How many people got paid how much money to be this stupid?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Have you seen those ads for Silver Surfer quarters from the Franklin Mint? They've shown up here lately, and my first though -- minus any law degree or Treasury Dept experience, mind you, was "that can't be legal." And sure enough...

A promotional Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer coin to celebrate the movie's release has been deemed illegal. Marketing bosses collaborated with Franklin Mint to create 40,000 new coins featuring the Silver Surfer's image on one side and George Washington's face on the other, but the commemorative item contravenes tough U.S. laws on producing money. A spokesperson for the U.S. Mint says, "The promotion is in no way approved, authorized, endorsed or sponsored by the United States Mint, nor is it in any way associated with the United States Mint." The coins were distributed in America before Memorial Day weekend in a bid to encourage fans to log on to the website to win film-related prizes. But it is a federal crime to turn any form of legal tender into advertising, and the makers of the coin are likely to face a fine. Fox alleges it was unaware of any problem with producing the money, and never suggested "that there was any approval from the U.S. Mint or the U.S. government." The Franklin Mint says, "(The coins are) commemorative coins like many the Franklin Mint creates on a regular basis for various properties. We were confident this coin followed the same procedures and guidelines but will certainly take any steps if advised otherwise."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2007-06-01/

Studio lawyers. Marketing execs. Fox honchos. Not one of them, apparently, had the simple, fleeting thought that occured to me in passing while flipping through the paper? Anybody want to guess the collective salaries of everybody who signed off on this promotion? Do you think we're talking GNP of an African country, or GNP of a lesser Latin American country?

Idiots. I want a big six- or seven-figure salary for having my head up my ass!

[Patroklos]

What is the difference between this coin and any other commemorative coin? Is it because one side resembles actual currency?

[Dauphin]

Not totally stupid, or rather it is unintentionally giving even bigger publicity by causing the 'controversy'.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What is the difference between this coin and any other commemorative coin? Is it because one side resembles actual currency?

Are you being serious? Every state maintains a monopoly on coinage.

[Patroklos]

Coinage for official currency, but like the mint says in the article commemorative coins are a regular part of their buisness.

So again, what makes this commemorative coin different from the others?

[Ecthy]

Yeah, but since commemorative coins are official money (at least over here), I suppose they need licenses to make them. So I suppose they did this without getting a state license.

[Dauphin]

I would assume it has to be because of its resemblance to real money is sufficient that it could lead to passing off as legal tender.

I believe that fake bank notes in films and other media have to be labelled on one side clearly as such.

[Dauphin]

Hang on, I must have misread. These commemorative coins are legal tender? Eh?

[Tattila the Hun]

I'm somewhat doubtfull they could have gotten a permit for it, as it's still advertising.

[Ecthy]

It depends. In Germany, or rather nowadays the Euro zone, there are commemorative coins that you buy for a certain amount of money (like 10 DM) and which have the exact same value as coins. So it's basically dead capital, but they're still legal coins. So I guess they can't just mint them without coordinating it with the cnetral bank, but then it probably depends on the amount as well.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Coinage for official currency, but like the mint says in the article commemorative coins are a regular part of their buisness.

So again, what makes this commemorative coin different from the others?

Yep. it's the fact that one side is a reproduction of a current US quarter. That runs afoul of cointerfeiting laws. If the obverse had been, say, a Liberty Standing Quarter, they probably would have been ok.

[General Ludd]

Article says that the issue was advertising, not counterfeiting.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Article says that the issue was advertising, not counterfeiting.

I was using that -- inappropriately -- as a shorthand for unauthorized reproduction of currency. My bad.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Yeah, but since commemorative coins are official money (at least over here), I suppose they need licenses to make them. So I suppose they did this without getting a state license.

The confusion comes about from the term commemorative vs. collectible.

Commemorative refers to State sponsored special coins (legal tender) that commemorate an event, person, thing, etc. IN the US these would typically be minted via the US Mint.

Collectible refers to private minting of coins (not legal tender) to be used to honor an event, person, thing, etc. Many times to the lay person one might think it is indeed government issued and has legal tender value but in actuality it does not. Franklin Mint is a private company not in anyway associated with the US government. The fact that Franklin Mint execs as well as studio market geniuses may have gone over the line one they should in fact be extremely cognizant of (as to quote MtG "It's their job dufus") is the issue at hand.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I was using that -- inappropriately -- as a shorthand for unauthorized reproduction of currency. My bad.

When I see:

But it is a federal crime to turn any form of legal tender into advertising

I infer that the George Washington side appears to be that of a quarter. Thus, your "conterfeiting" analysis would be correct.