Copyvio suspect. Technically, it has a valid tag and source. I can't find the same image anywhere else. But, it seems unbeleivable to me, that a professional quality studio photo of a commercial performer is being released to the public domain, by a photographer who doesn't want any credit, beyond the login name, that they used for one-day. Rob (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research into this one. It's clearly a copyvio of this image from Flickr, which is posted as "all rights reserved" but still allows anyone to view a large version of the image. Clearly, this user has stolen it from there. Thus, based on this research, I recommend speedy deletion of this image, and a warning and/or block for the user who uploaded it. S.D.Jameson21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will speedy, let's just wait a bit on the off-chance that this single-purpose fan account actually was the singer herself or somebody connected to her who owns the image. Not very likely of course. Fut.Perf.☼21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the interests of the copyright holder outweigh the off-chance that this might be the photographer editing Wikipedia. Faking a PD release on an "all rights reserved" photograph is a very serious issue, not just Wikipedia-wise, but legally as well. This image needs to go, and if that off-chance happens, it's a simple matter to reupload it. Per the "all rights reserved" license on Flickr, this is open-and-shut. S.D.Jameson21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture is obsolete. I am the original uploader. Picture showed the a construction zone in progress and the area has since been opened. Jwinters | Talk20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Purely decorative screenshot of a TV episode, shows just a generic headshot of the protagonist in an indescript scene, not even specific to the episode or recognisably characteristic of it; no commentary on the image in the text, no analysis, no connection even to a recognisable plot element. Character as such is already covered (with other images) elsewhere. Fails NFCC#8+3. Fut.Perf.☼20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a painfully obvious delete. To extend what FP wrote, it's even a poor quality screenshot that, even on a purely aesthetic level, adds nothing to the article. I'm sure that if it is felt that an image of Buffy is needed for this episode summary, a free one can be found. S.D.Jameson20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the correction, but "free" images of Buffy probably don't exist, as it's all from a copyrighted fictional universe. (Unless you're a vampire, you could probably take one). But legitimate fair use ones might be a possibility, if the surrounding text was right. Fut.Perf.☼20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "Buffy", I of course mean the actress. A decorative free image of her would probably be relatively easy to sort out, I would think, and would be a far sight better than this low-quality screenshot. S.D.Jameson21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Done per Ian. S.D.Jameson 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
