This image is replaceable for reasons given at WP:NFCR. I quote:
Lots of text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The film appears to be CC-BY-SA (see File:Elephants Dream.ogg) and the cover is presumably also CC-BY-SA. Does this qualify for {{PD-Art|cc-by-sa-2.5}} or are there too many 3D features for that? If the photographic aspects are copyrightable, then the image fails both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the movie and all its assets within it are CC, doesn't necessarily mean the cover is, though it would helpful to see a direct link to the cover image; if it came from the blender people, yea, its probably CC-BY-SA, but it is possible that a third-party took up the image and made their own cover, acknowledging the CC-BY-SA but publishing it commercially otherwise (which is allowed). --MASEM (t) 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I confused? Doesn't SA mean 'share-alike' and all derivative works need the same licence? The cover is a photo made from the CC-BY-SA work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If the cover was released by the same people that created the film, they might have been released under a different non-free license; although I seriously doubt this is the case, since Elephants Dream was a project to showcase open software and content. If the cover was created by a different team from the CC-BY-SA film, then yes it would share its license and would be free content and wouldn't need to be included as WP:NFC. We don't know which one is the case without a source for the image.Diego (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was made by someone other than the one who made the film, then the one who made the image may also choose to violate the copyright of the film (and thus risk being fined for that). If the person who made this image chose to violate the copyright of the one who made the film, then the image doesn't need to be available under CC-BY-SA. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I had missed that explicit text. Many eyes, etc. And I just noticed that even if imagion.de licensed their image freely, there are still elements in it (Dolby logo, imagion.de logo) that will likely never be "free". (updated) --Lexein (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion tag which was placed on this image. This particular deletion tag, {{db-f9}}, states: "This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as this file is copied from an unspecified source, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert fair use or make a credible assertion of permission." This does not appear to be the case: the source is linked and a fair use rationale is in place. All sorts of deletion rationales may apply for this image, but the speedy deletion tag used is not correct. Lexein pinged my talk page, so I figured I'd explain myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I tagged it as this thread has discovered that the cc-by licence specifically does not include the DVD cover. A replacement image could easily be made with a screen shot that is cc-by. I don't know about threshold of originality in the Dolby logo and others, but they may be able to be photoshopped in if they are public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the copyright holder did not release this work under any CC license or any other free license, but because it's basically a screenshot from the CC-by-sa film, someone could start with the screenshot and make something sufficiently close enough to this image and CC-by-sa license it. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit§ion=1){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=1077394806){kind=link}