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
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