Category talk:Media from Beeld en Geluid Wiki with unclear licensing

Way forward & licenses

This category is a category of files from Beeld & Geluid Wiki, containing 761 files (d.d. 26 Febr. 2020) of Dutch & other European amusement and television personalities, dating from ca. 1950 to ca. 2010. The category is diverse in scope and quality. Most files were uploaded to Commons in 2010. Currently 581 files from this collection are used 5423 times in Wikipedia and Wikidata. The license of these files can’t be found on the resp. webpage at Beeld & Geluid Wiki. None of these files are mentioned on the official list from Beeld & Geluid containing ca. 19.000 B&G files with a CC-BY-SA license. Beeld & Geluid Wiki stimulated broad usage of their collections in the past, and files were uploaded to Commons despite a not very clear license.

Last week I sent a few file numbers from this category to the contact person of Beeld & Geluid, as a sample. He confirmed the CC-BY-SA license of the photographs involved, and added 42 file numbers to the B&G list. He emailed me (17 Febr.) that there was a big chance that several of the remaining 761 files had a CC-BY-SA license, but that B&G had no capacity to dive into this matter on a large scale and check all licenses.

The dilemma is obvious: these 761 files are heavily used and quite unique photographs (453 photos used in Wikidata), but their license is unclear. Here is my proposal to approach this matter.

1. (March 2020) Delete the 180 files from this category not used in Wikipedia or Wikidata.
2. (March 2020) Remove ca. 5 obviously problematic photographs. (E.g. removed from Beeld & Geluid Wiki, see Groenteman & Hunkar). These photographs can be quickly identified.
3. (March 2020) Contact Beeld & Geluid Wiki about some categories of photographs very likely to have a CC-BY-SA license (Eurovision 1958, Ja zuster, nee zuster, Stiefbeen en zoon, De glazen stad, Hadimassa).
4. (March – May) Warn the community that 581 heavily used files risk being deleted, and give the community a 3 month period to replace these photographs in Wikipedia by correctly licensed content.

We could alternatively look at three other options (but these would not be my preferred proposals):

• A. Ask for a general amnesty by Beeld & Geluid. (Chances are slim.)
• B. Propose all files for deletion right now. (Not very courteous move to uploaders and users, considering the unclear situation re copyright of these files in the past 10 years.)
• C. Execute task 1-3 (above) and take the risk of individual proposals for deletion regarding the remaining 581 files.

Pinging @Clausule, Ymnes, Trijnstel, Robotje, Alexis Jazz, Jan Arkesteijn, Edoderoo, and 85jesse: as involved contributors.

Alternative ideas and comments on these proposals are most welcome. Vysotsky (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think steps # 1, 2, 3, 4 are the best way to try to deal with this problem. No. 4 as well. I.e. this photo mentions "Archief Beeld en Geluid, Catalogusnummer 90712, KB33, fotonummer 10", so may be the Royal Library (KB) may be aware of the origine/licence. Thank you for your involvement and all the work you have put into this case! Ymnes (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Alas, in the case you refer to, the letters KB are just letters. They bare no reference to Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Vysotsky (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be very disappointing if hundreds of those files have to be removed. But that's a feeling you also have, I guess. Just for my understanding, take File:Ben van der Burg.png which I uploaded because it matched the rule that picture of about 500 pixels wide from that site were OK to upload. It is there tagged as "BESTAND: 92433-46 POS.PNG" but now in a category of files that are at risk of being deleted. Where can I find the 'white' list to see if that tag is missing? - Robotje (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Robotje on the fact that it really hurts to see >700 historically interesting images going down the drain. So I will try option A nonetheless, though there is only a small chance that we will succeed. But you never know. Vysotsky (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

List from Beeld & Geluid: images with CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (including link to original). Vysotsky (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't like the alternative options: A. is impossible (BenG wiki can't license what they don't have the rights to), B. will cause more damage than needed and C. would result in many unfree files remaining here indefinitely. Let's just follow steps 1-4. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I will execute above tasks 2 and 3 in the coming days (clear-cut job, no extra community involvement needed). I will also ask Beeld & Geluid (task 3-extra) if they are willing to check a maximum of 100 file numbers we suspect to have a CC-BY-SA-license. I will start executing task 1 (proposing 180 unused files for deletion) from 6 March onwards, to give the community some extra time to react. I will announce task 4 (proposing up to 581 files for deletion as from June 1) and task 1 at the Commons Village pump today, to hopefully obtain extra input from others. What I would like to ask other Wikimedians: if you have uploaded photographs from Beeld & Geluid Wiki to Commons, check these files for the number in the link under Source. If that number can be found in this list, please report the file on this page. If there's no number at all, or the number can't be found in that list, the image is likely to be deleted in June. One last remark: I will try to replace every photo (that is used in Wikipedia or Wikidata) that I propose for deletion by a correctly licensed image, if available in Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Update April 2020. Step 1 (delete 180 unused files): not done yet (first Step 2). Step 2: I proposed some problematic files for deletion on 29 February, but they weren't deleted as yet. Step 3: I contacted Beeld & Geluid on 3 March, but got no conclusive answer as yet. Step 4: I warned the community (Village pump, 28 Febr.), but I propose to await the completion of steps 1 to 3. Vysotsky (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)