Forum: Author Hangout

https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/gallery/copyright.html

Ah, that explains the difference, as that's the standard disclaimer which I've seen in the past (i.e. NASA "photographs are not copyright protected unless otherwise stated". Apparently the image of the sun I was interested in is copyrighted by NASA SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory), which has only been operational since 2010.

I'm guessing that since images of the sun are not just ordinary shots, but result from specific high tech filters and advanced optics, that any images resulting from those tools are copyrightable under their patent claims. (When I visited the 'authorization page' for the site, it was clearly listed as "NASA" and not "NASA SDO", so I'd thought NASA's previous policies has changed.

I have no idea how to contact them but I would start a search for sun pictures with them.

The key with my one solar flare picture was that I was looking for an extreme example of one, for use in a post-apocalyptic story, rather than your daily, run-of-the-mill ones. The one I got was the largest in a several decades (as far back as they've been able to record direct images of the sun), so I'm not looking for others. The other picture I was checking was the famous Carl Sagan 'little blue dot', as I was using his description of it as an epigraph, so it was a natural to include the associated image.

Still, I'll keep the National Solar Observatory in mind for future use, though.

I know this will sound crazy, but I saw a lot of extreme solar "Burst" type paintings on YouTube. Search for "Spray Paint Art". Before you say Bull Shit, go have a look

I will, but getting responses asking for permission to use images is generally hit or miss. Most people simply don't keep up on their emails, and rarely check comments on their older image comments (I've NEVER gotten ANY response from multiple messages on both Flickr and DeviantArt).

Just like with SOL authors, you learn which sites to ask for permission on, and which not to.

When I used NASA images in the past (faceless astronauts, without their NASA logos), they didn't list the ban on 'commercial' uses of their images, so it seems that was implemented only in the last decade, though I might just have missed it before. Such limitations are common for most 'public source' photographs which list people's face for which news photographers and such don't have specific 'model authorizations'.

The majority of the images NASA has on their website are their copyright and covered by their policy. If an image isn't covered by their policy they say so right at the image. Also, a lot of the images by those they contract to do things are NASA copyrighted, so you have to be careful to check on each image.

But that's precisely what stumped me. The image, the SDO 'image of the day' back in 2015, did not specify that it was copyrighted. Instead, when I went to double check NASA's policy, I found a complete new policy listed on that specific NASA segment. Thus I'm not sure which rules govern the use of that one image.

By generally, NASA clearly states that their images are not copyrighted unless it says so on the specific image. But yes, I plan on properly attributing the images to NASA.

By generally, NASA clearly states that their images are not copyrighted unless it says so on the specific image.

There's a few important aspects involved with NASA and any other US government organization due to different laws. The first is that anything anyone creates is their copyright as per the copyright laws. However, that is amended by the work for hire laws in that anyone who creates something as part of their paid employment the created item belongs to their employer unless there's a specific clause about it in their employment. Thus what the employees of NASA to NASA, and thus, like other US government employees, belongs, it belongs to the US government. There's a third law where the US government places all of the items created by paid US government employees in the public domain. There are a few exceptions for things covered by National Security Classification and the like, but you are unlikely to find them on a website or where you can easily access them in any records.

Now, where a lot of people get confused is the copyright is still owned by the US government but it's freely available because they placed it in the public domain. This applies to NASA. What it means is you can use the material as you wish, but you can't claim it as your copyright because the US government still owns the copyright, thus you should attribute it to show you aren't claiming the copyright. Being in the public domain simply means it's free to use, not that they're giving up the copyright ownership.

Anyone can claim anything that isn't copyrighted in some way, but they can't claim public domain material as their own, they can just use it without having to ask to be allowed to use it.

the US Government still claims a copyright

The legislation says they don't claim the protection, not that they don't claim the copyright. If they didn't claim the copyright they could not take any action against anyone else who wanted to claim the copyright. All they're doing is giving anyone who wants to use it the right to use it for free without asking. The copyright exist as soon as anything is created, and then it has to be sold or given away to another, it just can't cease to exist at all or to exist only in some places and not others.

Being placed in the public domain is not a destruction of the copyright.

Where the copyrights come from is that NASA employs a lot of contractors.

Except ... photos of the sun don't count as 'work performed by contractors', as the SDO is a (as far as I know) government entity.

photos of the sun don't count as 'work performed by contractors', as the SDO is a (as far as I know) government entity.

Most of the work done by people under contract to the government comes under the work for hire laws and thus the copyright belongs to the hiring organization like NASA, except when specifically covered in the contract. In those cases NASA mentions the copyright holder on the page with the material, thus everything without a specific mention is a NASA copyright and in the public domain and free to use.

It's important to keep in mind the contractor requirements with a lot of government agencies because a lot of the research is done by contractors and some of what they do is the contractor's copyright and some is the government's copyright. In general, the government gets the copyright.

