Commons:Deletion requests/File:First salvadoran players.png

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.

File:First_salvadoran_players.png

Reproduction of old picture, but no certainty about PD-old Lymantria (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep As far as I can see, the file is not tagged PD-old, it is a verified Flickr CC 2.0 license. Suggest speedy close since this nomination doesn't seem to relate to the file. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to wait for more input on the CC 2.0 license. I'm slightly confused because it says it must be attributed in the way specified by the author or licensor. Since the author is unknown, I would assume we default to licensor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still think this is a keep. MacMed^talk_stalk 23:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The claimed author Jaime070996 to me seems a 14 year old and highly unlikely to be the licensor. Lymantria (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep In the first place "Lymantria" you cannot assume Jaime070996 is 14 years old even though it says so in his User talk. And the photo is verified Flickr CC 2.0 license. Lymantria have you ever heard about {{PD-old-70}} for images where the author (e.g., photographer, painter, graphic artist) died more than 70 years ago (currently by 1940 or before).

El Salvador and Chile use Art. 683 CC to apply public domain: Through the sales contract that the seller does not own all rights transferred that he would belong on the thing and do not own, the purchase will not be sufficient to transfer title to the domain. Treated in this relationship applies to Article 683 CC is about tradition. If the seller owns the tradition operates on the sale of another's tradition does not transfer the domain, but enables you to gain mastery through prescription. This sale is going to apply the general rules of contract of sale, so that if the seller fails to deliver the thing in opposition of the true owner, falls in breach of contract, entitling the purchaser to demand compliance or forced to terminate the contract more appropriate compensation (implicit condition subsequent). Regards, Guanaco82 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Article 86 (b-c) of the Legislative Decree No. 604 of 15 July 1993 on the Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of El Salvador notes, "In the case of an anonymous or pseudonymous work whose author has not disclosed his identity, the term of protection shall be 50 years counted from the first disclosure. Where the authorship of an anonymous or pseudonymous work, or the identity of the holder of the rights in it, is legally established....Where the holder of the rights in a work is a legal entity, the term of protection shall be 50 years counted from January 1 of the year following that of first publication or, failing that, that of the making or disclosure of the work."[1] Guanaco82 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So we still need more information on this photograph, as I suggested. We have no certainty about either the date of first publication or the identity of the author. Of course, a username on Flickr does not yield certainty about the user's age, but adding a date to the username in this case causes reasonable doubt that the Flickr user is the licensor, as MacMec suggested. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an email to the Flickr user could help. I strongly doubt they were the photographer, but it could easily be something grandpa left to them in a box when he passed (for example). --Mask (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted: insufficient information Jcb (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)