Commons:Deletion requests/File:US-Federal-Reserve-Note-Series-1934-1-B-Cleveland-Ohio.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) 23:25, 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) 18:12, 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) 18:24, 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]

And w:Vinland map is from the 15th century. The printed date on a forgery is not always correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, another fake. But why don't you request deletion of this then? You need to be consistent with your claim... Regards, Yann (talk) 19:52, 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]
    • Agree with Godot about this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Delete- per my comments above.--Godot13 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment It seems that there isn't enough creativity to get a copyright anyway. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:500-Million-Dollar-Series-1934-Federal-Reserve-Note-Cleveland-Ohio-Coupon-Bond-D-45183601-A-Obver.jpg for other arguments. Yann (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, seems to be very similar to File:US-$1000-FRN-1928-Fr-2210g.jpg, which was mentioned in the other deletion request. This means that the image presumably is fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:40, 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]
      • Future uploads also have to be in scope. Since there have been news articles about these in particular, they seem to fall within scope (reasonably useful in an educational context), but any old self-created fake would not (those are almost always not useful and should be deleted). The deletion reason given was copyright-based though, so that was the argument more under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, the OP was indefinitely blocked on WP as a sock. I added this to one of the other discussions. Perhaps they should be checked out here on commons?--Godot13 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as a fake IMHOout of scope. JuTa 08:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and it has an unclear copyright status. --JuTa 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]