It is not Switzerland, as the page you are linking to claims, but the picture is from Berchtesgaden in Germany. The largest peak in the background to the right is the Watzmann.
At least most of it. There has been done some really strange manipulations of the image and I am not 100% sure if it is...
@Willeke I am honestly not sure where Nate and you are trying to get. If the problem ist that I have used a tiny, low-quality, water-marked crop of an image without quoting a source just to show how the church towers really look like, I have now removed the image.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo, Note I did not ask you to remove the photo but to replace it with one where you can mention a source as it is a rule on internet to honor the one that posted the picture, if possible.
@Willeke But now I have removed it. It would have been easier if you right away had stated what you are trying to achieve and why you are asking, as I assumed that I had violated e.g. a Stackexchange rule for image usage. I have been on the internet for 25 years, am doing a lot of photography myself and am occasionally involved with questions regarding copyright. I did not see anything wrong in the way I used a crop of the picture just to prove a point and I have never ever heard of any 'internet rule' saying that I have to provide a source for pictures I use in this sense.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo: It's not an "internet rule", but it is a condition in the Stack Exchange Terms Of Service that you agreed to and claimed to have read and understood when you signed up, that you license all content you post to Stack Overflow under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Without providing a source, it is hard to verify that you actually do possess the legal right to re-license this photograph in that way.
@JörgWMittag Let's debunk this for a moment. CC BY-SA 2.0 license states: "[…] where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply […]". Further, "Fair Use" ("copying of copyrighted material for a limited and transformative purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize […] a copyrighted work") would qualify as an exception in this case, rendering application of the CC BY-SA license moot by its own definition. The OPs crop would be allowed under the exception, as it is an extract of the original image for the purpose of comment.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo: See for instance meta.stackexchange.com/help/referencing which makes it clear that material not created by you needs to be attributed. This is independent of any question of copyright or permission. I would argue it is basic ethics.
@JörgWMittag The condition I agreed to is that I license everything I post here under CC BY-SA 2.0 and as Guido already explained very well, it should in this case be irrelevant how the original image is licensed. If I actually had posted an image here and violated copyright by doing so, it would not have mattered anyway if the source is quoted or not. Assuming stolen property and asking for a source is as if you believe it to be ok to steal if you only tell where you have stolen from.
@NateEldredge The article you are linking to only apply to text. I don't see any relevance to this case.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo: I think it is very clearly intended to apply to all kinds of content, and I believe the discussion at meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83955/… supports this.
The image here (by Eric Sorenson) seems to be a nice view of what the city and landscape really look like. (And it's free to use and CC licensed.) Would you be interested in including it in your answer? If not, I can add another answer. By the way, I really am impressed that you identified the location and noticed the modifications of the image - I hope our conversation doesn't diminish that!
@NateEldredge No offence taken. It was actually not that difficult to find the location. The profile of the Watzmann peaks, one of Germany's highest mountains is well known. I won't bother editing anything more into the answer. The modification to the church towers is probably not relevant at all, but I found it odd enough to mention it. I probably only noticed because the image has a very odd and artificial 'look and feel' to it, as if the photographer went amok with Photoshop.
@gparyani You asked me to provide attribution for the image and I asked which image you are talking about. Do you want me to provide attribution for the image, which source I can't find and therefore deleted from the post? Sorry, I do not understand what you want from me.
Discussion on answer by Tor-Einar Jar…
Discussion on answer by Tor-Einar Jar…