Claims to be a film still uploaded under public domain. No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder, appears to be a promotional image. Kelly ^hi! 05:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image kept. Tag changed to non-free 3D art. -Nv8200p talk 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of PD-release. Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be copyright holder, but appears to be collection of television screenshots — Gr1st (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR, AB, from a relative who was on the mission, likely free but bad source and uploader gone, if from the Navy, should be on their website somewhere MECU≈talk 15:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover uploaded under GFDL: no evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover uploaded under GFDL; no evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this image is indeed released as GFDL. The source website does not give any information about the author and where they got this image from. And there's no mention of the GFDL on that website. — 88.134.141.133 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims self-made but does not assert being the photographer. This looks like a standard school photo, therefore, I doubt the claim is correct. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the uploader has the rights to release this image under the given licenses. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader by her own stated rationale is not the subject of the image and does not own the image — Odd nature (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged ((cc-by-2.5)), but Flickr source page [1] says it's licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic. "Noncommercial" and "No Derivative Works" are not free enough for Wikipedia. No evidence is given that this image was ever licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. —Bkell (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]