The question that has just arisen in Ukraine over the Stus banknote is resolved around the world along two fundamentally different paths — and the Ukrainian story is interesting precisely because it chose a third.
The first path is purely legislative, where the family has no say at all. In the United States, a rule requires that a person depicted on a stamp be deceased, and the decision about who is granted this honor is made by the state — based on the person’s contribution to the nation rather than the wishes of their descendants. The formula American scholars use to describe it goes like this: history decides, not heredity. Most countries operate on the same logic: the image of a national hero belongs to the nation, not to private individuals, and the state disposes of it at its own discretion.
The second path is when the state removes the question of rights altogether, declaring such symbols a common good. Under Ukrainian law, banknotes and stamps fall under “state signs” and are not subject to copyright — meaning the state is formally not obliged to seek anyone’s approval. Some countries codify this directly: in Turkmenistan, for example, the law specifically establishes that the flag, coat of arms, banknotes, and other state signs are not copyrightable. This resolves the legal conflict but not the ethical one: the law permits it, yet the question of respect for the memory of a specific person and their family remains.
And this is where the Ukrainian case becomes telling. The state had every legal right to use Stus’s image without any approvals — but consciously chose the third path: dialogue with the family and the written consent of the heir. This is not a requirement of law, but a choice in favor of a culture of respect. It is precisely this approach that turns a formal right into a legitimacy recognized by society.
For Ukraine, the takeaway is broader than a single case. Global practice shows that legally the image of a hero almost always belongs to the state — but the healthiest systems add ethics to the law: dialogue where the law does not require it. Building a clear, predictable mechanism for consultation with the families of prominent Ukrainians — where they exist — could become a new national standard, one that would set Ukraine apart even from those countries that resolve this question by force of law alone.
