Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Euro coin common face

The template states that "Authorised is reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro." This is, quite obviously, a requirement that makes the license un-free - see Commons:Licensing, and en:free content. If a picture is free, you can create detrimental derivative works of it. I am aware that it is illegal to deface an actual euro coin, but that's not the issue here - this license applies to images of the coins too, and thus it is unfree. Plrk (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been a deletion request earlier; see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face. Plrk (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this is an acceptable restriction to the usage of the images, even here on commons. We also host images that are protected by trademark (i.e. company logos) which must not be used detrimentally for the respective company. Also, we host lots of images of peoples. If you use them in an inadequate context, you'll get into trouble, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference. Trademark law regulates the use of trademark, images of people are also regulated. But these regulations are not part of the copyright license - they're there whatever the copyright status. If trademark law suddenly disappeared, we could do what we want with the trademarked logos that are free from copyright, but we couldn't if they hade a specifications about how to use them in the image's copyright license. Using a company logo detrimentally may or may not be trademark infringement, but that doesn't matter - the important thing is that it is not copyright infringement. Do you see the difference? Plrk (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that difference. But I think that this restriction here is also not a copyright one, but more one that's similar to a trademark restriction. For me, the restriction imposed is also similar to the general restriction that counterfeiting money is prohibited, which is also not a copyright issue. It's the same as with, say, PD-USGov images of Barack Obama. If you use them detrimentally, you're in trouble, regardless that the images themselves are free. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's a difference between restrictions by law and restrictions in the copyright license! The former is compatible with the definition of free works, the latter is not. Plrk (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Keep I don't like the restriction, but derivatives and commercial use are allowed. We also include works photographed under Freedom of Panorama rules which also have restrictions (varying between countries), such as the requirement to show the copied work as it is situated or not to use the work in a way that harms its current use. We also have to respect artists' moral rights that apply for all time, even after works have moved into the public domain. --Simonxag (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's a difference between restrictions by law and restrictions in the copyright license! The former is compatible with the definition of free works, the latter is not. This license - this license, not a law or other regulation - prohibits certain derivatives, and thus it does not allow derivative work. It is not free, and should be deleted. Plrk (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this just a bad wording of the template? I don't see that this restriction is actually a copyright one. It's just the template that mixes the two. There's no indication that the desired limitation of use has anything to do with copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Delete After reading the Communication from the Commission on copyright protection of the common face design of the euro coins, it is clear to me that common sides are copyrighted. Their reproduction, and their reproduction only (not their commercial use, not arbitrary derivative works) is allowed under certain restrictive conditions (for any other use, permission must be sought). The restrictions are not non-copyright restrictions, they are the limitative conditions at which the copyright holder authorizes the reproduction of a copyrighted work. I'm afraid this is not even close to a free license release, not to say anything about public domain. The copyright statement of the ECB suggest that the copyright status of banknotes is similar. So unfortunately, the following templates should be deleted, along with most pictures depicting Euros (which should be moved to the local Wikipedias under fair use, probably):

• Template:Euro coin common face
• Template:Money-EU

--Eusebius (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Delete (see below) There are two limitation, both part of the copyright license, that are problems for us:

• "provided they are in faithful likeness" eliminates all sorts of changes that could be made. It also limits an artist's ability to change colors or make caricatures.
• "are used in ways which do not damage or detract from the image of the euro" -- According to our rules, a political protester should be able to take a Commons image and do anything to it -- deface it, whatever. The rule quoted on the template prohibits that and is, therefore, inconsistent with our rules.

