4 ms·

Here are some sources that say they are copyrightable: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027

Here are some sources that say they are copyrightable: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=njilb https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 Any GIS tool with satellite images (Google earth/maps, Bing maps, etc...) will show a copyright logo on the screen specific to the satellite images.

kragen 7y ago
From your second link https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=njilb https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten..., which is a law review article, not precedent or statute: "Copyright protection is thus unavailable to unenhanced data. ... Predictably, EOSAT does not attempt to copyright unenhanced Landsat data." However, it's from 1990, prior to Feist (1991) and Bridgeman (1999), though not Hearn (1987). Even so, it doesn't attempt to make the argument that you're making, that raw satellite photos themselves are subject to copyright: "The statutory definition of a copyright certainly suggests that...data which has been enhanced through human creativity qualifies for protection." (Emphasis mine.) Law review articles, like legal briefs, are primarily attempts to advocate a certain point of view by presenting the best available arguments for it, in the hopes of influencing future jurisprudence or legislation. The positions they advocate are thus not reliable guides to reality, although they are more persuasive to the extent that their arguments are based on reality and thus not easily demolished. The other two https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 not only aren't jurisprudence, they aren't even law review articles, nor do they reference any jurisprudence or make any legal arguments. Also, they are both from Singapore. Actually they are papers about steganography, not copyright. Did you... did you just google [satellite image copyright] and paste the first few links you saw without reading them, hoping you could waste a bunch of my time for a minimal amount of effort on your part?
- wefarrell 7y ago
  "Copyright protection is thus unavailable to unenhanced data ... Predictably, EOSAT does not attempt to copyright unenhanced Landsat data" - That's a reference to data from a public satellite. Bridgeman is specifically about imaging artworks. You're taking it way out of context. Here's the summary from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...: "...exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality." That has nothing to do with satellite images. If you disagree I would ask you to cite jurisprudence or legislation. You haven't addressed the fact that google/bing/any other GIS tool specifically put copyrights on their satellite images. From the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth: "Every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides" If this is not correct you should edit it accordingly.
  - kragen 7y ago
    I said, "I think it's crystal clear under US copyright law that on-nadir satellite images are not copyrightable." Google's claim to own copyright in the output of Google Maps or Google Earth may or may not be correct, but either way it's irrelevant, because those are not on-nadir satellite photos, and my claim was specifically scoped to on-nadir satellite photos (and US copyright law). I've cited three judicial precedents to support that claim; you have a weak argument about one of those precedents that suggests you don't understand it, and even the 30-year-old law review article you chose to support your position specifically disclaims the claim you're making, in the case it discusses, which is indeed a public satellite. Google Maps and Google Earth output are not on-nadir satellite photos. They are composite images produced by an elaborate production pipeline drawing on many sets of data and possibly enough human creativity to produce a copyrightable work. That's a question for a court to decide, not Google or Wikipedia. It seems clear that if their results are found to be copyrightable, it will not be due to the satellite photos that some of them draw on.

kragen 7y ago

From your second link https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=njilb https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten..., which is a law review article, not precedent or statute: "Copyright protection is thus unavailable to unenhanced data. ... Predictably, EOSAT does not attempt to copyright unenhanced Landsat data." However, it's from 1990, prior to Feist (1991) and Bridgeman (1999), though not Hearn (1987). Even so, it doesn't attempt to make the argument that you're making, that raw satellite photos themselves are subject to copyright: "The statutory definition of a copyright certainly suggests that...data which has been enhanced through human creativity qualifies for protection." (Emphasis mine.) Law review articles, like legal briefs, are primarily attempts to advocate a certain point of view by presenting the best available arguments for it, in the hopes of influencing future jurisprudence or legislation. The positions they advocate are thus not reliable guides to reality, although they are more persuasive to the extent that their arguments are based on reality and thus not easily demolished. The other two https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 not only aren't jurisprudence, they aren't even law review articles, nor do they reference any jurisprudence or make any legal arguments. Also, they are both from Singapore. Actually they are papers about steganography, not copyright. Did you... did you just google [satellite image copyright] and paste the first few links you saw without reading them, hoping you could waste a bunch of my time for a minimal amount of effort on your part?

wefarrell 7y ago
"Copyright protection is thus unavailable to unenhanced data ... Predictably, EOSAT does not attempt to copyright unenhanced Landsat data" - That's a reference to data from a public satellite. Bridgeman is specifically about imaging artworks. You're taking it way out of context. Here's the summary from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...: "...exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality." That has nothing to do with satellite images. If you disagree I would ask you to cite jurisprudence or legislation. You haven't addressed the fact that google/bing/any other GIS tool specifically put copyrights on their satellite images. From the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth: "Every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides" If this is not correct you should edit it accordingly.
- kragen 7y ago
  I said, "I think it's crystal clear under US copyright law that on-nadir satellite images are not copyrightable." Google's claim to own copyright in the output of Google Maps or Google Earth may or may not be correct, but either way it's irrelevant, because those are not on-nadir satellite photos, and my claim was specifically scoped to on-nadir satellite photos (and US copyright law). I've cited three judicial precedents to support that claim; you have a weak argument about one of those precedents that suggests you don't understand it, and even the 30-year-old law review article you chose to support your position specifically disclaims the claim you're making, in the case it discusses, which is indeed a public satellite. Google Maps and Google Earth output are not on-nadir satellite photos. They are composite images produced by an elaborate production pipeline drawing on many sets of data and possibly enough human creativity to produce a copyrightable work. That's a question for a court to decide, not Google or Wikipedia. It seems clear that if their results are found to be copyrightable, it will not be due to the satellite photos that some of them draw on.