Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Top[edit]

Is it also public domain outside the USA? I learned today that it's not necesarily the case for PD-USGov... Gerrit 20:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See point 14 of the linked page: "Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted." - Andre Engels 20:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is the use of the NASA insignia like this allowed? (Apparently somthing in 18 USC 701) In the english wikipedia the logo was removed [1]. BrokenSegue 22:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NASA Photo Guidelines quite specifically disallow use of the NASA logo, logotype and seal. Is the logo on this template one of those? Here's how the guidelines start (relevant sentences bolded):

OTHER MEDIA RESOURCES

Reproduction Guidelines for Use of NASA Images and Emblems

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.

-Wikibob 23:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Heh, I just noted that the shuttle image we currently use in the template actually has the forbidden NASA logo on its right wing. ;-) —Bromskloss 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because NASA says it has a copyright doesn't mean it does. It's very common for a US Federal government agency to claim copyright over content it has no legitimate copyright claim for. Where US Federal government agency policy conflicts with US law, US law has precedent. Therefore, in this case, the restrictions under law rule, because there is specific law about logos in particular. 14 CFR 1221 --Elvey (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, permission should be obtained, at least in some circumstances, but it is not true that permission MUST be obtained. The situation WRT identifiable persons is just as the standard {{personality}} tag indicates.

--Elvey (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect wording[edit]

I think the wording of this template is wrong.

...because it contains materials that originally came from NASA

That suggests it is not possible to use a NASA image, modify it, or incorporate it in a larger work and then release it under your own more restrictive license. Of course, most of the images using this tag are actually works for and from NASA so would still be PD-USGov. -- Solipsist 23:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It means that it is in the public domain. It can be used in derivative works. There are plenty of places where you can find the legal issues involved in using public domain material inside of another work or creating copyrighted work derived from public domain material. Basically those parts of the copyright work that came from the public domain work can be extracted from the context of the work under copyright and once free of all copyright material may be used as public domain material. --Gbleem 00:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Logos are public domain.[edit]

The NASA logos, meatball, worm and seal, are under public domain because they were created by NASA. NASA policy only applies to the sphere of NASA control, e.g. NASA employees and contractors, unless there are other laws giving them additional power. Assuming that the logos are not protected by copyright then that leaves trademark and special legislation to protect them. I think we should find out exactly how they are protected put that in the template instead of saying they are under copyright. --Gbleem 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another note...[edit]

Perhaps we should have a note about images from other space agencies that can often be found on NASA websites, particularly from the Russian and I think sometimes European space agencies. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Buran photos. Thanks.--Pharos 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The current note needs a source. {{fact}}, in other words.--Elvey (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Since no source has been forthcoming, I feel the claim should be removed from the template.--Elvey (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

SOHO images require permission for commercial use?[edit]

I'm concerned about the line:

  • All materials created by the SOHO probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use. [2]

The cited page actually says nothing about commercial use, permission or otherwise. Should this line be changed? Wizzard2k 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It says The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization. The -strongly- implies that commercial use is restricted.--Pharos 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume it is in the public domain, like other NASA images. Is any admin reading this? WAYYY old stuff here that needs to be changed.--Agamemnus (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless proven otherwise we have to assume commercial use is restricted if license conditions are not 100% clear. Especially if the page indicates all uses other than the listed ones require permission. --Denniss (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


No, we don't. Just because NASA says it has a copyright doesn't mean it does, as I further explained above. --Elvey (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This logic applies to all three:

