The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 June 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 July 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. If OTRS permission verified Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 June 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 July 2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. If OTRS permission verified Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Person in the picture claims to be the copyright holder. Dubious copyright claim, as a photographer is the copyright holder, not the person appearing in the picture. One image by this editor was already deleted because the EXIF metadata named Getty Images as the copyright holder. ~ Rob13 Talk 11:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Proof of transfer of ownership for the image that was deleted has been emailed to wikipedia permissions email. Other images were all always photographed and owned as claimed and details have been sent in email too to wikipedia. --
Gloudn (
talk) 05:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)