question on lack of attribution

[silylene]

I was wondering...

If a member posts multiple comments in a thread where he claims a method of making fine astronomical photos, and he refers back to his website to see his said photos...but upon detailed analysis it appears the photos seem to have originally be taken from others' copyrighted images (without attribution)...and the same member claimed that he had obtained them himself with his own telescope.....

Would using others' copyrighted information without attribution and then linking them into our forum violate the SDC's User's Guidelines?

Specifically:

Copyright and Other Rights
Do not transmit content (including any information, editorial content, graphics, photos, designs, text, programs, files, software or other materials) unless you own it or already have the permission of the content’s owner to post it or transmit it. Copying and downloading are easy, but just because something was easy to copy does not mean you own it. Unauthorized use of or copying copyrighted materials or, trademarks, infringement of patent rights, or violation of anyone’s rights of privacy and publicity or other proprietary rights, or your fiduciary obligations, can subject you to civil or even criminal liability.

 

[doublehelix]

Possibly, but a specific example would be helpful. Feel free to PM me more details on this, silylene.

-dh

 

[orionrider]

Even non-copyrighted material stays the intellectual property of the author. Nasa's copyright policy is very clear about that, see: http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php
Same for GPL or public domain licenses.

Copyright laws were effectively made international through the Berne Convention. So an author in, say the USA, could file a lawsuit against an offender in, for instance, Brazil.

The convention [...] requires its member states to provide protection for every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain. The Berne Convention has a number of core features, including the principle of national treatment, which holds that each member state to the Convention would give citizens of other member states the same rights of copyright that it gave to its own citizens (Article 3-5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright# ... yright_law

Claiming ownership of someone else's work is theft, doubly so if it is done for commercial purposes, like publishing on a 'dot com' website.
The technicians and scientists behind the original space images deserve to be properly credited for their amazing work.

 

[adrenalynn]

Anything committed to print is copyrighted by default. It's not like a trademark or servicemark that has to be filed. If you right it, you hold the copyright until you assign it.

 

[doublehelix]

First, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I did read this on the NASA page. Hope it's helpful:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mul ... right.html

NASA and Copyright Regulations
01.04.06

NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored.

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person.

-dh

 

[adrenalynn]

So they assign copyright to the public domain. That's within the right of a copyright holder to do, of course. And it addresses the OP perfectly - nice find!

 

[doublehelix]

So they assign copyright to the public domain. That's within the right of a copyright holder to do, of course. And it addresses the OP perfectly - nice find!

That's why they pay me the big bucks. :? :ugeek: :mrgreen:

-dh

 

[3488]

Certainly I think NASA should be credited. When I use images thety are ALWAYS in the context of the topic discussed & I quote MER B Opportunity Sol 2,370 image of or Voyager 2 image of, etc.

If I do enlargements, etc, I always say so I never ever claim the original to be my own neither do I claim ownership of any work I do.

I know who we are reffering to here & yes I agree 100% that this is followed up.

Andrew.

 

[drwayne]

One should keep in mind that there are several "law firms" that have sprung up in the last year or so that have a very simple business model. Get publishing clients, and then go scanning the web for their content on other sites. If
they find it, sue. (No takedown notice, no nothing, go right to sue). They even demand that the "offending"
website turn over their site to add to the intimidation.

Now, will this last? I hope not, one of the prominent members of this "sue first" club was sued a couple of days ago.
But until then, I would be very careful what you post, not only on your own site, but also in places like here. They
have been suing even when attribution and links are included.

 

[3488]

One should keep in mind that there are several "law firms" that have sprung up in the last year or so that have a very simple business model. Get publishing clients, and then go scanning the web for their content on other sites. If
they find it, sue. (No takedown notice, no nothing, go right to sue). They even dem........

Thanks DrWayne,

I did not know, is this only in the US???

Anyway, as you know I post regular updates on here concerning various NASA planetary missions, all are public domain images.

Could this be a problem??

Andrew.

 

[doublehelix]

Certainly I think NASA should be credited. When I use images thety are ALWAYS in the context of the topic discussed & I quote MER B Opportunity Sol 2,370 image of or Voyager 2 image of, etc.

Same here, when I blog - I do my best to attribute something to the creator. As an aside, Creative Commons is really great, kind of in between copyright and free. It is nice and flexible and everyone I've communicated with in using their photos via a CC license has been really nice and decent.

If this person is using NASA images and changing them or anything like that, it would be nice if he would let his readers know the source. If he doesn't it comes off as unscrupulous.

-dh

 

[drwayne]

One should keep in mind that there are several "law firms" that have sprung up in the last year or so that have a very simple business model. Get publishing clients, and then go scanning the web for their content on other sites. If
they find it, sue. (No takedown notice, no nothing, go right to sue). They even dem........

Thanks DrWayne,

I did not know, is this only in the US???

Anyway, as you know I post regular updates on here concerning various NASA planetary missions, all are public domain images.

Could this be a problem??

Andrew.

I tend to doubt it, these firms are selling themselves to commercial entities, like Newspapers, and a new
source of revenue. It's basically "legal" extortion, run by law firms. It can be comedic, as I have seen cases
where they have sued companies that are in fact part of/related to the company they represent.

 

[adrenalynn]

They're on pretty shaky ground. The DMCA bites both ways, and even before the DMCA, the courts always pretty much insisted that there be some effort at a Cease and Desist. Not a lawyer, of course, just on both sides of the C&D at various times. Courts really don't like frivolity and the DMCA provides them the necessary ground to make a stand upon.

That said: Not attributing is tacky and dishonest/dishonorable regardless of any legal system. If people were just a teensy bit smarter, we wouldn't need this nanny-state, IMHO.