On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote: [snip]
No. I'm discussing images of satellites, space launchers, astronauts, inside of spacecraft, and other similar content that carries the image of the launching institution.
Then why do you cite identifying marks, and our handling of our own logos as justification for your arguments?
You seemed to be arguing that there was a material difference between US protection for the purpose of mischaracterization and the protection provided in Europe. But I don't see how that would at all apply to pictures of spacecraft. (...and in fact I feel fairly confident that the protection provided in the EU in most cases is not only more comprehensive than the US protection, but is more comprehensive to the point of obnoxiousness in some instances, but I don't think we even need to get into that argument)
Research images (e.g. images of phenomena) are another issue. However, ESA does not own the copyright to such images ; because of ESA's nature as a consortium, images from such or such instrument may be copyrighted by whichever institute provided the instrument. You will learn more about it by reading m:ESA_images
Much (a majority? I think so, but I don't have a cite... )of NASA's work is executed by a consortium of contractors called "USA" you can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Space_Alliance .
NASA contracts are negotiated so that the work of these contractors can be released as public domain. Perhaps the ESA could learn a thing or two from us greedy Americans who insist that our public money be spent to create public resources. ;)
"You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
I don't see what you mean. Such material could be used for any purposes of information or education, including informing other people, as opposed to, say, doing advertisements for a supermarket chain or a politician.
You're producing a strawman, ... I did too.. The problem with strawman arguments is that they aren't all that informative.
"For educational use" has a lot of problems. It's not possible to define "educational use" in a way which achieves your desired outcome without also impeding a lot of other uses which you would probably agree should not be denied.
There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading m:ESA_images .
I have read it, and the biggest misunderstanding I see here is a mistaken idea the the situation in the US is different from the rest of the world.
In any case, the proposal the ESA opt-in for free images will increase the pool of free images available, and I strongly believe a sudden loss of commitment to free content on our part will remove the incentive.