  1. The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain.
  2. Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI. [1]
  3. All materials created by the SOHO probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use. [2]
It seems you can't read or are not able to understand, if the work is a cooperation of NASA with other organisations the standard copyright regulation does not apply. It's the same if NASA host images from other institutions on their site. There is no copyright estriction on their Logos but their usage is restricted. --Denniss (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well that this is your opinion, and that it is NASA's expressed opinion. Do you understand the where US Federal government agency policy conflicts with US law, US law has precedent? I am not aware of cases where the copyright status of works that are the product of cooperation of US Federal government agency and a foreign government agency or the like was adjudicated. If you are, Please cite. Otherwise W:V, W:OR apply. In other words, it doesn't matter what NASA says, much like when part of the Florida government tries to place restrictions; see W:Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner This line has got to go. Any indication that the works "are copyrighted" needs to go, so the only sensible improvement to the line, IMO, is removal. The extant line "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain." covers the SOHO situation; adding explicit mention of the ESA to it would be fine. --Elvey (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You are still not understanding, the US part is free but if there's an ESA part in this work then it's not free due to conflicting license types, the ESA noncommercial overrules the USGov free license. And again, if NASA (or any other US agency) hosts images of other sources these do never fall under the USGov free license. --Denniss (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I understand perfectly well that this is your opinion, and that it is NASA's and SOHO's expressed opinion, and seems clear to me that Wizzard2k and I have already read the SOHO copyright notice found below. You didn't address my question: Do you understand the where US Federal government agency policy conflicts with US law, US law has precedent? I am not aware of cases where the copyright status of works that are the product of cooperation of US Federal government agency and a foreign government agency or the like was adjudicated. I asked you if you could cite any cases that support for this position, and you did not. I wrote that the extant line "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain." covers the SOHO situation; adding explicit mention of the ESA and/or SOHO to it would be fine. I would like to do so. I do not believe SOHO work is subject to copyright, but saying that it is 'not necessarily in the public domain' seems like a reasonable compromise. --Elvey (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dont force other user to accept your agenda, SOHO is a joint operation and both participants have different copyrights. While the NASA does not claim copyright or has restrictions the ESA has a noncommercial restriction. Thus the noncommercial applies to all images created by the SOHO project, using them without restriction violates the ESA part of the copyright thus those images will be copyright violations. --Denniss (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You have already expressed and for the third time: I understand perfectly well that this is your opinion. I also think it's incorrect, however. You posted the above and did this with the edit summary "there is no copyright claimed, they are noncommercial". You have not responded to my questions in my previous post. I don't understand several of your statements; they are not grammatically correct English and I can't figure out what you're trying to say sometimes; your accusation about an agenda makes no sense to me whatsoever. I've given fixing this another shot. Will you please take a look at "this? It may help you to understand where I'm coming from - why I don't assume what SOHO says it true. --Elvey (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that instead of responding to my questions, comments, or request above, Denniss has simply reverted me again. diff --Elvey (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"SOHO Copyright Notice Notice: The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization. It is requested, however, that any such use properly attributes the source of the images or data as: Courtesy of SOHO/[instrument] consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.".

Thus, the images are copyrighted, and the only "implied" license seems to be for "usage in public education efforts and non-commercial purposes". That is not a free license as per the wikimedia commons standards. TheDJ (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Response above. --Elvey (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have contacted the SOHO team about this btw. Rather a long while ago. The images are indeed copyrighted. I'll forward the mail to OTRS with a request to log this info for future use. TheDJ (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Their view would be interesting to have, but could not provide a final resolution, and I see no reason to put it in OTRS instead of the public record. If a copy of a ESA-NASA contract was made available, however, any section therein on data ownership/copyright would probably at least go a long way toward settling the matter. The US Congress spoke thus, in passing the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C §201):

There is also no need for a specific statutory provision concerning the rights and duties of the coowners of a work; court-made law on this point is left undisturbed. Under the bill, as under the present law, coowners of a copyright would be treated generally as tenants in common, with each coowner having an independent right to use or license the use of a work, subject to a duty of accounting to the other coowners for any profits."

-http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-notes.html
In reading the copyright clause of the constitution, it's impossible to do so and then square the expressed purpose of the clause with the idea of preventing publication of NASA-funded research data. If there's case law that indicates otherwise, I'll eat humble pie. I've fixed the link to Microdecisions, as it's extremely relevant - It's an established fact sometimes a government agency's policy on the copyright status of its own work is ruled to be invalid. --Elvey (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The template is still wrong on this. There's been no response here but Denniss has reverted with not so much as an edit summary and blocked further editing. I added a reference to the PD-USGov template and at least that's still referenced. --Elvey (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the template wording is still correct. In this joint operation the most restrictive license counts here. It's the same if you mix a PD and a cc-by-nc image, you can't release this as PD. --Denniss (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Which you can't back up with any reference to case law. It's possible a court could rule it's like when you mix PD and CC-by-NC, but it's just conjecture on your part, and there's no precedent as of yet. The template is still wrong on this. What part of "If there's case law that indicates otherwise, I'll eat humble pie" do you not understand? You are being ***** ******* *************** ********* about this. (Just to be extra- clear, yes, I agree with the isolated statement that "if you mix a PD and a cc-by-nc image, you can't release this as PD." --Elvey (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If the SOHO stuff was copyrighted, surely the short notice would be "Copyright SOHO (ESA & NASA)" and mandatory, not optional and just "SOHO (ESA & NASA)".--Elvey (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted? Remove.[edit]

Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI? This is also not supported by the citation. The source does NOT claim that any works of the Hubble Space Telescope not from the STScI are copyrighted. Again, the only sensible improvement to the line, IMO, is removal. The template could say, e.g. "NASA does not warrant that all media on the NASA.gov or hubblesite.org website are public domain". And I wouldn't be highly opposed to that. But really, that's a rather content-free statement; there are few if any websites that warrant that they contain only public domain content. Even commons does not and is not intended to contain only free content. The commons logo, for example, is not free. --Elvey (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you can just change it yourself to something you prefer by changing Template:PD-USGov-NASA/en, as this text is not on this template page, but on the /en subpage, which isn't protected. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This was regarding artistic impressions not created by STScl, that are based on Hubble data. These impressions are not by definition PD. TheDJ (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced HTML tags[edit]

