Almost identical (though slightly different file size) image on Commons with same name. --Superm401 - Talk 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did that when I moved it. If it is an issue, I can revert the copy at the Commons I put the original in the upload history. -- carol 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, if you don't like the changes I made to that image, you also might not like the changes that I made to Image:Wheat-haHula-ISRAEL2.JPG either. -- carol 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence for the claim that "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder". The given source page doesn't say so at all. High on a tree (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image of a living person fails fair use under criteria #1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose..." (emphasis mine) — BQZip01 —talk 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a version of the official portrait photo, which can be found at [1] and [2]; but no evidence for the claim that the original copyright holder released it under the GFDL High on a tree (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200ptalk 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy Deleted as CSD I9, after uploader agrees it is a copyvio. Xoloz (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be a CV, image is same as dustjacket of Michael Burn's book, Dreyfus-a family affair pub. 1991 by HarperCollins JGHowestalk - 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "CV"? A "computer visual"? or what? I discovered the image online, and there was no indication that it was copyrighted, so my idea was that it was in the public domain or used as such. I had no idea that the same picture may have been used in 1991 for a book that he had written. If it is from a book cover, it could be used as such with the proper disclaimers. I had no idea of its appearance on this 1991 book. Since I got it from the internet and edited it, it has been altered and is a new image. If you have to delete it, delete it.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using the cryptic acronym, "CV" is shorthand for copyright violation. Whoever took the original photo is the copyright holder, and only they can release it to the public domain or license its use on websites. A subsequent edit would be a "derivative" which is still subject to the same copyright restrictions.
As a non-free image, it could be used as Fair Use on Wikipedia, but only on an article about Burns' book, Dreyfus-a family affair (which Wikipedia doesn't have at present). A Fair Use image can't be used to illustrate a biography about a living person, however.JGHowestalk - 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I downloaded it in that case although under the circumstances that I explained I thought that it was in the public domain. I have no objections to deleting it. In fact, I will delete it from the article that it is attached to.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tagged the image {{Db-imgcopyvio}} accordingly, for Speedy Delete JGHowestalk - 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I have no idea if this is replaceable (it's of a building that's connected to Iran's nuclear program, so I'm not sure visitors can get close enough for a photo), but it doesn't really add anything to the article--it's just a generic building and does not increase readers' understanding of Iran's nuclear program Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, only used for vandalism to Tom Cruise and other articles. No encyclopedic use established. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photograph of a copyrighted 1:25000 map. The copyright is owned by the Tasmanian Government Department of Primary Industries and Water Ozhiker (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
