I don't find it terribly hard to believe that a comics or a movie company could be "this dumb", but I DO find it hard to believe that the Franklin Mint could be this dumb. You'd think that since this is their business they'd have lawyers on staff who would appraise them of the relevant statutes of Federal Law for altering coins.

And what does it mean that "putting the character on the coin didn't alter the integrity of the coin"?

The Franklin Mint has actually done somewhat similar things before what with coloring in coins and the like. So, they've had this issue before, and apprently their atitude is that they'll just get fined, and they're willing to pay the fine for the profit offset, or something.

But I'm a curmudgeon, so I want the Secret Service to haul Avi Arad and Stan Lee off to the Federal pen. Kirsten Dunst and Jessica Alba too, but obviously to a women's facility and for them to film that one as a warning to the others.

(I realize there are problems with that suggestion. Obviously, Kirsten Dunst is not in the Silver Surfer movie, but it makes the Jessica Alba in women's prison scenario more fun, and in the current Gitmo climate, does it really matter that they've done nothing wrong? Oh, and Kirsten Dunst should have to fold the laundry while posing like the Mary Jane statue. That will teach her to appear in three movies using a character who originated from the same company as originated the Fantastic Four movie which is which is publicizing itself by altering US coins. Or something like that. Filthy criminal.)

Given that the statute only applies to coins that are "fraudulently" altered, defaced, etc., I'd guess that the case wouldn't be a slam-dunk in any case. Where's the element of fraud in putting the Silver Surfer on a quarter? Similarly, what's the legal status of those "press-a-penny" machines in museums and amusement parks?

(Though you definitely weren't the last person to learn about it, since I'd never heard about it till your post.)

I disagree with the Mint's interpretation. The language of the statute you linked requires that the alteration in question be "fraudulent," which this is not.

This law wasn't intended to prohibit "novelty" alterations like elongated cents or these modified quarters. Rather, it was designed to prevent such things as altering the dates or mint marks on coins in order to defraud collectors. This is actually a serious problem in the numismatic field.

Mike: And that's certainly where I would hang my hat were I the Franklin Mint's lawyer, along with the fact that these are, apparently, actual U.S. coins rather than, say manufacture of fake money as with the Mad Magazine three dollar bill incident.

But they are introducing the coins into the stream of commerce, and people are going at least wonder what's going on. I know people who collect teh state quarters, so they look at them carefully. They're going to see the Silver Surfer. Will you be able to spend them? Will people take them? The fraudulent intent is introducing coins into commerce with the intent that they be used as something other than money.I looked for a definition of "fraudulent intent" in the code, and couldn't find it in five minutes, so i gave up. I did this, however, which makes it look a bit worse for Fox.

As for press a penny machines I believe the intent there is to use the pennies as a souvenier, rather than to deliberately introduce them into the stream of commerce. And, as always, the one thing you need in any legal procedding is another party who cares that it's happening. If nobody cares, it doesn't matter.

The legislative intention that Josh brings up seems a more promising ground, actually, however, I don't have access to a law library. If only these was a law librarian around who could look it up for us at work...

However, lots of laws get used for things outside the scope of the legislative intent.

Legislative intent is more often than not a mug's game, since despite the myriad committee reports and "debate" (often revised and extended in the Congressional Record, after being delivered to an empty floor) that goes into the record, most legislative provisions wind up getting approved without anything specific being said about them. Given that this provision goes back at least 110 years, I'm not sure I'm motivated to do a really thorough search; I may check to see what if anything shows up wrt the 1950s-era amendment that extended protection to minor coins. (It was originally mostly about debasing coins made of precious metal or changing their denomination, but seems to have been extended to cover numismatic forgeries-- faking a double strike or altering a date to make a coin appear to be a valuable collectible.)

A skim of the case law strongly indicates that intent to defraud is a necessary element, so I think there's a good chance that a fight to the bitter end would come out in the studio or PR firm's favor. Whether it would be worth it to them to do so is another question. (And what I think would matter more if I were likely to be appointed as a federal judge in this lifetime.) For now, I'll predict that the Mint will limit itself to issuing press releases and hoping that this dissuades a repeat performance, but we'll see.

A penny press doesn't so much alter a coin as destroy it. It would take a scientist to prove that the pressed oval was ever a coin at all. Is it against the law to destroy money?