User:Redvers/Your I4 image

Wikipedia cannot accept material that has no copyright or source information.

You might think it's reasonable to upload anything to Wikipedia since we're the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. But sadly this isn't the truth. We need to stay within the law or else we'll have to close down like Napster and Kazaa had to.

Therefore we enforce the law and international conventions on copyright.

What right did Redvers have to delete the image?
We have criteria for speedy deletion that say what we can and can't delete. Your image would have fallen under criterion I4. You're not the first to upload an image here with not details that gets deleted, so it's nothing personal. You're not the last either, sadly.

I want more proof Redvers had the right to delete my image!
I'm an elected administrator here at Wikipedia. That doesn't get me any extra rights or make me omnipotent or anything. But it does mean the community here have asked me to do certain essential tasks. One of those tasks is deleting items that end up on this list. Your image was deleted because it automatically appeared on that list, was assessed and after at least seven days was deleted. This is how Wikipedia works - again, it was nothing personal.

Can't you make an exception for my image?
No. The rules about what we can and can't accept were developed over years, by hundreds of editors coming to a consensus. I'm not going to overturn that - if nothing else, someone else will come along and delete the image a few minutes later anyway. And the rules are quite simple, really - any image you upload to Wikipedia must state a license and a source.

But  exists, so mine should!
It doesn't work that way - the existence of one image doesn't create a precedent for upload of another. The other image may be wrongly tagged, or have a different copyright statement to the one you chose. If you're really annoyed about that, this page has full instruction about how to ask for the other image to be deleted.

But I own the copyright on this image!
Do you? Did you take the photograph yourself? Did you draw the diagram yourself?

Scanning an image, searching Google for images, buying a copy of a photograph, finding a nice picture - none of these give you the right to claim copyright or to give the copyright away. Remember, unless this is your own work - entirely your own work - then you can't upload it in the way you chose without giving a license and/or a source.

If it is all your own work, then there are licences you can choose to upload it under. But we ask you make it freely available and don't put restrictions on the use of the image that mean we can't use it.

Fine. I'll just reupload the image like I did before
It will be deleted again. If not by me, then by one of the other thousand admins here. We have to.

Okay, so I'll change the licence
If the license you pick is clearly wrong, it will be noticed. Even deleted images leave a footprint behind. Reupload the image with an unlikely licence and people will start asking hard questions of you: where did the licence come from? Where's your proof? How did you decide this was the correct way of continuing?

That's not to say that you can't reupload. But the licence you pick must be truthful. People will check.

This is a list of licences that can should choose from; and this is a page with detail on how to get permission to use an image and how to prove you've got permission.

I want to take revenge on Redvers
There's a queue, so you'll need to join the end of that. Also, since I didn't break any rules, there won't be much support elsewhere on Wikipedia, but you're welcome to try elsewhere.

I want to track Redvers down and kill him
Did that headline shock you? Well, the first time someone said it to me, I was shocked too. No more, I'm afraid. You are now welcome to try to track me down. To give you a clue to help you, I'm to be found in Europe.