The visualisation of news through photographs has exploded since the second half of the 20th century (Kester & Kleppe 2015). Press photographs are not only being used more often in all sorts of media, historical photographs are also increasingly being reused. In some cases the reuse of these images leads to a recontextualisation of the photograph. A well-known example in the Dutch context is a photograph of Dutch socialist party leader Pieter Jelles Troelstra who is known for a failed attempt to overthrow the royal family in 1918. When Troelstra’s failed coup d’état is being discussed in history textbooks, the text is very often accompanied by a photograph of Troelstra holding a speech. However, research has shown that this photo was not made in 1918 but in 1912 when Troelstra was advocating the introduction of women’s suffrage (Kleppe 2013). This example illustrates that in the field of history and visual culture there is a need for the thorough study of the origin and reuse of visual materials. However, methods that are employed to analyse the (re)use of visual materials are cumbersome and labour-intensive since Humanities researchers tend to analyse their sources manually (Burke 2001). To estimate the increase in the use of pressphotographs in Dutch newspapers, Kester & Kleppe (2015) e.g manually analysed a sample of 385 newspapers and 5.877 pressphotographs of the period 1870-2013, creating the Foto’s in Nederlandse Kranten (FiNK) (Photos in Dutch Newspaper) dataset (Kleppe, Zeijl, Kester 2014). To find the recurring use of the Troelstra image, Kleppe (2012) followed a same approach by manually analysing over 5.000 photographs in 400 history textbooks, creating the Foto’s in Nederlandse Geschiedenisschoolboeken (FiNGS) (Photos in Dutch History textbooks) dataset (Kleppe 2012). While manually created and annotated datasets such as FiNK & FiNGS contain rich & well-annotated data that can be reused for all sorts of research questions, their scope remains limited given its labour-intensive ...