Template talk:Nationaal Archief-license

Anefo images

This template inserts the category Images from Anefo. However, only a portion of the images that are released by Nationaal Archief are also Anefo images. Please, remove the category from the template. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you add more explanation which images included in this template. -- Geagea (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

and many more. ~These are all images from Nationaal Archief, but are not in the Anefo collection. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I modified it myself. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jan but I still can not find a difference bettween Images from Anefo and thor are not. what is the difference bettween for example this and this. both says:

Auteursrechthebbende
Nationaal Archief
licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/
Nummer toegang
bekijk toegang 2.24.14.02
The firs one is ok the second no. why? -- Geagea (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is: these are not Anefo photo's. They are from the collection Fotocollectie Van de Poll. Compare that to f.i. [1]. That is a photo from Fotocollectie Anefo. Nationaal Archief released images from seven or eight different photo collections as CC-BY-SA. So there is no ground to let this template categories them all as images from Anefo. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now it's clear. -- Geagea (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Anefo image?

-- Geagea (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The source says no. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

cc-by-sa-3.0-nl

Hi,

The license used on Nationnal Archief is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}, not {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}

The link on the Creative Commons logo on [2] redirects to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/

Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that [3] links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.nl (Dutch translation of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). I think it's a mistake. Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

license changed to by/4.0

Since 18 december 2015, Nationaal Archief changed their licences to cc-by, can we alter that in this template? see http://www.gahetna.nl/actueel/nieuws/2015/kosteloze-download-scans-gahetnanl --Hannolans (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the licence for previous images stays the same as when they were uploaded, we can't just change the licence of them all at once as we wish; we really need a revised template for all images going forward. I doubt anyone is going to go back and check that the licence for previous uploaded images remains the same or has been changed. Ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ww2censor. We can't change the template like that. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We can add a note about that the license changed like we do with flicker images {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. In general I believe that both the license are o.k. so we can keep the 0.4 with a note about the time it was changed.-- Geagea (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So, by altering the current licence template you intend to arbitrarily change the licence of 10,000+ current images to a licence they were never released under. That makes no sense to me. We simply require a new template, with the appropriate licence, for new uploads to comply with their current licence. Ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The license was changed. You may upload them now with the new license if you wish. Both license are ok. The old one and the new one. -- Geagea (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So, technically those images are now dual licensed. But if I understand correctly we can dual license them on Commons but we can't change by-sa-3 to by-4? I thought moving from cc-by-sa to by has no negative impact on current re-use as it is a less restrictive license. Otherway around would be impossible off course. Should we add both licenses on all the images now? --Hannolans (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not dual. They are under by-sa-4 now which is by-sa-3+. The note like {{Flickr-change-of-license}} is needed because part of them already have by-sa-3 which was reviewed by reviewrers (at least part of them). -- Geagea (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See Template:Kremlin.ru/en. 31.173.80.245 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

License changed to CC-0 (CC-zero) in 2017

Nationaal Archief changed the license to CC-zero in 2017. See also this pre-document from 2015 (in Dutch) or this webpage (in Dutch). Vysotsky (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The implication of your post is that all images are now {{cc-0}} but that is not what this webpage says. It says that approximately 38% of the digitised photos use that licence which is about 415,000 images. I can't figure out if that means only 38% have been digitized, because many other images have no license, or only 38% of the digitised images are cc-0. I think one still needs to be observant of exactly what license is shown on the image pages. All the images I checked that I had previously downloaded under the older license now show the cc-0 license on the image pages. So it may be time to revise the custom template for the Dutch Nationaal Archief images. Ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)