{{Editprotected}} The first bullet point in the second box ("Use of NASA logos ...") is missing a </small> tag. This causes the next bullet point to be really small. Someone who has edit rights on this template should fix this.--Cbane 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Siebrand 23:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

JPL[edit]

I'd assume that resources from JPL other than images and video may be protected under copyright, such as documents, as JPL is managed by Caltech. Materials from JPL would then either be from NASA with PD status, or from Caltech and copyrighted, or from elsewhere. See http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/copyrights.cfm#copyright for details, and compare with http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm . Frankly, this may not be much of an issue here, as commons is made up primarily of images and video, but JPL materials in wikisource may need some looking over. --Geopgeop 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a part of NASA such as the JPL says it has a copyright doesn't mean it does, as I further explained above. I feel like a broken record.--Elvey (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Some questions about PD vs. restrictions[edit]

Please see some of the issues that I have raised at Commons:Village_pump#Astronaut_photo.27s_and_mission_emblems if you are interested in this particular Template message. TheDJ 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Ok, after some discussion on the VP link above, I think we can decide that the first line of the Warnings is definitely incorrect. The following new warnings are what I propose for a fixed template. TheDJ 15:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning sign
Warnings:
  • Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems are restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221.
  • Photos with the faces of employees of NASA, including astronauts, may not be used for commercial purposes unless approved by NASA.
  • The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not in the public domain.
  • Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI. [3]
  • All materials created by the SOHO probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use. [4]
  • Images featured on the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) web site may be copyrighted. [5]
✓ Done I didn't add the second point, because that applies to everyone's face, not just NASA employees. (The link didn't work anyway.) You can use the {{personality rights}} template too. Rocket000 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


AGAIN, Just because a part of NASA such as the Hubble and/or SOHO etc. program says it has a copyright doesn't mean it does, as I further explained above.--Elvey (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm glad that "Photos with the faces of employees of NASA, including astronauts, may not be used for commercial purposes unless approved by NASA." is not in the template. The law bars NASA from having the right to place such restrictions. Wikibob is correct when he says, above, "permission should be obtained"; what would be false is a claim that "permission must be obtained". --Elvey (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Language[edit]

{{editprotected}} Created translation ro language, need adding to the language bar, thanks in advance.

Note: I kind of winged this one, it has a little more complicated terms in it, so an expert's eye over it would be appreciated. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No warning if STScI is specified ?[edit]

I was wondering if we couldn't hide the warning when the parameter STScI (to be created) is specified. The question is : are all STScI credited images free of copyright (can they be both created by the SOHO and STScI credited ?). The RedBurn (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Created by NASA?[edit]

I think this template is being misused in places. The template say the images are "...in the public domain because it was created by NASA", however, it is being used on images such as File:Goddard_and_Rocket.jpg, which certainly wasn't created by NASA, because NASA didn't exist in 1926 when the photo was taken. (There are other similar images such as File:Dr._Robert_H._Goddard_-_GPN-2002-000131.jpg - I haven't bothered to do an extensive survey.) Said images may indeed be public domain, but not because they were created by NASA. -- 128.104.112.87 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek translation of the template[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could someone add the greek tranlsation? -=> Template:PD-USGov-NASA/el. Thanx! --Egmontaz talk 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done - Huib talk 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SOHO warning[edit]

I restored the SOHO warning because the new text wasn't a warning anymore. Multichill (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything that I discussed about copyright with the SOHO director is logged under OTRS ticked: 2010012510051743. It's not very helpful, but at least it is something. TheDJ (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted"[edit]

The cited source only says about JPL web pages. Materials from other NASA web pages can be copyrighted (for example NASA archives contain many Sovies-copyrighted materials.--79.111.153.101 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error[edit]

The template says Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems are restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221. Or, in short: Use [...] are restricted [...]. Since the subject, use, is singular, the predicate, are, should be replaced by is. ~~WhiteTimberwolf (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please protect[edit]

I accidentally translated this template to Malayalam and then reverted. (A protection can avoid such problem) --Praveenp (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor formatting[edit]

For some reason the [2] link is italicized. Also, the [1] link appears directly after the preceding sentence, whereas [2] and [3] have a space in front of them. Klubbit (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Spanish translation[edit]

