Uploaded by Danny-w (notify | contribs). Source of image is Hebrew Wikipedia. I can't read Hebrew, but the uploader translated the licensing information as being educational and non-commercial only. This is incompatible with Wikipedia, but rather than asking for it to be speedied, I wanted to bring it here in case the original uploader on he has revised their copyright information. BigDT16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the uploader has removed the ifd tag and provided additional information [2]. However, the additional information does not provide an acceptable license. "It is written in hebrew [3] that it was taken with permision from the israeli site "MyPet" [4]. The permision was given to a fair use." BigDT12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPWell, in what circumstances DO we have the right to show what a certain record, tape, CD, laserdisc, etc. looks like? Would it still be a CV if I took a picture of the record with a digital camera? According to this definition, it would be illegal to take a picture of just about anything produced by a corporation. My guess is that any copyright of the record refers to the actual recording on it, which I of course did not reproduce. Absecon 5914:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed BigDT asking him to post a reply for me, but received no response. So, I am posting it here. Please do not remove it. The image in question has been used in the article about the letter. (See "j.") The material I added to that article is in the public domain. I offered indisputable proof of that fact.[10] I don't know where BigDT got the idea that the drawing is based on original research, as the shape is not a new discovery. It can be verified very easily, also. If someone can add back the material for the entry in question, then the image will be used again.--Primetime08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR means orphaned, not original research. The reason you didn't receive a reply is ... well ... there haven't been too terribly many waking hours since you sent the message. Honestly, I don't see the use in such a tiny image ... but whatever ... if it has potential to be used, I withdraw my nomination. BigDT12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Footshills (notify | contribs). I beleive this is a copyvio. It seems to have the same source as the one used on the hospital's official web site here, even showing the same cars in the picture. Also, the picture is taken from a height, which makes it unlikely an amateur took it. I haven't found the original it was taken for, but assume the hospital owns it. No fairuse claim, as this image is easily replaceable, and will be replaced shortly with a PD image.- Rob20:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Benedicto16 (notify | contribs). Image used to ullstrate the WTC artilce, not the film itself, whcih does not qualify as fair use. WTC article already has many free images. Also, the WTC film article also has an adequate number of pictures to, perhaps maybe too much. Hbdragon8820:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mamimi.jpg is obsolete (rendered thus by Image:Mamimi.JPG, Image:Mamimi3.jpg and Image:Mamimicamera.JPG) and the other two are of relatively poor quality, do not illustrate anything particularly well, and are not linked to by any pages. They were both uploaded by User:Blademaster313, who has OK'd me for their deletion. I've contacted User:WBredefeld, the uploader of the first image, and left a message to allow him/her to contest this nomination if he/she sees fit. These images all came from Category:FLCL images, and anyone with a lot of free time on their hands can have a look and see if we have any other egregious overkill. -Litefantastic21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Wd40gdw (notify | contribs). This user uploaded several images from USC websites and claimed, after being warned that they would be deleted, that they were released under the GFDL. Doubtful. BigDT23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]