These two sections essentially eliminate any ability to make derivative works. Although trademark and other laws sometimes limits that ability, those limits are separate from the copyright license. Why should we accept an EU license that does not meet our requirements when we would not accept such a license from anyone else?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I still just doubt the wording of the template. Just because it mentions the restrictions in the same sentence as the copyright, doesn't necessarily join them together. If we had a template that said "This logo is not copyrighted but protected by trademark and therefore you must not..." wouldn't make the trademark part of the copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that here, they don't say taht the work is not copyrighted. They say that "Copyright on the design of the common sides of the euro coins belongs to the European Community represented by the Commission." and also that "Either the Commission or individual euro-area countries may initiate legal proceedings if unauthorised reproduction is detected." I still don't understand why someone once thought it was a free license or public domain release. Maybe at that time the phrasing was different? As it is now, it says "copyrighted, ask first (except in a few cases)". --Eusebius (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Cody escadron delta (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote. --Eusebius (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Look at it logically, please. This whole mess is no reason that we have dealt with it.

This passage from "does not affect the reputation of the euro" is nothing more than an oven that had printed, and either wanted to pay a forgery, or damaging it, and then yelling that the Euros have typographical errors.

This is part of the classic conventions of confidence in the currency, nothing more. There are also Romanian, or Russian banknotes, which are, like the Euro, also in the public domain.

oh my God, Wikipedia is a very good project idea, but keep us here is a kind of "professional misunderstangs" in which we begin to delete the things that are absolutely fine and looking problems where none really are.

Conclusion: The EU notes only highlight of the Convention on the protection of traditional currency. If this bothers you, delete any images commos money. Russian ruble, U.S. dollar, just about everything.--213.5.154.39 07:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at it logically please. Where is it said that Euro designs are in the public domain? --Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete this template and all files which transclude it (perhaps redirect to {{Copyvio}} until the deletions happen) per nom, Eusebius, and Jim.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 KeepThere is no reason for deletion. What is mentioned in the template is just a classic convention on the protection of exchange, nothing more.

On the bill are as stamps apply international conventions, not only copyright a particular state.

The Convention on the protection against counterfeiting to other currencies - dollar, ruble, etc. - just do not mention it.

So. either leave the euro here, or Delete any other pictures of currencies. Advertised Protection Convention is an international anti-counterfeiting, and automatically assigned to each currency.

As I say, let the euro be, or delete all other currencies. The only difference between the euro and U.S. dollar is that the dollar was at this convention as mentioned in detail [sorry for google transtator] --77.48.243.194 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the difference between the Euro and the dollar is that the dollar (in most cases) is a work of the federal state of the USA, which makes it public domain, because the US copyright law says so. There is no equivalent in the EU. --Eusebius (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep You is constantly mistaken protect "genuine banknotes" and "SPECIMEN" copies.

Copies with the overprint "Specimen" may be used without restriction.

Read this: (my ask co european bank) "As long as euro banknote reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used without prior authorisation of the ECB. Generally, you may use euro banknote images without the ECB's prior authorisation provided that the reproductions comply with the reproduction rules, laid down in Article 2 of the Decision of the European Central Bank on the denominations, specifications, reproduction, exchange and withdrawal of euro banknotes (ECB/2003/4) (2003/205/EC), March 2003, (For details please see: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/html/reproduction.en.html).

The reproduction rules have been established to contribute to the integrity of euro banknotes and ensure that the public can distinguish genuine euro banknotes from reproductions."

Shortly: Specimen version it free for ilustration, not specimen version it copyrighted. Specimen version can bee "vandelised" (this want user "Plrk") original version WITHOUT specimen not.

What more do not you understand? --213.5.154.39 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: "can be used without prior authorisation" doesn't explicitly authorize derivative works and commercial use (even limited by anti-counterfeiting regulations, which we ignore for a copyright-based evaluation), so it's not equivalent to a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep You Looking for problems where there are none at all.

