Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?

from the or-is-it-just-weird-(c)-notices dept

Wed, Jul 27th 2011 4:06am — Mike Masnick

You might recall that we got into a bit of... a "dispute" with Caters News Agency a few weeks back, after we noticed some monkey self-portraits in UK papers with a big "copyright" notice -- despite the fact that the images were almost certainly in the public domain.

However, I'm beginning to wonder if some UK papers just stamp a totally bogus copyright notice on batches of images. That's because ken points us to another article at the Daily Mail (where we also saw the monkey photos) and worries that it looks like the Associated Press is claiming copyright on images taken from the International Space Station, over which it holds no copyright:

Now, I'm hardly one to shy away from knocking the AP for questionable behavior, but I do wonder if the AP really is claiming copyright on this image, or if it's just that the Daily Mail doesn't understand copyright. That's because above the image stamped with © AP are two images stamped with © YouTube. Here's one:

And yet... the article even admits (directly) that these images came from Videographer Noe Castillo, who uploaded the clips to YouTube. But, of course, that doesn't mean YouTube gets the copyright. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the photo editors at the Daily Mail are just clueless, and think that a copyright symbol like that is the way you acknowledge where you found something. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the images tagged © YouTube. So let's give the AP the benefit of the doubt (for the moment, at least), and assume that it wasn't claiming copyright over an image for which it doesn't hold the rights, but rather that the Daily Mail is a bit excessive in putting copyright notices on things where they don't belong.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, copyright notices, public domain

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

abc gum, 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:31am

It's the broadcast treaty. You simply have to publish something and then you own it. This is going to be awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tebee (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:37am

Is it just Legal paranoia ?
It may just be they are scared s*itless about being sued for missing out a copyright attribution. I don't think anyone's going to get into legal trouble for falsely putting a copyright notice on a public domain photo, but do it the other way round and you could be in deep and expensive trouble.

Any legal types out there can say if is this actually illegal and who is likely to sue them if so?

Or it might just be creeping IP-itis - It's a photograph and therefore it's IP so must belong to someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:38am

Copyright on an image
Not that I'm to 'up' on this (as the unfortunates who have read my previous post will be all to painfully aware)
But if you have an image that's copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?

Of course I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and I probably am...
I know sound bites of 10 seconds or less cannot be copyrighted but that's an entirely different, yet just as painful, post...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:46am

Re: Copyright on an image
Not that I'm to 'up' on this (as the unfortunates who have read my previous post will be all to painfully aware)
But if you have an image that's copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?

No - you are wrong.

You have created a derivative work - but the original copyright still applies because your modifications are not sufficiently transformative.

You will hold a copyright on the modifications if they are deemed to have sufficient creative input.

Cropping might be enough to do it if the composition is changed sufficiently.

Sadly this mechanism can allow people to put a new copyright on things that are in the public domain (not that I agree with this but it does seem to be the legal position.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Malak (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:49am

Considering the fonts are the same, I think we can probably assume the Daily mail are using it like we might use an @ sign...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:51am

Re: Re: Copyright on an image
Personally think that modifications that have been made primarily for the purpose of obtaining a new copyright should not qualify. That isn't what the law says - it's what I think it should say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JayTee (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:56am

The Daily Mail is a joke of a newspaper which has consistently spread false information and whipped up mass hysteria over nothing so it does not surprise me at all that they do not seem to understand Copyright either. They don't understand anything they claim to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:57am

The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In other news, dog sees cat: I do wonder if the dog will bark?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JayTee (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:57am

Re:
this demonstrates their cluelessness on all topics...

the daily mail list of things which give you cancer!

http://hellokinsella.posterous.com/the-daily-mail-list-of-things-that-give-you-c
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:59am

Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Wow, it's a meta-story for Mike, then, as he's merely whipping up fanboys over nothing here!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:01am

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the ... editors at the Daily Mail are just clueless,
Having read far too many Daily Mail articles, this wouldn't surprise me at all.

I'm not even sure how they could think there is a legal basis on that - while "sufficient acknowledgement" is required in some of the fair dealing copyright defences including for reporting of current events, that defence doesn't even apply to photographs...

Sadly, I don't think it's just the Daily Mail that is confused about even the basics of copyright law...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:12am

Knows to be false
17 U.S.C. � 506 Criminal offenses.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.� Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

"Notice of copyright" ... "that such person knows to be false".

