According to the source of this image, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2719, "[These] photographs of the Swedish ministers on this page may be used free of charge for press and media, not for commercial use, during their term of office." Well, "not for commercial use, during their term of office" is not good enough for Wikipedia. Currently this image is tagged as if it is in the public domain: it is not. Furthermore, because this man is a living government worker, I'm sure someone could easily snap a photograph to license under a free license, so it doesn't qualify as fair use either. Thus, I'm nominating it for deletion bar any objections. Iamunknown 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source of this image, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2719, "[These] photographs of the Swedish ministers on this page may be used free of charge for press and media, not for commercial use, during their term of office." Well, "not for commercial use, during their term of office" is not good enough for Wikipedia. Currently this image is tagged as if it is in the public domain: it is not. Furthermore, because this man is a living government worker, I'm sure someone could easily snap a photograph to license under a free license, so it doesn't qualify as fair use either. Thus, I'm nominating it for deletion bar any objections. Iamunknown 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, claim of "permission of photographer given" but photographer not given nor details of permission User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, claim of "owner of shot emailed full permission to me" but owner info not provided nor email proof User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, source link does not work, other images uploaded by user were mis-tagged as PD User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, no source provided, other images uploaded by user were mis-tagged as PD User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this photo as a place holder in the Hope diamond article when there was no other free photo to use. I knew the quality was very bad because I took it without using a tripod and no flash was allowed in the museum. If there is already a higher quality image, this one should be deleted. I wonder why the person who took it off the article didn't mark it for deletion sooner. It must have been an orphan for quite some time. Poor thing! Kowloonese 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is currently being used on my user page, so it is not actually orphaned. Please abstain from deletion; I feel my userpage is minimal enough without one of its significant images being deleted. Thanks Bumm13 06:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's an older version of that image; feel free to delete it Bumm13 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, absent uploader, edits are vandalism, given the car would not yet exist, likely copyright violation User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 02:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Nv8200ptalk 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no recollection of uploading this. Someone else must have done it on my computer while I was logged in. worthawholebeantalkcontribs 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphanded, low quality. Was added to Biscuit to ilustrate a "biscuit beeing eaten", but was promptly "vote out" and has been orphanded ever since.- Sherool(talk) 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, was tagged as no source and uploader removed notice and also licensing tag. It claims to be PD-USGov, but it is extensively watermarked with copyright notice User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, uploader claims there is no information about the source, creator or copyright. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolete - image is really huge (700kb), I have already uploaded jpg version of this image which looks same but it's just 100Kb in size. — --Miko3k 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, very large (1.7meg), no license tag applied, lower quality image User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do not delete because I'M Thinking of making a Image gallery of landmarks of The City of Santo Domingo, where this picture is taking place. User:EdwinCasadoBaez - copied from image talk page by User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
orphaned image, uploader claims magazine cover is copyrighted free use but provides no documentation to support User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation of the image by the Topps/Bowman company - Not under fair use as user claims, baseball cards only fall on legitimate fair use if the article is on the card itself, however the article is not about the card in any sense. 24.184.177.78 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality, Photo looks like a shadow taken from a number of yards away with a low quailty camera — 24.184.177.78 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: It's a free image that illustrates Adam Bostick and is used in the article. If it's of poor quality, that's an opportunity to create a higher-quality photograph. —Bkell (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No evidence on http://blogs.nydailynews.com/mets/ that "Adam Rubin allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed." Will recommend keep if such evidence is provided. --Iamunknown 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deleting this for quality reasons is a complete joke, however it appears to be an un-free image. Perhaps Sean Crane can contact Rubin via email and receive explicit permission to use it or point to a page on the nydailynews website that actually shows the licensing he claims. Quadzilla99 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of full-disclosure the nominator is a suspected sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user who repeatedly harassed Sean Crane, and whose edit history shows a pattern of repeatedly inserting copy-vio images. Not that any of that matters in terms of having an improper license on the pic, just thought I'd add the info. Quadzilla99 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if the image is not free, my !vote is reversed. —Bkell (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image, claimed fair use in New Rome, Ohio to show the approximate boundaries of the community of New Rome. This image is easily replaceable by a free image that shows the same information. For example, a public-domain aerial photo created by the U.S. federal government could be modified, or someone could draw a street map from scratch. Hence this image fails the first criterion of the fair-use policy. —Bkell (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correctly tagged by Bkell as replaceable, but User:Proto removed the tag without a correct rational. The source of the image is also dubious. Who took the original image? Where was it sourced? A public domain image should be used instead. Fair use should not be used to justify theft and laziness. --Bob 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image could easily be created with a U.S. federal government image, per Bkell, with NASA WorldWind, etc. --Iamunknown 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_Davis.JPG){kind=link}
_Davis.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Davis.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
_Davis.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Davis.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