When something "man would have used without the express permission" so it includes derivatives. Who, told where it is not so? --213.5.154.39 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Same "problem" in Flag of Brasil:

According to the Brazilian Law on Industrial Property (Law 9.279 from May 14th, 1996; See translation), Chapter IV, Article 191, Brazilian official symbols are Public Domain because they can be copied and reproduced without any permission from the Brazilian government or anyone else unless they are being copied or reproduced with foul intentions.Cameta (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of place here: We're not talking about flags of Brazil, and the proposed statement is absolutely not a free license release, for the same reasons. --Eusebius (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im see very easy way. Representatives of european bank are not some type of "Cannibals" and we dont must have a "fear" from him. Can somebody, who speack english soo good written to european bank e-mail with permission request? Some type of "ORTS" to banknotes with specimem overprint? Why has nobody thought of this simple solution? ---hax0r (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im talking with ECB about ORTS tciket (CC-Atribution-SA) --77.48.29.30 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Keep évidemment garder ; les arguments pour supprimer sont tirés par les cheveux. Il ne faut pas chercher de problèmes là où il n'y en a pas. De plus la Banque de Malte autorise la reproduction. Les bonnes manières voudraient que celui qui importe le fichier soit prévenu de cette action pae celui qui l'initie. Cordialement -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Keep My task to ECB: "Please be informed that the European Central Bank (ECB) prefers to stick to the reproduction rules published on our website: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/l_07820030325en00160019.pdf

Please note that as long as euro banknote reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes and that the reproductions comply with the reproduction rules, the images of euro banknotes can be used without prior authorisation of the ECB."

Really, im dont know why your want delete this specimen ilustration. It NO reason. Do not think this nonsense and call off this Deletion request --77.48.29.30 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My god you are more suspicious and constrained than soviet politburo. When someone enable "copy without previous authorization" there is no way that someon will prosecute you.

Now I show all the reasons why it is not necessary delete euro images:

Banknotes: the only requirement is that they can not be mistaken with genuine. Simply use a version with printing SPECINEN and problem it solved.

Coin: it is required that the coin was not acting in situations that could damage euro. 2d copy of the coin but can not be mistaken by anyone with the 3d original, and therefore there is no risk that it could damage the reputation of the euro. Also, no problem.

Therefore, im voting for keep. --85.132.183.202 08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment This is not a copyvio. We have permission to use the money. Just like the "nc" and the "nd" licenses it is legal to host and use the photos. However, we may have a problem with our policy that all photos should be free to use. BUT our goal is to host images for educational purpose. So in a very few cases like this where the laws limits the usage I think we should concider if we are willing to make an exception. I will post a note on Village pump about this. --MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep This is a difficult one. We need to separate a few things.
  1. They are restricted, per ECB/2003/4 and ECB/2003/5 (article 1). These restrictions are part of community law, and the restrictions should be reflected (eventually) in the laws of the separate countries. These restrictions are of no effect to us, much like {{PD-USGov-money}} is a restriction that does not affect us. They are laws that stand outside of copyright law.
  2. The material is copyrighted per ECB/1999/3 by the ECB
  3. The European Commission claims to own the copyrights as well, per this 2001 statement, but as the ECB is an independent unit and the successor of the EMI, I'm not totally sure which of them is correct. I think that the ECB is the actual owner, but of course ECB is under full final legal control of the EC, so indirectly, the EC is probably also the owner in a way.

When you read these reports, it is clear to me that the ECB has the copyright. The ECB does have restrictions (upon reproduction and violation of copyright). These restrictions exist at all times, outside any granted license. They are community law and cannot be "given away".

Lets look at what got this DR started: "provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro." It is also given as an example in ECB/2003/5 Article 1. This is in all likelihood a moral right, which in EU countries is part of copyright law. I note that you cannot give away or give up moral rights and these are also recognized by the CC licenses and the Berne Convention for instance. As such, moral rights fall within our definition of a free work. They are restrictions that are not part of copyright law in the US and for our usage, can be considered to be a form of Non-copyright restrictions. TheDJ (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

