PD claimed, but the image is taken from a place where only contracted photographers would be allowed. Also, scan lines and artificating suggest it's from an SDTV broadcast. east.718 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader had authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader has authority to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader has permission to release under the GFDL Nv8200p talk 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as GFDL, but no evidence of this, and seems to be screenshot of copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as GFDL, but no evidence that source has so licensed it (and source is not verifiable.) Videmus Omnia 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed as GFDL, but seems to be screenshot of copyrighted work. Videmus Omnia 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as self-made, but appears to be a screenshot. I think this just needs some kind of verification from the uploader. Videmus Omnia 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV screenshot licensed by self-licensed by uploader pablo :_{:  ... talk ...} 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV screeenshot self-licensed by uploader pablo :_{:  ... talk ...} 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed public domain. However, the source given is [1], and the site policy page [2] lists some restrictions on their use, including "They may not be distributed as, or part of, a collection - free or for profit" (surely Wikipedia is a collection) and "They may not be included in any type of software, free or for profit" (commercial use must be allowed). Therefore this image is not only not in the public domain; it seems to be not even freely licensed, by Wikipedia standards. —Bkell (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unverifiable source and licensing information. Videmus Omnia 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally claimed as GFDL, but when source questioned, changed by an anon IP to be all of PD, GFDL and GFDL with disclaimers at once. The claimed author's page (if you get past the compulsory registration) makes no mention of the creation of this image, and the vast majority of the other similar images used on Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game are noted as being (c) Wizards of the Coast. — Pak21 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

made by whkeeler@comcast.net

look here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776833

Essentially as above. This one has been noted by the anon as being both (c) Wizards of the Coast and PD-self at the same time, from being previously tagged as just (c) Wizards of the Coast. — Pak21 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

made by whkeeler@comcast.net just ask him

look here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=776833

Without an actual assertion from the author (see "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia" at WP:CV), there is no evidence these images are in the public domain. --Pak21 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you just can't let it go can you? Yes, there is "evidence" what more do you need, we have the "Source" the frist posting and the mans email. what would make you happy?

This may being out of hand. This should be on the image talk page ~LG~