NASA's images or not?

[Sultanpepa]

Why do some contributors have NASA images for sale on their pseudos? Well I think I know why but it just seems so unethical to sell images which aren't your own or for which the photographer will not receive recompense. I'm willing to listen to the other side of the argument though. 

[Michael Ventura]

Dougie, I am not going to argue the right or wrong of it but try to explain it. As far as I know, all photos taken for and by U.S. federal government employees, are public domain. In other words they are owned by the public since tax dollars paid for them to be taken, in order to record history. Virtually every major stock photo agency has images from NASA in their collection. No one is claiming that they took the photo but I suppose you can think of it as providing service to get quick access to the images. I think there are a lot of buyers who rather pay Alamy for these type of photos rather than searching through various government websites.

[wiskerke]

Or White House? US Army? US Navy?

Because one can and sometimes it's even allowed. In the US in any case.

This wiki page explains some of it.

The idea is that US citizens have already paid for it and are therefore allowed to make money from it.

 

Unethical? That's so 2015.

 

wim

[Sultanpepa]

Dougie, I am not going to argue the right or wrong of it but try to explain it. As far as I know, all photos taken for and by U.S. federal government employees, are public domain. In other words they are owned by the public since tax dollars paid for them to be taken, in order to record history. Virtually every major stock photo agency has images from NASA in their collection. No one is claiming that they took the photo but I suppose you can think of it as providing service to get quick access to the images. I think there are a lot of buyers who rather pay Alamy for these type of photos rather than searching through various government websites.

 

When explained that way I see the logic. Question- If a non US citizen sold them would it be breach of copyright?

 

Edit : Just read Wim's link. That seems to cover that point.

 

Or White House? US Army? US Navy?

Because one can and sometimes it's even allowed. In the US in any case.

This wiki page explains some of it.

The idea is that US citizens have already paid for it and are therefore allowed to make money from it.

 

Unethical? That's so 2015.

 

wim

 

Are you saying ethics are a thing of the past? We're doomed I tell ya!

[KevinS]

The Contributor contract says: 

 

• You are responsible for the content you upload, and you must be the copyright holder or have their permission

[spacecadet]

 

The Contributor contract says: 

 

• You are responsible for the content you upload, and you must be the copyright holder or have their permission

 

You have the permission- of the US government.

[Bill Brooks]

NASA has released their satellite data and images into the public domain for the good and use of all humanity. Here is how I used their numerical data. Not their photographic data.

 

This is a simulated satellite view I made in Photoshop back in 1996. Not from photographs, or an artists conception, but from various NASA, USGS, CIA, satellite data spreadsheets of elevations, coastlines, rivers, lakes, etc, all tied to a GPS grid. The data is massaged as rivers would be too narrow to show up at this scale. Relief is exaggerated, as at this scale the earth is smoother than a billiard ball. I also cut the cloud cover way back so you could see the land underneath. Look at some real photographic high level satellite views encompassing a entire continent, and you will see what I mean.  Sometimes you have to create a fiction, to get at the truth.

 

Here is the terrain information file, only one of many.

 

https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/GTOPO30

 

The master entire world map, of which this is only a section run through 3D software on a sphere, took me 6 months of 40 hour weeks to complete. The master world map shows any detail bigger than 1 KL. The rendering in a 3D program, for individual segments, came later.

 

Spectacular sales for the first 10 years. I stopped developing the concept, once Google Maps came online in 2005.

 

The image is copyright. I have had thieves claim public domain because they think it’s based on a NASA photograph. To prove it is mine alone, I employed an old map makers copyright trick. There is an extra none existent lake inserted into the Canadian arctic. I also have all of the many original work files and spreadsheets in my archive.

 

[Ed Rooney]

I remember that map trick from when I was doing travel guides. Nice map, Bill, but where is Mulberry Street? 

[Bill Brooks]

Edo:

 

Mulberry Street was to be the next improvement to the master world map. However Google beat me to it and I moved on. Still sell an occasional map from the series however.

 

Like this one:

[Sultanpepa]

 

NASA has released their satellite data and images into the public domain for the good and use of all humanity. Here is how I used their numerical data. Not their photographic data.