--  Keep Yes, im fully understand with arguments. This is "copyright paranoia", and it no problem with using of this images at Wikipedia articles. --T. Rolková (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep. As well explained by TheDJ, the issue is whether the restrictions at issue (faithful likeness, not detrimental to the image) are acceptable Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Because these restrictions derive from Community law, which is public law unrelated to copyright law, they do not limit the reuse of the images under copyright law, and are therefore non-copyright restrictions. As there is no EU copyright law, the copyright status of the Euro is probably governed by the Member States' national copyright laws, several of which declare official currency to be in the public domain. It is therefore probably acceptable to continue to treat the Euro as being in the public domain for our purposes. Sandstein (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep They seem to be valid arguments. Can we not then keep the images while marking "Specimen" on them, as for the banknotes? Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep per User:TheDJ. The "detrimental" clause seems more based on the moral rights, which are separate from the economic rights we are generally concerned with. Moral rights exist in Europe in most works (even if PD in most cases). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete I quite nearly closed this as keep - the "detrimental" clause refers to moral rights; similar language appears in Creative Commons licenses ("You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."). Most of the other provisions are conventional anti-counterfeiting provisions, which are non-copyright. But what is unacceptable is the "faithful likeness" clause - the "Communication from the Commission on copyright protection of the common face design of the euro coins" is published by said Commission, and above the clause it reads "[t]he following common reproduction regime will be applied by the Commission". Provided the Commission is indeed the copyright holder, this cannot be interpreted as anything other than a licensing statement by the copyright holder under a no-derivatives license. The fact that it also requires member countries to enact separate, non-copyright legislation to defend its copyright is moot. We don't accept CC-BY-ND works, and can't accept these works, no matter their importance. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• If the Euro was indeed released under a no-derivatives license, the only thing we could do is making verbatim copies of it, which literally means minting new Euros. Remember that we're not talking about a bunch of photos, where talking about the Euro face itself: the relief, metallic, three-dimensional work. Since it's a three-dimensional object, any photograph of it is a derivative work by default. And photographs are allowed. Actually, I can't see how this could be a ND license, while it allows, with no need for permission, the reproduction of all or part of the work, for photographs, drawings, paintings, films, images, and generally reproductions in flat format, not mentioning relief copying. Faithful likeness or not, these are all, and can be nothing but, derivative works.

• As for "faithful likeness", I think we should look at the nature of the other restrictions (since this can't be an ECB narcissistic moment;). The motive behind all restrictions seems to be to prevent confusion, and hence prevent fraud. I can easily see situations where tampering with the features of the Euro face can mislead people. The look of currency is a very important aspect of it being currency, that's why it's heavily publicised whenever the slightest change is done. I think the term "faithful likeness" has been chosen carefully as to not imply "exact duplicate", which is impossible anyway for a 2d depiction of a 3d object, but even less likely for a "drawings and paintings". So as long as it looks like a Euro, and doesn't mislead people, then it doesn't matter if it's a cartoon or an impressionist painting.

