I don’t think there’s anything absurd about this. The bank notes contain artistic elements (like the picture from the $5 bill that the referenced article includes) and it is possible that someone in Canada would think of using it for commercial purposes. That’s not counterfeiting and it’s not fair use. So maybe the mint is just making it explicit that the image is subject to copyright to reduce the need to take legal action against people who would otherwise use it. There are a lot of people who assume that the designs of money are in the public domain because the government produces them. A copyright notice may be all that is needed to alert someone that’s this isn’t so.
The problem is that copyrighting currency can also make it illegal for example to show currency in a television program or film without permission. Copyright covers more than direct copying.
Steven Jones@Showing currency in a TV program or film most likely falls under fair use in US law. In Canada, we have a similar but less explicitly defined notion called “fair dealing”. My understanding is that copyright and trademark owners whine a lot about the depiction of their materials in films etc. and demand that permission be obtained but in fact in most circumstances would not prevail in court.
In Canada the federal government claims copyright in its publications, in contrast to the US federal government. The fees generated are trivial; the principal use of crown copyright is to prevent the republication of reports considered embarassing by the current government (e.g. preventing publication of an annotated version). Abolition of crown copyright was suggested by many parties in the recently concluded national consultation on copyright law.
In South Africa, permission from the Reserve Bank is required to depict currency in any setting and that’s been going on for the better part of about 30 years or so. I suppose Counterfeiters could be slapped with one more additional charge on top of everything else so I suppose the reasoning is not that stupid.
The US may not claim a copyright in its currency, but it has criminal laws forbidding a variety of facsimiles of currency far more strict than any copyright law. See, e.g., J.K. Stapel, Money talks: The first amendment implications of counterfeiting law, 71 Indiana Law Journal 153 (1995).
I wouldn’t say that the US restrictions on reproducing currency are stricter than copyright. The rules according to the Secret Service are here. Really all they do is prohibit reproductions close in size to the actual item.
It’s not so unreasonable, tourist kitch like keychains, towels, erasers, etc. that have an image of a note printed on them are obviously not counterfeit currency and not fair use either.
9 Comments
I don’t think there’s anything absurd about this. The bank notes contain artistic elements (like the picture from the $5 bill that the referenced article includes) and it is possible that someone in Canada would think of using it for commercial purposes. That’s not counterfeiting and it’s not fair use. So maybe the mint is just making it explicit that the image is subject to copyright to reduce the need to take legal action against people who would otherwise use it. There are a lot of people who assume that the designs of money are in the public domain because the government produces them. A copyright notice may be all that is needed to alert someone that’s this isn’t so.
UK currency has had copyright warnings printed on them for almost a decade now. I guess must be easier to prosecute for copyright infringement.
The problem is that copyrighting currency can also make it illegal for example to show currency in a television program or film without permission. Copyright covers more than direct copying.
Steven Jones@Showing currency in a TV program or film most likely falls under fair use in US law. In Canada, we have a similar but less explicitly defined notion called “fair dealing”. My understanding is that copyright and trademark owners whine a lot about the depiction of their materials in films etc. and demand that permission be obtained but in fact in most circumstances would not prevail in court.
In Canada the federal government claims copyright in its publications, in contrast to the US federal government. The fees generated are trivial; the principal use of crown copyright is to prevent the republication of reports considered embarassing by the current government (e.g. preventing publication of an annotated version). Abolition of crown copyright was suggested by many parties in the recently concluded national consultation on copyright law.
In South Africa, permission from the Reserve Bank is required to depict currency in any setting and that’s been going on for the better part of about 30 years or so. I suppose Counterfeiters could be slapped with one more additional charge on top of everything else so I suppose the reasoning is not that stupid.
The US may not claim a copyright in its currency, but it has criminal laws forbidding a variety of facsimiles of currency far more strict than any copyright law. See, e.g., J.K. Stapel, Money talks: The first amendment implications of counterfeiting law, 71 Indiana Law Journal 153 (1995).
I wouldn’t say that the US restrictions on reproducing currency are stricter than copyright. The rules according to the Secret Service are here. Really all they do is prohibit reproductions close in size to the actual item.
It’s not so unreasonable, tourist kitch like keychains, towels, erasers, etc. that have an image of a note printed on them are obviously not counterfeit currency and not fair use either.