 

This is a simulated satellite view I made in Photoshop back in 1996. Not from photographs, or an artists conception, but from various NASA, USGS, CIA, satellite data spreadsheets of elevations, coastlines, rivers, lakes, etc, all tied to a GPS grid. The data is massaged as rivers would be too narrow to show up at this scale. Relief is exaggerated, as at this scale the earth is smoother than a billiard ball. I also cut the cloud cover way back so you could see the land underneath. Look at some real photographic high level satellite views encompassing a entire continent, and you will see what I mean.  Sometimes you have to create a fiction, to get at the truth.

 

Here is the terrain information file, only one of many.

 

https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/GTOPO30

 

The master entire world map, of which this is only a section run through 3D software on a sphere, took me 6 months of 40 hour weeks to complete. The master world map shows any detail bigger than 1 KL. The rendering in a 3D program, for individual segments, came later.

 

Spectacular sales for the first 10 years. I stopped developing the concept, once Google Maps came online in 2005.

 

The image is copyright. I have had thieves claim public domain because they think it’s based on a NASA photograph. To prove it is mine alone, I employed an old map makers copyright trick. There is an extra none existent lake inserted into the Canadian arctic. I also have all of the many original work files and spreadsheets in my archive.

 

 

 

 

Very clever Bill and way beyond my photoshop skills, but you've taken information and used it in a unique way. You haven't cut and pasted it as you own and that is where my problem (if you want to call it a problem) lies. I personally couldn't sell an image if people could legitimately download it on the web for free.

 

BTW, I think I can see my house on there.  

[Bill Brooks]

Dougie:

 

You make a good point.

 

Stock libraries have been arguing for years that their charge for a public domain shot is more of a photo research, archiving, and download fee. A convenience to their client, who does not have the knowledge or time to search out the original. There used to be specialist stock libraries who only dealt in public domain material. Bettman Archive in NYC, that was acquired by Corbus, was one of them. To my mind, that is no different than a accountant charging to do my books.

 

So the stock libraries are probably on firm ground, as long as they do not try to claim a copyright over unaltered public domain images.

 

I think it would be OK if we used a public domain image, but altered it in such a way that we made it our own and could claim copyright to the altered image. If we can’t claim copyright, why bother? If we can claim copyright, then we have created something new out of the public domain.

 

Here is a very old, kind of corny, shot of mine that incorporates a NASA earth. Everything else, including the starry sky is mine. I think that is an OK use, and I claim copyright on the overall image.

 

It sold November 23 in Turkey for a gross of US$7.48. Price is OK because it earned its keep many years ago. Oldie but Goodie

 

[Sultanpepa]

 

Dougie:

 

You make a good point.

 

Stock libraries have been arguing for years that their charge for a public domain shot is more of a photo research, archiving, and download fee. A convenience to their client, who does not have the knowledge or time to search out the original. There used to be specialist stock libraries who only dealt in public domain material. Bettman Archive in NYC, that was acquired by Corbus, was one of them. To my mind, that is no different than a accountant charging to do my books.

 

So the stock libraries are probably on firm ground, as long as they do not try to claim a copyright over unaltered public domain images.

 

I think it would be OK if we used a public domain image, but altered it in such a way that we made it our own and could claim copyright to the altered image. If we can’t claim copyright, why bother? If we can claim copyright, then we have created something new out of the public domain.

 

Here is a very old, kind of corny, shot of mine that incorporates a NASA earth. Everything else, including the starry sky is mine. I think that is an OK use, and I claim copyright on the overall image.

 

It sold November 23 in Turkey for a gross of US$7.48. Price is OK because it earned its keep many years ago. Oldie but Goodie

 

 

 

Nice image. It reminds me of Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Salvador Dalí.

[Bill Brooks]

Thanks Dougie.

 

You flatter me excessively with the Dali comparison. That image was one of my first commercial photoshop attempts.

 

I was reading a lot of Science Fiction and into Magritte at the time.

 

Geeks liked this one, on artificial stupidity.

 

[Sultanpepa]

 

Thanks Dougie.

 

You flatter me excessively with the Dali comparison. That image was one of my first commercial photoshop attempts.

 

I was reading a lot of Science Fiction and into Magritte at the time.

 

Geeks liked this one, on artificial stupidity.

 

 

 

I hope you've got "printed circuit board concept" in your keywords. Clever stuff Bill.