• Currency had and will always have a special situation because of its very nature. Every human being who had ever come in contact with civilization knows that. There will always be some restrictions, the infringement of which could have far more grave consequences than a copyright violation. And everyone knows that, too. A simple warning should do just fine. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep I fully support the arguments provided by Orionist and others. Let's not create ourselves false problems. --Hispalois (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I should not have said no derivatives since as you say the Commission allows a limited range of derivatives - I'd characterize it more as a some derivatives license (which is equally unacceptable). Their purpose may indeed be to "prevent confusion" or fight counterfeiting, but doing so via licensing is what makes it a copyright restriction - if they relied on separate non-copyright legislation to enforce these terms instead, then I would not be concerned. To draw an analogy, a person may choose to enforce negative use of their image either by relying on existing personality rights laws, or by licensing their image under terms that do not allow such negative use. The former would be acceptable, the latter would not. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but isn't it the same case of some derivatives allowed in images of trademarks, living people, national flags and emblems, and even signatures? I think the ECB went out of their way to include the widest range of derivatives, that's why I'd say it's more of "most derivatives." Either way we already allow it. As for your analogy, I can't imagine why including personality rights or any other existent laws in a license would be unacceptable. Does including them make the image less free? No, the laws apply anyway. Does removing them make the image more free? No, the laws are still there. Does including or removing them affect reuse? Not at all, either way you're allowed to reuse in exactly the same manner. In your vote above you mentioned moral rights being a part of the Creative Commons licenses, this applies perfectly to your analogy, and yet these are our main licenses. If CC licenses are acceptable, so should this one. -- Orionist ★ talk 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep IMHO DCoetzee's point of view would mean that we would have to delete pretty much all state symbols and coats of arms on the Commons. We chose to live with such non-copyright restrictions (that cannot be hailed by changing a copyright license), and the same applies here. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep Commons autorise les travaux dérivés mais toujours dans la limite des lois en vigueur.Il suffit de rappeler ici la loi concernant les pièces en Euros. De même US Mint donne des restrictions sur l'utilisation des images des pièces US. C'est bien aussi une restriction de copyright non ? Je pense qu'il ne faut pas créer de problème là où il n'y en a pas. Il ne faut pas être "plus royaliste que le roi" et seulement comprendre et respecter l'esprit de ces restrictions. HB (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (Commons allows derivative works but always within the limits of existing laws . The law regarding the Euro coins must only be mentionned in the file. Similarly U.S. Mint provides restrictions on the use of images of U.S. coins. It's also a copyright restrictions, isn't-it ? I think we should not create false problems. We must only understand and respect the spirit of these restrictions. You can modify py poor translation to improve it)

---

Deleted. This has been open for six months and it is time to put it behind us. While there is some good argument on both sides, per Dcoetzee, Eusebius, Jeff G., and others, I believe this is a delete. Commercial and derivative works are not permitted, so it's against policy here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I too was swayed by Dcoetzee's argument btw. Most images using this template now deleted. Will mass IfD the less clear cases. TheDJ (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reopened after a very polite request by User:Orionist to allow time to discuss Dcoetzee's comment further. Fair warning -- I don't intend this to stay open long. I have not undeleted the template.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Just give an hour to reach my home and I'll post my counter argument. Regards! -- Orionist ★ talk 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Could a bot be used to import automatically the euro coins images on local Wikipedia wikis? Asking of each local communities to import a thousand files manually is quite a tedious task. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the license is that rules out political commentary such as this, which should be a possible use of any of our images. It also rules out most commercial use. Once we start saying that the possible uses of the image ought to allow an exception to our general rules, where do we stop -- perhaps we should allow photos of buildings in Iceland, with a note saying "Commercial use of this image is not allowed" and the like. I wouldn't rule that out, but that kind of policy discussion needs to take place at a much more abstract level than this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Political humor will fall under fair use even if all rights were reserved, so it's by no means ruled out. So in general reproduction and reuse is possible and free as long as it doesn't mislead anyone, like telling people that the 6 dollars note linked above is a real one. As for commercial use, I searched the document thoroughly and couldn't find anything that disallows it, can you point it out? Finally, we have always allowed images with a certain level of restrictions, especially restrictions that won't go away whatever the copyright status is (see my examples in the above post). Accepting these images falls well within our policy. -- Orionist ★ talk 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example of Euro-related political humor. If you've been following the recent strikes in France, this poster was everywhere, here's a protester holding it. You'd think the government would've been happy to prosecute the "New Anticapitalist Party". Other examples can be found here and here (recalé: from recaler: to fail). Media organizations are very copyright-concious, they'd know if something was wrong with those images. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Vous êtes priez de ne pas choisir les arguments qui vous conviennent en ignorant la majorité des autres 15 keep/4 delete. Il n'existe aucun argument sérieux pour la suppression. La banque de Malte autorise la reproduction de la face nationale des pièces qu'elle émet. Ces faces sont d'ailleurs disponibles au chargement sur leur site. Cordialement -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep with the same arguments as PaterMcFly and TheDJ: for pictures of money there is always some restriction (especially Template:Money-EU does not have to any restriction which is related to copyright, the only thing said is that falsification of euros is prohibited!) --Taste1at (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. You can't make derivative works. You can't use the images commercially. I fail to see why that is a non-copyright or somehow permitted restriction. Our official policy says:

• Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
• Commercial use of the work must be allowed.

