The only source this offers is "self made" but the image looks professional in nature, like a promomotional shot taken for the club's website or something like that. Without further information (such as when he took it, where, was it during a autographing or something), I say we should delete now lest there are outstanding copyright issues. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a current tailback from the school's website, obviously not acceptable for fair use. Current players can easily be replaced - take a camera to a game or ask around on the school's message boards B (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image of a football player taken from a school website, obviously not valid for fair use - take a camera to a football game or ask around on message boards B (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a current player, obviously not valid for fair use - take a camera to a game or ask around on a message board B (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is painted by the uploader with no encyclopedic value. For the moment, it is being used by 2 articles concerning Greek mythology,however, it is a misguided representation and should be deleted, otherwise, people will start drawing their own images and upload them to Wikipedia articles Λua∫Wise(talk)16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like all copyrighted art, each individual image must be justified. Here this is not even being used in an article page, which violates WP:NONFREE. Wikipedia isn't a "wasteland" because we follow WP:NONFREE for 2D art, and it won't be for 3D art either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this photograph is not under any copyrighted as it is a public monument in the Nation's capitol. I took this photo myself of the public monument. I would appreciate any insight on this matter of how a public monument, owned by the public, could be copyrighted. Again, the photograph is my work. Many thanks. User:Danvera —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is actually a good chance the sculpture is covered by copyright. Unless the sculptor explicitly transferred his rights to his commissioner (here, the federal government) in a written agreement, the sculptor continues to own the rights to a commissioned work. I guess I don't know enough about government practices to know whether this happened, but the federal government routinely allows artists to continue to hold copyrights in cases like stamps. Does anyone else have any way we could investigate this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an MS Word document inexplicably with a .PDF extension, containing a paragraph about a small chain of inns in Italy. Blatant spam. Orphaned, unencyclopedic. • Anakin(contribs • complaints)20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay in PDF format about "GENERAL MOTORS: THE DECLINE OF AN AUTOMOTIVE GIANT". Not suitable for Wikipedia in this format, both the file and the style of writing. Orphaned. Uploader should apply their efforts to the article on General Motors or host the essay on their own web site instead.• Anakin(contribs • complaints)20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a scientific article about "Determination of fluorene in sea-water by room temperature phosphorescence in organised media" taken from some periodical or other. No reason why Wikipedia should need it. Orphaned, unencyclopedic. WP:NOT#HOST • Anakin(contribs • complaints)20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
