SpaceX Photos Now Using Creative Commons License... But With Restrictions

from the almost,-but-not-quite dept

Thu, Mar 19th 2015 1:41pm — Mike Masnick

Last month, we noted how unfortunate it was that, unlike NASA photos which are automatically in the public domain, photos taken by private space company SpaceX, would be covered by copyright. We asked SpaceX founder Elon Musk to declare SpaceX's photos in the public domain. The company has not quite done so, but has now agreed to offer them up under a restrictive Creative Commons license, as reported by Jason Koebler at Vice's Motherboard. SpaceX has put up a Flickr feed with the images, but is unfortunately using a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, meaning that it bars commercial use.

This is, certainly, better than nothing, and better than locking down the photos entirely. But, it is still problematic, in that barring commercial use could limit the ability of important analysis by companies. Yes, it also stops some company coming in and trying to publish a book or sell those photos, but is that really a big concern by SpaceX? Why should the company even be worried about that? It seems like this is a case where SpaceX would be better off using a CC0 public domain dedication to make it clear that the images are available however people want (or, at the very least dropping the "commercial" use restriction).

Again, Elon Musk has recognized the value of completely freeing Tesla's patents, which are certainly a lot more central to Tesla's business than SpaceX's photos -- so hopefully the company will continue to move towards freeing these images as well.

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: creative commons, elon musk, nasa, photos, public domain, space
Companies: spacex

10 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jason, 19 Mar 2015 @ 2:23pm

I don't know...
...but I'm not sure I can get too worked up about this. SpaceX is a private company, and I can't quite find myself feeling too put out by them not releasing all of the pictures they took---however cool they may be---for completely unrestricted use, just because they happen to involve or have been taken from space.

It's not as though the license precludes any use by other companies; it disallows any use "primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation". (Yes, that's a gray area, to be sure.) But SpaceX wouldn't necessarily have had to release any pictures at all. They may not have any particularly noble reason for releasing them, but from where I sit, it doesn't strike me as all that out of line to ask that other companies aren't able to take advantage of them for doing so. That might be unlikely, but if it had happened, no doubt the next batch of images would have never made its way to the public at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 2:34pm

in that barring commercial use could limit the ability of important analysis by companies

Considering that the bulk of the photos are to allow Spaces to look at how their space craft performed, is that so bad. It is not like they are flying space telescopes, lunar or planetary surveys, or at least not yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 2:43pm

Is there anything preventing a company from negotiating a separate license for commercial use? If you expect to make a profit from spacex's images, you can probably determine mutually satisfactory conditions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vancedecker (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 2:46pm

Anyone is free to go to space and take pictures.
If you need some space pictures then you are free to go to space and take them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 3:33pm

Re:
Actually, they have flown a space telescope. The Deep Space Climate Observatory, tossed to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point. CASSIOPE might also count.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 3:56pm

flickr doesn't support CC0
You can't choose CC0 as an option on flickr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 4:06pm

Re: Re:
Those were launched for other people, who own and operate those birds. Spacex will only own the photos taken by its cameras during the launch process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel, 19 Mar 2015 @ 6:13pm

I don't get it
Why would you expect them to release it to corporations for free? Companies still have to pay if they intend to profit from it, everyone else still gets it free. How is that not fair?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:25am

LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property--property they spent much time, effort, and money to acquire. Keep digging that hole, Mikey. And, oh yeah, keep running away from any honest discussion on the merits about any of your ridiculous claims. I love this place. Bawk!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2015 @ 5:37pm

The license has now been changed to CC-BY 2.0.
[ link to this | view in thread ]