Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sotil Cubillas Challe 1973.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion debate 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.

File:Sotil Cubillas Challe 1973.png[edit]

Unclear copyright status. Peruvian work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) "1973", licensed with {{PD-1996}} + "Peruvian copyright law, signed under the Manuel Prado administration, had a 20 year protection over images starting in January 1, 1962. All images published in Peru prior to 1976, whose protection lasted until 1996 (and by which time a new 70 year protection was imposed by the Alberto Fujimori administration), are in the public domain.". Considering Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru the photo may be copyrighted till the end of 2043 due to "The Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, which entered in force on May 24, 1996, states in its transitional provisions that "[works] protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this law". It is unclear whether that also applies to works where previous shorter terms had already expired."my underline Gunnex (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg keep: This photograph, which was published in 1973 (under a 20-year copyright law, established by Peru's Manuel Prado administration in 1962) had its copyright expire in 1993. In effect, this work was no longer "protected under the previous legislation" when the 1996 copyright law came into effect. Therefore, this deletion request is invalid. Best regards.--18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The 1996 copyright law also makes no mention of imposing retroactive copyright status on images whose copyright protection had expired. There can be no ambiguity of the photograph's status because nothing is mentioned of it. We can't discuss a topic that does not exist. This photograph has been in the public domain since 1993.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Copyright Law (Legislative Decree No. 822 of April 23, 1996), last page, "Transitional Provisions": "The rights in the works and other productions protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this Law"? Gunnex (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: To Gunnex's last question -- that means that if a work's copyright would have expired under the old law in, say, 1997. ot noew has the new term. Note that it says "protected" -- present tense -- and nothing about works that were previously protected. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]