a public domain image.-RHM22 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. From what I can see from the web, these forgeries are assumed to date from about 2000 / 2001 from some far eastern countries. While works from that time are automatically copyrightable... I'm not so sure there is anything copyrightable added. The note itself is made up of portions of earlier, real banknotes with the numbers altered. None of that is really a copyrightable change. The bottom portion is again a slightly altered form of interest coupons for a bond (which are different than banknotes, and not issued by the Federal Reserve), which the counterfeiters no doubt found somewhere and slightly altered. I don't think any of that is close to copyrightable... the underlying artwork is technically PD-USGov, and I don't think there are any copyrightable additions. It's an extremely clumsy counterfeit... I would have concerns of scope, as we shouldn't really be hosting any obvious fakes with no inherent notability of their own. But, I do see news reports of them.[1][2] At the very least, the image needs to be renamed to indicate it's a forgery. I'm a little hesitant to host works like this, but I don't really see any copyright concerns -- the alterations are to me PD-ineligible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which banknotes is this based on? Do we have pictures of those banknotes on Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is based on the Cleveland $1000 note (see here). The scalloping is the same, and the portrait, and a lot of the layout. Maybe there was a variant I don't see which is even closer. Some of the other elements appear to be cribbed from the back of a $50 note. They could have easily combined some of the flourishes from other bills. Whatever alterations are here seem to be pretty minimal. I just don't see a good copyright-based argument to delete. As noted, even if there technically was, there would also be a high likelihood that a court would not recognize it since its sole use was in the commission of a crime (probably an easier case to make than graffiti, to be honest). And that assumes someone comes forward and claims ownership of said copyright (which would admit to the crime). I cannot fathom any use of this work possibly being a copyright violation in any way. (Other crimes, sure, but not copyright violation.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks very similar to File:US-$1000-FRN-1928-Fr-2210g.jpg, so the image is probably fine for that reason. I do not use United States banknotes myself (and in particular not banknotes of that denomination), so I didn't recognise that the image was based on an existing design. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the rest of it is not from the $500, but rather the back of the old $5 bill. Basically a mashup of the $1000 and the $5. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete- per my comments above.-Godot13 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:US-Federal-Reserve-Note-Series-1934-1-B-Cleveland-Ohio.jpg for a similar case. Yann (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So if the conclusion is 1) this is based so closely on the actual design of issued US notes where no additional significant copyrightable alterations have been made (i.e., you have defined a counterfeit note), and 2) as a result, it therefore qualifies for a PD-USGov license, then 3) the future uploading of images of counterfeit currency can be accomplished using a PD-USGov license. Seems like a very slippery slope to me.--Godot13 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a pure copyright perspective, correct -- slightly rearranging a US government work is still PD. From a *scope* perspective, I think most of those would fail -- a file must be reasonably usable in an educational context. Someone uploading their own fake would be outside of scope and the file should be deleted in that case. I almost voted that way here, but it appears these particular ones are fakes that have been in circulation and generated some news coverage, so there could be an educational use of what to look out for, and can help illustrate those particular news stories. I would definitely recommend changing the filename to indicate it's a forgery, and in many cases images of such on the web have a "FORGERY" or "COUNTERFEIT" stamp all across the image so that nobody can use the image for a counterfeit purpose, and that may also be a decent idea here, though it is pretty low resolution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, the OP was indefinitely blocked on WP as a sock.--Godot13 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't say I'm surprised, but that doesn't really affect the issue here either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as a fake IMHO out of scope. JuTa 08:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and it has an unclear copyright status. --JuTa 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]