IMHO working on deep space photos being PD is a good idea in that we are at the beginning of such an issue so making it retrospective is still possible, why cant everyone share in whats belongs to noone who's access has been funded in some way governments. I'd suspect that with publicity of the issue there would be a greater public support in the idea as most people would see space as something that isnt/shouldnt be owned by corporations
On 22 September 2012 18:17, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan,
The issue is all of those 9 issues you mentioned is far more difficult to deal with legislature-wise. You would have multiple factors such as jurisdiction, lobbyist opposition, and etc to worry about. Deep space objects is a more simpler problem. This could be the start towards those other 9 items you have mentioned.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 6:22 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫" to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board.
I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result.
I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources.
I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
[1]:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Commons-l mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l