Suppose the Associated Press has a policy of placing copyright notices on all pictures, without exception. Does that rise to a level of constructively "knows" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kaden (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:13am

Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Having gotten that out of your system, do you have anything approaching a reasonable explanation for the question at hand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:14am

They don't call it The Daily Fail for nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kaden (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:16am

It would seem that the Mail uses a copyright symbol as some kinda shorthand attribution tag.

I'm calling it 'lazy' over 'malicious'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:18am

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
Not m,ine. The cat's in a box, sealed, with a vial of bromide gas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:20am

Re:
Do they pay someone for the privilege of that pseudonym then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:26am

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
The "nothing to contribute" troll post.

In other news, troll has nothing to contribute: I do wonder if the troll will post?

How about Ken brings something to Mike�s attention and Mike posts it on his DISCUSSION BLOG to spark DISCUSSION among people who read it? And since when was Mike a 'news source'? He takes news stories from the web that fit within certain categories and comments on them and opens discussion of it.

True, I get a lot of news here as a first-source, but I don�t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:30am

Re: Re:
Their entire staff apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:33am

Re:
never blame malice on what incompetance can achieve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cloksin (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:37am

Re: Re:
OMG, that list is a riot, it was way too long for me to go through the whole thing, but this one pretty much puts everything in perspective when talking about the Daily Mail, from this article claiming oral sex causes cancer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-453843/Oral-sex-cause-throat-cancer.html

And they claim oral sex is an even bigger killer than smoking or drinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:44am

KopyRight...
Does anyone doubt AP would claim copyright on PD materials? I don't! I don't understand why there hasn't been a "gold rush" on PD materials. Cheating & Stealing seems to be a valid enough business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:47am

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
Depends. But a more interesting question would be: Dog sees cat: Will the cat bark?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:50am

Re: KopyRight...
Does anyone doubt AP would claim copyright on PD materials?

I actually have a significant doubt over whether the AP would charge a reprint fee to license a work of the United States Government to another media outlet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:57am

Re: Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Of course he doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:00am

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
You do realise this is a blog, right, and not a primary news source?

blog
[blawg, blog] Show IPA
noun, verb, blogged, blog�ging.
�noun
1.
a web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:03am

Re: Knows to be false
That would appear to be the US code, not the UK code. I wonder if there's something similar in the UK? No time to check myself unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mrs. Schrodinger, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:07am

Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
What did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:12am

Takedown
I'm just waiting for Mike to get the notice that he has to remove these copyrighted photos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:17am

Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
NASA Johnson Space Center STS-135 Image Gallery (photo #20) (full size) captions this image as:

Image Credit: NASA

Does that indicate that the photo was actually taken by an employee of the United States Government, in the course of his employment?

Or, supposing the picture was taken by a non-American crew-member, does it matter? After all, the United States Government is a partner in the ISS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:19am

Re: Re: Knows to be false
... US code, not the UK code....

Associated Press is U.S.

That's why I was silently ignoring the Daily Mail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:20am

I'm beginning to wonder if the photo editors at the Daily Mail are just clueless, and think that a copyright symbol like that is the way you acknowledge where you found something.
I think you're onto something here and I see this as a consequence of so many people taking a nuanced concept like copyright and conflating it with ownership. It doesn't help that we are being taught to believe that all forms of knowledge and information must be owned by someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: Re: Knows to be false
Associated Press is U.S.

Followup:

From the AP's website, �About AP�:

Headquartered in New York...

... Neither privately owned nor government-funded, the AP is a not-for-profit news cooperative, owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members....

So, United States domicile, and ownership by United States persons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:41am

(C)_(C), copyright all things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MM_Dandy (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:16am

Re: Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
It indicates that NASA is the original source of the photo (ie. taken by a NASA employee). NASA images, unless otherwise noted, are not copyright protected. It is unlawful to claim copyright on those images.

Guidlines for use of NASA materials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:21am

Images available for sale from AP in US
A quick search of AP Images (�Buy Essential Images from The Associated Press�) website shows that the Associated Press appears to be selling the Shuttle images, from a United States website. It doesn't appear to be simple to link to the image search results, however, here are thumbnails from the three results found:
$ whois apimages.com

Registrant: The Associated Press 450 West 33rd St New York, NY 10001 US Domain Name: APIMAGES.COM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
md1500 (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:27am

The Daily Mail (like most of the UK establishment) is a bit behind the curve when it comes to tech issues.

