Pictures from earth

Carla

« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2009, 03:58 »

#link

Why do you argue against NASA giving their photos for free? Such a thing is called "altruism" (or sometimes "common sense") and was the basis of survival of our species.
Going back a little bit in history: how would mankind have fared with black pox hat the vaccination be copyrighted at that time? Many more people would have died. Long term it doesn´t always pay to look for money first. And now there are pharmaceutical firms who earn money with this vaccination stuff. Would you call that low morals and insist they shouldn´t be allowed to make a salable product from some knowledge freely available.?
Same with our pictures. The photographer invested some time in changing these pictures. That is why he get´s money for them.


	Ignore \| Logged

imageZebra

« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2009, 04:13 »

#link

If I am right, those images offered by NASA to public are all significantly smaller in size.

I see images offered for sale by some “artists” that larger than you could find on the web, which indicates that they were taken from NASA’s internal servers. I used to work at one of its facilities, and as a designer had access to those images; as far as I know they’re all NASA’s property.

Also, it is one thing to charge for prints of NASA’s free images, and a totally different story when images sold as digital files. BTW, nothing against artists who use NASA’s images as pat of their composition, my complaint is about stolen images and sale of digital files.


	Ignore \| Logged

Mormegil

« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2009, 04:24 »

#link

As it's been stated, NASA imagery is public domain - no copyright.

But I'd like to clarify that just because research is government funded, it's not automatically non-copyrighted.

Most research work done at universities are government funded. When a professor or graduate student comes up with something marketable, the university owns the intellectual property and can license it to whomever they choose (typically first dibs to the researcher who discovered it).

As far as figures published in scientific articles, those are typically copyrighted by the journal's publisher (yes the researcher doesn't typically retain copyright).

One typically has to get prior permission from the journal to put an article they published into their own dissertation/thesis (as I did).


	Ignore \| Logged

null

« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2009, 15:13 »

#link

Quote from: imageZebra on January 12, 2009, 04:13

I see images offered for sale by some “artists” that larger than you could find on the web, which indicates that they were taken from NASA’s internal servers.

Better get your facts straight before you make an "accusation" of either "artists" or artists. Anyhow, if somebody got supersized images from an internal NASA server and you were, as you claim, responsible for it, then you did a lousy security job. Tongue

1. Copyright/use. source here

Quote

# NASA does not permit use of the insignia and other NASA indicia in advertisements. Any use of the NASA identity on spacesuits and on the Shuttle is generally not permitted unless authorized by Headquarters Public Affairs.
# Any references to NASA in an advertisement must be factually accurate.
# Many NASA images and most film and video footage are in the public domain can be used for advertising purposes. However, there are rules regarding the appearance of astronauts or NASA employees or names in commercial activities.

2. Size. source here

For instance take image PIA11419.
Size: 4070 x 8024 x 3
Byrd Glacier, Antarctica
Full Resolution: TIFF (97.97 MB) JPEG (7.07 MB)

3. Images from JPL. source here

Quote

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. []
... To use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech".


« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 15:20 by FlemishDreams »	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2009, 15:23 »

#link

Quote from: Carla on January 12, 2009, 03:58

Going back a little bit in history: how would mankind have fared with black pox hat the vaccination be copyrighted at that time? Many more people would have died. Long term it doesn´t always pay to look for money first.

Carla,

I don't think it is a fair comparison to put vaccines and space images in the same level.

And it's two different things also taking an image and reselling it (either as a print or a digital file) and using the image to create something new (really new). Search Art.com for "Hubble" and you get images that are mere copies of NASA's images sold as prints and posters. Why does someone has the right to do that? Just for having downloaded them from NASA (or even worse stolen, it as suggested by a colleague) and uploaded them to Art.com?

The government funds researches (e.g. a new medicine), should the results of these researches be available for anyone to make money out of them? Have in mind that this is different than making an agreement with a lab for producing this medicine and selling it back to the government for a nominal fee. I do disagree of privatizing tax-payers money.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Pictures from earth

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results