 :: Thanks for your message. I have already spent far too much time on the issue, so that I shall not take any further action. J Milburn's argument is faulty: one cannot remove an image on the possibility of the events that may or may not take place in the future; the relevant question is whether my copyright statement is incorrect at the time being, and the answer to this is clearly in the negative (at least Milburn has not come up with a free image of Michael Foot, thereby showing that my copyright statement were invalid) so that the image must stay. I have argued, but to no avail, that when a free image turns up (there is no a priori reason why a free image should at all become available at any foreseeable time from now), that event renders my present copyright statement invalid, at which instance the present image must be replaced by the available free image. At present no law is violated, so that there is no reason why the image should be removed. But I have said this many times, and unless  takes a firm action, I am afraid that the image will be removed because someone has put his heart into removing it. From the legal perspective, the action by Milburn can be likened with putting an innocent person in prison on the suspicion that that person may break a law in future, which of course is what fascist states do as a matter a course. Milburn has incidentally put his heart into removing the image of Ebrahim Pourdavoud, even though there is no reason for doing so; the image has a perfectly valid copyright statement and there is no reason to believe that the person who has made it public might have unlawfully appropriated it. Above all, Pourdavoud is not a sexy celebrity whose photograph would be worth anything from the commercial perspective (he is also long dead - his daughter was in her eighties when I saw her for the last several years ago, so that there is also no one who would have any interest, commercial or otherwise, in keeping the photograph at issue from public domain). Kind regards, .