I mean, look at this article, published this year, where they wax lyrical about pictures that move. Yes, they've only just discovered the Animated GIF.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380795/Cinemagraphs-Artists-develop-pictures -movement-stills-level.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:32am

Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
Where is ICE to seize those domains now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
I, for one, was truly whipped into a mass hysteria, dashing about and doing "jazz hands" in the air. There was no one else nearby, but considering my massive girth, I'd say that qualifies as "mass" hysteria.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:22am

Re:
Then they should just cover all possible bases and stamp everything "� INTERNET".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:22am

Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
Are NASA pictures automatically put into the Public Domain?

If so, how does this mechanism work because IIRC other artists were having issues trying to do this (put their works in the PD) themselves in any manner whatsoever.

Selling PD images is perfectly legal and therefore not subject to ICE seizures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:31am

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In the same news, out_of_the_blue barks at blog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
Are NASA pictures automatically put into the Public Domain?

17 U.S.C. � 105Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government,...

Selling copies of United States Government works is fine. Falsely marking United States Government works as copyrighted, with fraudulent intent, that is with intent to obtain something of value...

... well, if prosecutors won't enforce it, then so what.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oculatus Rotunda, 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:43am

trolls, trolls, trolls
Reminds me of patent trolls, one of the latest in (authorized by law) criminal scams where anyone can be sued by one of the plethora of patent scam artists operating out dummy/front/empty offices in east Texas, mostly - where selected targets are told to pay up front for copyright infringement, but refuse to reveal specifics as to which patent is being infringed upon (not required by law). Even if innocent (which is almost all of the time), it costs a million to mount a defense, so most just settle (it other times and places this was called extortion). Copyrights are just a variation on a theme. Just make an allegation and the odds are in your favor no one will contest. A society of predators are we.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:51am

Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
"but I don�t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences."

What about a fedora, a whip, and a Webley? He could be a copyright archaeologist! Mickey Mouse certainly seems ancient to me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 9:49am

Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
-
Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a "copyright attribution."

Whether you put a notice on something or not, it is still infringing if you don't have a license. And once you have a license, you have no obligation to put any sort of copyright notice on that content. (unless, of course, the license specifically demands it, like many CC licenses do).

At least in the U.S., attribution is a normative concept; infringement is a legal one. Communities (e.g., scholastic, academic, journalistic) punish mis/non-attribution. That's plagiarism. The law punishes infringement. Attribution doesn't solve your infringement problems. (In Europe, you've got these flaky moral rights, which make everything messy. I can't help you guys over there.)

I think Mike is right that some bonehead just thinks the copyright notice is the same as a source attribution. Newsies, take note: "source: xyz" isn't the same as "(c)".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 10:29am

Mike, I think you have to remember a few things here:

1 - in posting on Youtube, you haven't made anything public domain. Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.

2 - AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained "exclusive" images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as "reps" for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.

3 - video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.

I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.

Posting on YouTube doesn't make something public domain. How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 10:33am

Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
I don't think anyone's going to get into legal trouble for falsely putting a copyright notice on a public domain photo, but do it the other way round and you could be in deep and expensive trouble.

Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. 17 USC � 506(c).

The problem is proving that the person had intent to defraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pat price, 27 Jul 2011 @ 11:31am

Missmarking of intellectual property
I work in the intellectual property arena where every scam known to man and some that are not know are used by non-practicing entities to transfer wealth from producers to non-producers. One of the current scams is �miss marking�. This occurs when a company ships a product with patent numbers on a label. If a patent number references a patent that is expired or a patent that is clearly not part of the product then the label has been miss marked. There are several cottage industries where people go out and take pictures of product label that contain patent number. They then research the patents and if they discover that the patent is expired or does not relate to the product, they assume that the company producing the product purposely miss marked the label to keep other companies and individual from competing in the market. This allows the researchers and attorneys to file suit for miss marking and people have been collecting settlements and awards for miss marking.

It would appear to little old me that miss marking of copyrights is the next intellectual property gold field that will be mined and considering the companies slapping copyright notices on images, such as AP and the Daily Mail, someone is going to file suite and most likely collect. Also considering that content owners like news agencies are quick to file suite when people exercise fair use, this might make them a little more aware of what it feels like to be the little guy in a litigation.

Pat Price
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 11:57am

Re:
Mike, I think you have to remember a few things here:
...blah blah blah...

The thing is, Mike didn't say the things you're so desperately trying to make it look like he did.

