Uploader states, "Could not find a user agreement for the website, so I assume the images are free use." That's a bad assumption. howcheng {chat} 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad assumption is right. It is a copyvio currently - change to fair use, and you might have a case. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only we don't allow nonfree photos to illustrate the appearance of living people. If this isn't free, it fails WP:NFCC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This image is the work of a press and/or photo agency, and our use of such images clearly infringes on the rights of the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images; example No. 6 explicitly argues that these types of images are prohibited on Wikipedia. -- RG2 03:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to nominate this one for OR, I wouldn't counter with a similar image and say its obsolete. In this case, you'd probably want Low Quality. Cumulus Clouds 06:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonencyclopedic. While detailed caricatures are a good way to illustrate articles, this image does not actually help the reader understand what this person looks like. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replaceable nonfree image - just because something is available on myspace doesn't mean it's public domain Calliopejen1 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, replaceable nonfree image - just because something is available on myspace doesn't mean it's public domain Calliopejen1 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uploader asserts that he edited the image himself, but not that he created the image himself - possible Copyright violation Calliopejen1 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]