Commons:Deletion requests/Files from SBS Radio

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 from SBS Radio

SBS Radio publishes videos on YouTube under a Creative Commons license; however, they also include the following notice in the description:

Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. 무단 전재, 재배포 및 AI학습 이용 금지

As the notice contradicts the freedoms granted under the Creative Commons license, it is incompatible with Commons licensing requirements; therefore, the precautionary principle should apply.

The following files are affected.

 Keep These videos are licensed by the copyright owner under the Creative Commons license; a CC license is irrevocable and no other copyright notice or statement displayed next to the work can override it. If the images are actually from pre-existing clips that SBS Radio has licensed but doesn't own, they are not covered by the CC license and should be deleted.
Also, the Korean text says (via Google Translate): "Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, and use of AI learning are prohibited." Technically, reproduction in compliance with the CC license is "authorized", so there is no contradiction here. Qzekrom (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The same applies to Vogue Taiwan, that is, "a CC license is irrevocable and no other copyright notice or statement displayed next to the work can override it", as discussed extensively in this discussion and later confirmed by the WMF Legal Team in this follow-up discussion, which concluded that the CC licensing applied to Vogue Taiwan uploads was a mistake.
Therefore, unless the WMF Legal Team contacts SBS Radio or its parent company, Seoul Broadcasting System, we cannot determine based solely on that argument that the Creative Commons licensing was not applied in error or that the notice itself was incorrect and the CC license should have been used. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
 Delete all (including all other files from the SBS Radio channel) per nom. Nkon21 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
 Weak keep My Korean isn't very good, but both Google Translate and Papago agree that the qualification means something along the lines of "Prohibition of unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, and use of AI learning". The original starts with the word '무단' which means "not being approved", so "unauthorized" appears to be a correct translation. As Qzekrom says, that removes any apparent contradiction: the copyright statement says that unauthorized use isn't allowed, and the CC licence grants that authorization subject to some important conditions.
There are two ways in which this case is very different from VOGUE Taiwan. One is that in the VOGUE Taiwan case, the content was produced by a very different part of the company (and possibly a different company) from that which published it with a free licence. In this case, though, the free licence is being granted by SBS Radio, which is also the producer of the content. And of course, in that case there was also an explicit statement from Condé Nast that the CC licence is a mistake, which we don't have here.
Ideally, someone with better Korean than mine would contact SBS and ask about this, since if it is a mistake they really ought be be informed about it. SBS Radio are still posting all their videos with a CC licence today. --bjh21 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the translations are correct. You're right that SBS Radio continues to publish its videos under a Creative Commons licence. Just to clarify my point: not all of their uploads include the additional notice. The above nominations were limited to the specific files sourced from videos that do contain that notice.
Below are ten examples (by upload date on Commons in descending order) where the source video does not include the additional notice. These are therefore unaffected and were not nominated for deletion:
Regarding the Vogue Taiwan case, my understanding is that it operates under Condé Nast, and that the situation there involved videos either produced by a different division and/or reposted materials from other Condé Nast subsidiaries. However, that was never officially confirmed beyond what WMF Legal reported, namely, that they had contacted them, who stated the CC licences were applied in error and that the issue had since been rectified. In contrast, there has been no comparable clarification from SBS, which is why I considered the precautionary principle to apply.
As for contacting SBS, I believe that should be handled by the relevant authorities (e.g., WMF Legal Team) instead, since such communication would carry more weight and be less likely to be disputed as inauthentic. If individual editors contact SBS independently, there's a risk that any replies could be misrepresented, spoofed, difficult to verify, or otherwise carry less weight compared to an office action.
— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
 Keep for reasons already stated. It's uploaded as licensed under CCBY and will be so unless they announce it a mistake like in the Vogue case. For all we know, that copyright notice may only be meant to apply to the description text. Also, I don't see how the cited policy (in particular) applies here, it only describes to delete "where there is significant doubt about the freedom", and I wouldn't call the doubt in this case "significant" but rather "arguable". Rose Abrams (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
 Keep この削除依頼における核心的な問題は、SBS RadioがYouTubeで動画にCreative Commons（CC）ライセンスを付与しているにもかかわらず、動画の説明文に「Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. 무단 전재, 재배포 및 AI학습 이용 금지」という注意書きを含めている点にあります。この注意書きがCCライセンスによって与えられた自由と矛盾し、Commonsのライセンス要件を満たさないため、予防原則を適用して削除すべきというのが削除提案者の主張でした。
しかし、議論の結果、このファイル群は存続が適切であると判断されます。

まず、矛盾の根拠とされた韓国語の注意書きは、Google翻訳やPapagoの翻訳を含め、「無断の転載、再配布、およびAI学習利用を禁止する」という意味に解釈されています。一方、CCライセンスは、その条件（例：クレジット表示）を満たすことで、利用者に再利用の許可（権限の付与）を与えるものです。したがって、CCライセンスに基づいて利用する行為は「無断」ではなく「有権」となるため、この注意書きはCCライセンスが与える許可を無効にするものではなく、両者は矛盾しないという解釈が有力です。 次に、著作権に関する重要な原則として、CCライセンスは一度付与されると、原則として取り消しが不可能（不可撤回性）であることが挙げられます。過去に類似の事例としてVogue Taiwanのケースがありましたが、この時はWMF法務チームが著作権者（Condé Nast）と連絡を取り、CCライセンスの適用が誤りであったという正式な確認を得たことで、削除に至りました。対照的に、SBS Radioのファイルについては、現時点で「CCライセンスが誤って適用された」という著作権者からの公式な声明や、WMF法務チームによる正式な確認は得られていません。加えて、SBS Radioは現在も動画にCCライセンスを付与し続けているという状況証拠もあります。 最後に、削除の根拠として挙げられた「予防原則」が適用されるのは、自由なライセンスであることに重大な疑義がある場合です。本件では、前述の通り注意書きの解釈によって矛盾が解消される可能性があり、また、ライセンスの誤用が公式に確認されていないことから、疑義の程度は「議論の余地がある」程度に留まり、「重大な疑義」とまでは言えません。 以上の理由から、CCライセンスが誤りであったという公式な確認がない限り、そのライセンスは有効であると見なされ、ファイルは存続されるべきと結論づけられます。--Ikeya hikaru (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Keep They chose to release their own videos under CC by manually selecting the license option every time they upload. The videos have been published for years, and it is clearly intentional. Regarding the disclaimer, I will interpret that as: "Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, and use of AI learning without compliance with CC license terms are prohibited." Additionally, if you check the description of File:Lee Si Woo（이시우）.jpg from the original link, you will see that they removed advertisements and audio files with third-party copyrights. ("※ 라디오 광고 및 음원은 저작권 문제로 삭제되었습니다") This demonstrates that they have a clear understanding of copyright issues.--Namoroka (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Category:YouTube video related deletion requests/kept

Kept: per discussion. --✗plicit 12:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:YouTube video related deletion requests/kept