Typical copyright shill.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 12:09pm

Re:
The point is, YouTube does not own the rights to that video or image; Noe Castillo owns the copyrights. Therefore, the correct copyright statement is "� Noe Castillo", not "� Youtube". You are correct is saying that the image is not public domain, but that is not the point here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re:
Only if you have enough money to prove your ownership though. Little guys that publish without much money? Well clearly their content was supposed to be owned by someone with more cash on hand so they could use it to get more cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re:
No, but the point is that Noe Castillo, or (his/her) reps can resell the rights to the AP. The can cede all print rights to the AP, and give them copyright control over the still images.

Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.

Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 3:51pm

Re:
1 - in posting on Youtube, you haven't made anything public domain. Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.

Um. Nor did I say that it did. I only said that the shots from space -- the NASA shots -- were public domain. I merely used the (c)Youtube shots to explain what I think the Daily Mail is doing.

2 - AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained "exclusive" images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as "reps" for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.

NASA shots are public domain. Period. You can't get an exclusive on them.

3 - video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.

Meaningless. They said (c). And, wtf are "video rights"? What statute is that in?

I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.

Considering all three of your points are 100% wrong, I'd say my track record is better than yours, as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
But we are not shocked that every every one of your accusations is completely incorrect. It's like you purposefully misunderstood every word Mike typed. Bizarre.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, but the point is that Noe Castillo, or (his/her) reps can resell the rights to the AP. The can cede all print rights to the AP, and give them copyright control over the still images.

You appear to be confusing the two separate images. One is from the space station. One is from Noe.

We are saying the one from the space station is public domain. Not the other one.

Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.

Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error

You are making the error, not me. I never said, implied, suggested, hinted at, or anything that Castillo's images were in the public domain. Merely that the ones from the space station, which come from NASA are in the public domain.

The sole purpose, as clearly explained in the article, for showing the Castillo images were to show the incorrect (c) notice on those too, to suggest that the problem was with the Daily Mail's labeling, not with the AP.

I am at a loss as to how one could be so confused over what is clearly stated in the article, but you never cease to amaze me on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 11:28pm

Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
I do wonder if the dog will bark?

Trolls like you certainly do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 11:32pm

Re:
I could go on.

Sure, we not gonna stop you from making yourself look like a fool in public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 28 Jul 2011 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Copyright on an image
You have created a derivative work - but the original copyright still applies because your modifications are not sufficiently transformative.

I'm sure that in AP convoluted logic, they think that by taking a public domain photo, applying their copyright symbol on it, and licensing it to make a profit or suing anyone who tries to use it, is sufficiently transformative in their legal playbook. Now all they need to do is buy... I mean "find" a judge to agree with them in court. Based on many of the rulings handed down surrounding copyright these days, it shouldn't be too hard for them to find such a judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re:
Oh god, do you ever get over your bad self?

3. Video rights / still image rights. When someone creates a work, they can (and often do) split the rights. They can sell all still image rights to one group (giving them legit copyright over the still images) and the rights to the video version of it to another group (giving them legit copyright on the video portion of it). Rights can be sliced almost any way you like, and those rights sold, transferred, or licensed depending on the business arrangement. For a guy who claims to know a lot about copyright, you really seem to be missing in action on this basic concept.

2. NASA's material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.

1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren't aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren't a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.

I shake my head at your personal insults. Can't you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Re:
Please. Why would the guy have given still photo rights to YouTube of all things? That makes no sense whatsoever.

As for the other shot... you think an astronaut aboard the ISS was somehow able to contact the AP and transfer the rights... while still on board? I somehow doubt this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:37am

Re: Re: Re:
3. Video rights / still image rights. When someone creates a work, they can (and often do) split the rights. They can sell all still image rights to one group (giving them legit copyright over the still images) and the rights to the video version of it to another group (giving them legit copyright on the video portion of it). Rights can be sliced almost any way you like, and those rights sold, transferred, or licensed depending on the business arrangement. For a guy who claims to know a lot about copyright, you really seem to be missing in action on this basic concept.

I asked you for the specifically for the statute that explains "video rights." You have not given it. You are making stuff up and your digging a deep hole, demonstrating your ignorance of the subject.

2. NASA's material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.

Hahahahahah. Oh, you make me laugh. The shot is NASA's. Work for hire has nothing to do with anything here, and if you knew anything about copyright law, you would know that.

1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren't aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren't a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.

If the Daily Mail is making false copyright markings, then, no it is not "up to them."

I shake my head at your personal insults. Can't you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there

Irony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NASA to AP, 1 Mar 2014 @ 3:35pm

NASA to AP
NASA shots are public domain. Period. You can't get an exclusive on them.

Actually, NASA shots are copyrighted by NASA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]