Where things get sticky is with research papers as often you get mixed ownership. In some cases the contract calls for the performance of the research then the report is given to the US government and the US government owns the copyright on the report which immediately becomes a public domain document,. However, the researcher is allowed to do a paper for general distribution which is their copyright so they can obtain peer group recognition - but, the documents have to be worded very differently to avoid confusion when being quoted.

In those cases NASA mentions the copyright holder on the page with the material, thus everything without a specific mention is a NASA copyright and in the public domain and free to use.

That would make sense, if they were dealing with a contracting company, such as with Lockheed building space craft components. But with another government agency, you'd then have two separate government agencies fighting over copyrights which neither is allowed to enforce. That's why I suggested my alternative explanation, that the copyright is tied to the development of the technology, rather than to the government organization. If the photos were the result of a private filtering process, then the resulting copyright would lie, supposedly, with the inventor of the patent, whether that was a private contractor, a government organization or some combination of the two. But again, that's only one alternative, as I have no evidence it's actually the case. But your claim that one government organization controls copyrights of its products while every other one can't just boggles the mind.

But your claim that one government organization controls copyrights of its products while every other one can't just boggles the mind.

CW, while I never said that in that way, it comes down to the contracts in place, and with competing government agencies or sub-agencies you still end up with the corporate ownership of the US government regardless of which one you go through. The key for you and I as users of the images is that where we find an image to use that has a copyright owned by a US government agency we don't have to seek permission before we can use it because the US government has placed them in the public domain. Unless the information with the image credits another agency or sub-agency you simply credit the agency whose website the image is on. Back in my first post to this I gave examples from 2 books where I use images from the NASA website, they are worded different ly because one came direct from NASA and only NASA and the other came through NASA from a sub agency, thus I mentioned NASA and the sub-agency in that one. Here they are again with a touch of bold added.

The background image is NGC 1999 by NASA & STScI, and in the public domain - NASA MP Photo Guidelines, 12.05.08.

The background image is Earth Eastern Hemisphere by NASA and in the public domain as per NASA Photo Guidelines.

edit to add: Should NASA credit another US government agency for an image then you can simply credit that agency with a ote it was found on the NASA website.

Should NASA credit another US government agency for an image then you can simply credit that agency with a ote it was found on the NASA website.

That was my first impulse, but when I checked, looking into the site's legal section, it laid out that 'inclusion in commercial works requires specific approval while non-profit works are free to use with proper accreditation'.

Frankly, I'm not anticipating they're going to make my using of the image easy. In the end, I doubt I will be able to use the image, even though it fits the story better than the stock image digital 'paintings' of the sun.

My point was that it isn't an issue of one government agency having a different copyright policy,
but with the technology the government uses to produce the images. Thus it's not the government agency stopping the free-distribution but the patents by a third-party (not necessarily an individual 'contractor').

No. NASA owns no copyrights.

I like your wiki post regarding copyrights owned by the US Government.

If I understand what you posted, NASA does own copyrights. However the copyrighted materials are placed in the public domain for domestic users but the materials are protected outside of the US.

Thus for CW, he can freely use the copyrighted material. However, Ernest must request permission to use the materials.

I also agree with you, as I said earlier, NASA employs contractors such as JPL and materials generated by such contractors may be copyrighted.

The government claims to own copyrights in it's work product outside the US under international law. It's claims in this regard have never been tested in any court.

By standard copyright law, all the government needs to do is to prove that they 1) created the images or 2) they were the first to post/publish them. There's no need to file for a formal copyright, especially since no one can claim financial penalties.

No US Copyright exists at all on any government work product

The Wikipedia link you provided above says (he bolding is mine):

This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries.[3][4]

There are certain aspects of US copyright law that are unique to the US. One major aspect that is unique to the US is the work for hire doctrine.

Work for hire doctrine does apply in general copyright around the world, however, it is more specific than the US doctrine on it. The basic rule in the USA seems to be anything you create at work belongs to the boss unless you have a specific clause in your contract, while elsewhere it is almost the reverse where a clause for the boss to have the copyright has to be in your employment contract.

Here in Australia is I want you to create something I contract you to do the work and if I don't specify the copyright is mine in the contract it belongs to you. If I run a company and employ you to do some work the copyright belongs to you unless your employment terms says it belongs to me - this is common where creativity is a specific part of the work duties.

Take professional photography, if I contract and pay you to take photos the copyright belongs to me unless the contract says otherwise. If you pay me to model for you the copyright belongs to you unless the contract says otherwise. That's why you have to check your contracts.

Given that no copyright exists under US law for US government work product and the US work for hire doctrine, I consider it highly unlikely that such written copyright agreements between the US government and it's employees exist.

What's more, if the U.S. government ever tried to assert an international copyright claim on any of its supposed copyrights, it would open itself up to hundreds of thousands of counter copyright claims from countries across the globe. I doubt any lawyer would be stupid enough to make such a claim in court, though it's easy enough to assert in the theoretical.

I included the NASA credits, as I like to document my sources.

I like to documents my sources when I attribute the images. I do it for two reasons. First is to acknowledge the work of another, and the second is so I know where to go looking for more later, if I want something similar.