5 ms·

> But SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is subject to copyright. It cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for permission. Use it in a m

> But SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is subject to copyright. It cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for permission. Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers. So much pessimism. I think it's great a private for profit corporation is doing as much as it is given it has no obligation to do so.

sandworm101 7y ago
>> as it is given it has no obligation to do so. That's the big change, the lack of obligation. If SpaceX is going to be fulfilling government contracts, on government facilities/ranges, using countless government employees, resulting footage should be free. It hasn't happened yet, but with human spaceflight nearing we may see SpaceX drafting license deals in a manner NASA never contemplated.
- MoronInAHurry 7y ago
  SpaceX recently relicensed their photos to an Attribution-NonCommercial license, when previously they were effectively public domain under Creative Commons Zero: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroactively-put-copyright-restrictions-on-its-photos https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroa...
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Yup. The last thing SpaceX wants is to see somebody else make a buck from their footage. We have seen NASA logos in a thousand scifi productions. We will never see the SpaceX logo used in such a manner.
    - mrtnmcc 7y ago
      Is that pure speculation? SpaceX isn't protesting the countless YouTube videos and derivative works from their launches.
    - zlsa 7y ago
      Are you expecting SpaceX to allow their (copyrighted) logo to appear in various media without requesting permission first? NASA's copyright policy is the exception, not the rule.
      - greglindahl 7y ago
        SpaceX's trademarked name and logo are still limited by the usual trademark stuff even if they're in public domain video or images. NASA's copyright policy is US government wide, it's just that most of the rest of the government actively dodges it by hiring photographers and letting them own the copyrights.
        zlsa 7y ago
        I meant that the US government policy is the exception compared to US law, not to the rest of the government. Private companies should not be required to make anything public just because their customer is NASA (or the US government, for that matter.)
      - sandworm101 7y ago
        NASA doesn't have a copyright policy. As part of the us fed its works don't get copyright protection. That isn't an exception. It's the law.
    - mattr47 7y ago
      Your posts show an obvious bias against spaceX. Why the hate?
      - sandworm101 7y ago
        Bias? Im critical of the US government's intellectual property policy in relation to spacex contracts and speak to nothing else. If that constitutes some sort of bias then unbiased criticism is impossible. Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage.
        kortilla 7y ago
        > Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage. SpaceX footage was never public domain. It’s completely different camera systems, etc. There is no regression here in rights because they are completely different things. It sounds like your problem is with the government not putting speculations in the launch contracts to demand footage be released to public domain. That’s the real issue and that’s where it should be fixed.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    Huh. Is there a record of which photos were originally CC0? If you've already downloaded them as CC0, and they were once licensed as such, you can't just take it back. It's like releasing into the wile with GPLv3. You can re-license it if all the authors agree, but the original code at the point of re-license, if you have a copy, can never lose its GPLv3 status.
dylan604 7y ago
I think if you are receiving public/govt/fed money to do your mission(s), then the footage should also abide by the non-copyrightable footage as well.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects. For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX to design and build the crew dragon. I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to private property. If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an unreasonable burden.
  - dylan604 7y ago
    Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for. Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?
      - dylan604 7y ago
        I think you are reading too much into my original statement. I did NOT say I think 100% of all SpaceX footage should be made public domain. I specifically stated that if it is funded by govt funding, then it should.
NortySpock 7y ago
I think they're finding some good PR and passive positive lobbying (where fans write their congressperson about all the cool stuff we can do in space) is coming from their publicity. They're also putting pressure on their competitors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc) by constantly being in the news. Where is ULA's reusable rocket stage? Where is Arianespace's Starship competitor? Why is NASA building a disposable rocket?

sandworm101 7y ago

>> as it is given it has no obligation to do so. That's the big change, the lack of obligation. If SpaceX is going to be fulfilling government contracts, on government facilities/ranges, using countless government employees, resulting footage should be free. It hasn't happened yet, but with human spaceflight nearing we may see SpaceX drafting license deals in a manner NASA never contemplated.

MoronInAHurry 7y ago
SpaceX recently relicensed their photos to an Attribution-NonCommercial license, when previously they were effectively public domain under Creative Commons Zero: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroactively-put-copyright-restrictions-on-its-photos https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroa...
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Yup. The last thing SpaceX wants is to see somebody else make a buck from their footage. We have seen NASA logos in a thousand scifi productions. We will never see the SpaceX logo used in such a manner.
  - mrtnmcc 7y ago
    Is that pure speculation? SpaceX isn't protesting the countless YouTube videos and derivative works from their launches.
  - zlsa 7y ago
    Are you expecting SpaceX to allow their (copyrighted) logo to appear in various media without requesting permission first? NASA's copyright policy is the exception, not the rule.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      SpaceX's trademarked name and logo are still limited by the usual trademark stuff even if they're in public domain video or images. NASA's copyright policy is US government wide, it's just that most of the rest of the government actively dodges it by hiring photographers and letting them own the copyrights.
      - zlsa 7y ago
        I meant that the US government policy is the exception compared to US law, not to the rest of the government. Private companies should not be required to make anything public just because their customer is NASA (or the US government, for that matter.)
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      NASA doesn't have a copyright policy. As part of the us fed its works don't get copyright protection. That isn't an exception. It's the law.
  - mattr47 7y ago
    Your posts show an obvious bias against spaceX. Why the hate?
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      Bias? Im critical of the US government's intellectual property policy in relation to spacex contracts and speak to nothing else. If that constitutes some sort of bias then unbiased criticism is impossible. Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        > Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage. SpaceX footage was never public domain. It’s completely different camera systems, etc. There is no regression here in rights because they are completely different things. It sounds like your problem is with the government not putting speculations in the launch contracts to demand footage be released to public domain. That’s the real issue and that’s where it should be fixed.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  Huh. Is there a record of which photos were originally CC0? If you've already downloaded them as CC0, and they were once licensed as such, you can't just take it back. It's like releasing into the wile with GPLv3. You can re-license it if all the authors agree, but the original code at the point of re-license, if you have a copy, can never lose its GPLv3 status.

dylan604 7y ago

I think if you are receiving public/govt/fed money to do your mission(s), then the footage should also abide by the non-copyrightable footage as well.

dahfizz 7y ago
Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects. For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX to design and build the crew dragon. I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to private property. If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an unreasonable burden.
- dylan604 7y ago
  Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for. Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?
    - dylan604 7y ago
      I think you are reading too much into my original statement. I did NOT say I think 100% of all SpaceX footage should be made public domain. I specifically stated that if it is funded by govt funding, then it should.

NortySpock 7y ago

I think they're finding some good PR and passive positive lobbying (where fans write their congressperson about all the cool stuff we can do in space) is coming from their publicity. They're also putting pressure on their competitors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc) by constantly being in the news. Where is ULA's reusable rocket stage? Where is Arianespace's Starship competitor? Why is NASA building a disposable rocket?