5 ms·

SpaceX recently relicensed their photos to an Attribution-NonCommercial license, when previously they were effectively public domain under Creative Commons Zero

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.

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.