Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Eurovision Song Contest 1980 photo sessions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Eurovision Song Contest 1980 photo sessions

[edit]

Already discussed but not decided (a wrong understanding of the license here, another problem here) CC BY-SA 3.0 must be explicit in the file description (https://wiki.beeldengeluid.nl/index.php/Bestand:FTA001040063_011_con.png#filelinks). Pinging @Beeld en Geluid Collecties: for explanations.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, prepare for a mass exodus. I'm running shit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Reading the userpage of the copyright holder of these images might prove instructive. Staff of Beeld & Geluid oversee and control usage of their files, and haven't objected since these images were uploaded 7 years ago. On the contrary: they have actively stimulated Wikipedia usage. If you have any genuine doubts, an email to GLAMwiki@beeldengeluid.nl would probably have been sufficient. Vysotsky (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: It has been done: see above: "Pinging @Beeld en Geluid Collecties: for explanations." Uploader has simply to modify the images at source with a valid license. Besides I don't know how you found out http://pers.beeldengeluid.nl/69407-beeld-en-geluid-intensiveert-samenwerking-met-wikipedia: there's no link in {{Beeld en Geluid Wiki}} describing the project. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a mass deletion of 260 files coming from a valuable GLAM partner while pinging them at the same time isn't a very courteous and effective way of communicating with an organisation that is trying to work together with us at Commons. Proposing a mass deletion is a very secure way to scare off good faith partners. Why not take your deletion request back and communicate with them in a more effective way? I can assist in communicating with Beeld & Geluid if you really think there's something wrong with their licenses. Vysotsky (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: Anything Beeld en Geluid has uploaded themselves is fine. But many files were imported from https://wiki.beeldengeluid.nl. I found https://wiki.beeldengeluid.nl/index.php/Overleg_gebruiker:Renekoenders#afbeeldingen_overnemen where User:Edoderoo talked to them, but I'm not completely comforted by this. Afbeeldingen in de Beeld en Geluidwiki seems quite clear: "Een aantal foto’s uit de eigen collectie van Beeld en Geluid is in een lage resolutie (ongeveer 500 x 483 pixels) te vinden in de wiki. Deze foto’s zijn te gebruiken onder een Creative Commons-Naamsvermelding-Gelijk delen-licentie (CC BY-SA 3.0), indien dit expliciet in de beschrijving bij de foto staat vermeld." There appears to be only one (!) photo to which this applies: this one. Als ik 't maar niet met Andries Knevel hoef te doen.. Unless somebody mixed up indien and tenzij (these words are opposites but are sometimes confused), we have to delete basically everything we imported from wiki.beeldengeluid.nl. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This license text is surely a problem, there is no denying that. (The Wikipedian in residence must have been sleeping?). This should be unequivocally solved by Beeld & Geluid. Apart from this, Beeld & Geluid certainly can get the benefit of the doubt regarding the issue if they are indeed the copyright holders of the images they upload themselves or (will) label as CC BY-SA 3.0 on their website. However, I would like to see that they substantiate this claim. Is the copyright transferred from the photographer to the broadcast institution and did the broadcaster transfer it to Beeld & Geluid, for instance? Tekstman (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. As to the copyright of the photographs, it's quite clear, regarding the Dutch Copyright Act. If no photographer is mentioned (as in most cases here) Art. 8 applies: "Indien eene openbare instelling, eene vereeniging, stichting of vennootschap, een werk als van haar afkomstig openbaar maakt, zonder daarbij eenig natuurlijk persoon als maker er van te vermelden, wordt zij, tenzij bewezen wordt, dat de openbaarmaking onder de bedoelde omstandigheden onrechtmatig was, als de maker van dat werk aangemerkt" (publishing organisation holds copyright). If the name of a photographer is mentioned, but the photographer is employed by an organisation, copyright is with the organisation (Art. 7: "Indien de arbeid, in dienst van een ander verricht, bestaat in het vervaardigen van bepaalde werken van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, dan wordt, tenzij tusschen partijen anders is overeengekomen, als de maker van die werken aangemerkt degene, in wiens dienst de werken zijn vervaardigd" - employer holds copyright). Dutch jurisprudence shows that proof in these cases has to come from claiming photographers. Vysotsky (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the "institute = creator when author not published rule" in the Dutch Auteursrechtwet, but Beeld & Geluid does not seem to be an institute "publishing as if it were hers", but a joint repository of several broadcasters. The broadcasters hold the copyright in case the media were not published before - which is likely, because a lot of them are set photos, never intended for publishing. But Beeld & Geluid should make a statement that they have been transferred that copyright. Pictures not taken on a set and especially photos uploaded by (anonymous) users of their wiki should be approached seperately, with especially due care. Tekstman (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, speaking here on behalf of Sound and Vision (Beeld en Geluid). Thank you for notifying us and allowing us to respond. The text on the license webpage was indeed wrong, how exactly that happened I haven't been able to reconstruct yet. For the vast majority of photographs on the Beeld en Geluid Wiki: these are from our own collection that we own the rights to. This enables us to publish under the CC-BY-SA license. We have just changed the license text on [1]. In it, we have included a list of (roughly 19.000) images that are on the Wiki and are a part of our own collection, and therefore published under the CC-BY-SA license. The issue is that there are pictures used on the Beeld en Geluid Wiki that are not a part of our own collection. For some we have explicitly mentioned this in the image metadata (e.g. [2]), but we haven't managed to do this at a large scale, hence the list of pictures that we know for sure they are from our collection. We also haven't managed to add the CC-BY-SA-license to individual pictures, which of course would be much more transparent. I'm afraid this is the best we can do for now. We really appreciate all the time and effort that are being taken by the community to upload and use these images. The Beeld en Geluid Wiki has a long history, and was never set-up initially for large scale uploads to Commons which we sometimes still experience the drawbacks of. Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, 85jesse (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The adjustment of the text about the license on the website of Beeld & Geluid clarifies the case. The complete list of images that you now have published gives the opportunity to check every image in detail. I checked 25 of the most frequently used images in Wikipedia, and they were all included in the list. Thank you for this quick and clear answer, and for opening up this collection to the public (a decade ago). Vysotsky (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@85jesse: Thanks! And woof, I thought my computer crashed when I opened that .xlsx. I copied the list to User:Alexis Reggae/FTA-afbeeldingen BenGwiki which opens much faster for me. Can you confirm the list consists of 18885 files? I also made a bot request for you, hope someone will bite: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Adding license info to the Beeld en Geluid wiki. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This makes all sense. Bedankt! 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I also checked 26 of the above list (=10%) originally proposed for deletion. They were all in the xlsx -file supplied by Beeld & Geluid, and thus confirmed to have a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Case clear. Case closed, unless someone comes up with a surprising new insight. Vysotsky (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vysotsky: don't spend any more time on checking for now, I'll try to check everything that has been uploaded to Commons. (like, faster than you) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: Done, see subcategories of Category:Media from Beeld en Geluid Wiki. We have a problem. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be expected that 11,000 files that have been uploaded by different persons in different years are not administered in the same correct way. What I normally do when I have to digest an elephant, is to slice the elephant in small pieces. Let's first handle the above deletion request and then move on to the next problem. I walked through the above list, and checked the files against the Category with Media from Beeld en Geluid Wiki from a source with only freely licensed content. I think all 259 items are on the list by Beeld & Geluid (with some being a cropped file), this deletion request can be seen as resolved and the files can be kept. I hope an admin will see to that. I am willing to work on the other files, report on the talk pages of the Categories you created today, and keep in contact with Beeld & Geluid if needed. I can help to handle these files within a few months, and give the files the correct license or have them removed. Vysotsky (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: no need to walk through. 258 files in all three categories, 1 file isn't. (that's File:Martine Havet (1980).png which I couldn't process because there is no source link) I'm still trying to categorize more, but my archnemesis ratelimit is holding me back. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found Martine Havet, crop from FTA001040066 012 on the B&G list. That makes all 259 files rightly CC-BY-SA-3.0. Vysotsky (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I see no reason why we should demand that there is a license next to every single image. We just have to make sure that we can separate the images with CC-BY-SA-3.0. I think there are better ways to fix this than with a DR.
I think the best would be that they (@Alexis Jazz and Beeld en Geluid Collecties: can perhaps help) send a mail to ORTS where they confirm the license and give a clear info about how we can see which photos are CC-BY-SA-3.0 and which images are not.
Since the photos are cool then we could perhaps have a bot guy/girl transfer the images to Commons so we are sure that they are uploaded with correct info. --MGA73 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Nobody has ever asked for "a license next to every single image" except you. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: In that case I misunderstood "CC BY-SA 3.0 must be explicit in the file description". So what do you suggest? A list like User:Alexis Reggae/FTA-afbeeldingen BenGwiki this with a license CC BY-SA 3.0 mentioned? A statement "All files uploaded by "Gebruiker: Mvkooij" are licensed CC BY-SA 3.0"? --MGA73 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: it's the copyright holder which decided this; not a Commons user and the copyright holder had perfectly the right to put their images under the restrictions they wanted. Nevertheless https://wiki.beeldengeluid.nl/index.php/Afbeeldingen_in_de_Beeld_en_Geluidwiki has already been changed since February 12 in a correct way. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: So does that mean you agree to keep all photos on the list: https://files.beeldengeluid.nl/documenten/FTA-afbeeldingen_BenGwiki.xlsx? --MGA73 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Administrator who will have the final word, not me. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean you can't comment :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Back to this deletion request: all 259 above photographs are on the list with files that Beeld & Geluid declared to have a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. That closes the above discussion, so hopefully an admin can step in. Vysotsky (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the changings in https://wiki.beeldengeluid.nl/index.php/Afbeeldingen_in_de_Beeld_en_Geluidwiki there's someting else you have missed. If I were you I would'nt have made a comment before being sure of mastering the Dutch language and the entire complexity of the subject. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: "You" - does that refer to me? The reason I asked you and suggested that you commented was that you could have further info.
Anyway complex things can be made simple if those involved want to. That's what I work on now ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Eurovision_Song_Contest_1980_photo_sessions&oldid=395767513"