Note the emphasis on must -- they do not say, "should be allowed except under special circumstances". If, because of the special needs of coins, governments choose not to allow such derivative works and commercial use, so be it, but that is not a reason to break our policy. Let's face it, colleagues, there are many images that we cannot host here because their owner doesn't allow a suitable license. Euro coins are among them.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact:

• Publication of derivative works is allowed. You can refer to my reply to Dcoetzee above. For an example, you are allowed to take a photo of the coin, make a drawing of the photo, make a painting of the drawing, take another photo, ad infinitum. These are all derivatives, even if you toiled to make an exact copy each time. Moreover, allowing the reproduction of all or part of the design renders the "faithful likeness" requirement meaningless, especially since there's no requirement as to how to choose the copied part. So you can easily pick, choose, and remix, in whatever 2d medium you can think of.
• Commercial use is allowed. There's nothing in the whole document that indicates the opposite.
• Commons:Licensing, our official policy, also says: "The use may be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures. There is also certain material the copyrights of which have expired in one country while still applying in another. Some of the details are explained below. Wikimedia Commons tries to ensure that any such restrictions are mentioned on the image description page; however, it is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that the use of the media is according to the license and violates no applicable law." In other words, "except under special circumstances".
• We also have an official guideline, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, which can be summarized as: "Limitations that arise from laws related to trademarks, patents, personality rights, political censorship, or any of many other legal causes which are entirely independent from the copyright status of the work, are not considered relevant to the freeness requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." This applies perfectly to our discussion. And there's no reason why this particular case shouldn't be treated as the other examples above. After all, we are following our policies. -- Orionist ★ talk 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well I guess you could make an argument, that making a derivative in faithful likeness would constitute an act of counterfeiting legal tender, which is a criminal act regardless. As such this copyright requirement would be inclusive of the law and thus as a "license" criterium be of "little value". TheDJ (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Orionist is right on commercial use, sorry. I still think I'm right on modifications. This is one of those extremely subtle arguments that we aren't going to solve here -- only a court decision could hash it out. Although Commons officially disapproves of this reasoning, I think this one of those where it should be a delete, but, in fact, no one is ever going to sue, so let's make it a  Keep.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the templates, and thank you for the 'keep' vote! Your role has been vital to this discussion! -- Orionist ★ talk 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Merci mais il faudrait aussi restaurer les fichiers qui utilisaient ce modèle (TheDJ a dit :"I too was swayed by Dcoetzee's argument btw. Most images using this template now deleted. Will mass IfD the less clear cases. TheDJ (d) 14:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)"). Thanks but what about the images using this template ? HB (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Did we come to a conclusion yet ? I'm not sure anymore. Do we have mass undeletion systems that handle commonsdelinker ? TheDJ (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have agreed to keep, but I'm not the one to close it because I'm too much in the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Delete not a free license, but a dubious statement that can mean anything. --rtc (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think that we have agreed to keep --Taste1at (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@rtc: the discussion was started more than half a year ago and a lot of contributors above have discussed the license statement of the ECB in detail. Therefore your answer is a bit too short as you do not relate your opinion to the opinions stated above. You not even mention about which "dubious statement" you a talking about. Eg. in the statement for Template:Euro coin common face I could not find anything except anti-counterfeit rules which are not relevant here (see above). --Taste1at (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that in particular, you could not find a license and thus the template has to be deleted? Then why do you vote for keep? --rtc (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)