The Spanish translation at [6] says, "Todo el material creado por la sonda espacial SOHO está protegido por copyright y requiere permiso para ser utilizado con fines comerciales no-educacionales." Freely translated (i.e, I'm an ES-1½), "All material created by the SOHO space [sonda??] is protected by copyright and requires permission for commercial, non-educational use." This is an old version of the text; the English template has been updated and the Spanish one should be too. Probably someone should review the other languages for currency as well. Matchups (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding ability to surpress warnings[edit]

For many NASA images, none of the warnings in this template are applicable. It would be nice if you could add a parameter to the template to suppress the warnings for those images (on a case-by-case basis). That way our licensing for those images doesn't look so scary and doesn't discourage reuse (which is counter to our goals). Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stcl copyright[edit]

{{editprotected}}Is it possible to add link also to Stcl copyright info? Bulwersator (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ths link is already in the template. Multichill (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Research from the Legal and Community Advocacy team[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Legal and Community Advocacy team posted information on the copyright status of images from NASA. Please note, this is generalized research, not specific legal advice. Cheers, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please change Template:PD-USGov-NASA to read as follows:

{{autotranslate|1={{{nowarn|}}}|base=PD-USGov-NASA}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|{{{category|[[Category:PD NASA|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>

{{In category|PD NASA}}

{{documentation}}

[[Category:PD-USGov license tags|NASA]]

[[ar:قالب:ناسا]]
[[bg:Шаблон:PD-USGov-NASA]]
[[en:Template:PD-USGov-NASA]]
[[fr:Modèle:Domaine public NASA]]
[[ru:Шаблон:PD-USGov-NASA]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:PD-USGov-NASA]]
</noinclude>

Please also edit Template:PD-USGov-NASA/en to be as follows:

{{PD-USGov-NASA/layout
|text = ''This file is in the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]''' because it was solely created by [[w:NASA|NASA]]. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright '''unless noted'''". (See [[Template:PD-USGov]], [http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines NASA copyright policy page] or [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/ JPL Image Use Policy].)
|warnings header = Warnings
|warnings = <s></s>
* Use of [[w:NASA logo|NASA logos]], insignia and emblems are restricted per US law [http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/14cfr1221_07.html 14 CFR 1221].
* The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the [[w:Soviet space program|Soviet]]/[[w:Russian Federal Space Agency|Russian space agency]], and other non-American space agencies. These are ''not necessarily'' in the public domain.
* Materials based on [[w:Hubble Space Telescope|Hubble Space Telescope]] data may be copyrighted if they are not explicitly produced by the [[w:Space Telescope Science Institute|STScI]].[http://hubblesite.org/copyright/] See also {{tl|PD-Hubble}} and {{tl|Cc-Hubble}}.
* The [[w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory|SOHO (ESA & NASA)]] joint project implies that all materials created by its probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use.'' [http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html]
* Images featured on the ''[[w:Astronomy Picture of the Day|Astronomy Picture of the Day]]'' (APOD) web site may be copyrighted. [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/about_apod.html#srapply]
|nowarn={{{1|}}}
|lang = en
}}<noinclude>{{translated tag|license}}</noinclude>

I am adding a "no warnings" under parameter 1 in order to avoid the ugly warning template if a Commons user sees it and verifies it is unnecessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the template is edited preferably the cat, the iws and the "in category" should be transferred to the documentation. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Rd232 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic wording[edit]

This file is in the public domain because it was solely created by NASA.

The template displays the above wording, but should we qualify this for those images on NASA pages that are "not solely created by NASA"? For example, File:Wesley composite strip.jpg is from an image by Anthony Wesley. I had just added what I felt was the required attribution when I noticed the contradictory wording. Tangential discussions here and here and at several other locations. I am posting a note at Commons talk:Licensing#PD-USGov-NASA for non-NASA images linking here. -84user (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There are times where NASA will use images not by them, and they will be marked as so. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html explains it. If the image wasn't made by NASA, we can ask to see if the material was released into the public domain or see what the status is. However, the wording is correct because anything NASA creates solely, not just uses, is public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have decided to nominate the image for deletion because I cannot see any evidence of a free license by the author. I now see this template's wording is correct for images it applies to, only that it is sometimes applied to images not solely created by NASA. -84user (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The other major issue is when joint images are uploaded; while generally things from NASA are ok, but if they also come from the JPL or anything like that, they tend to be copyrighted. It is a correct decision that you sent it to a DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"JPL Image Use Policy" link is broken / clarify PD status as applying specifically in the US?[edit]

For the "JPL Image Use Policy" link, it appears that the applicable page is now at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/ on the JPL site. Also, should the template wording be changed to say "in the public domain in the United States" instead of "in the public domain"? (From what one understands, NASA works are out of copyright in the US due to NASA being a part of the US government, but it may be possible for US government works to be subject to copyright outside the US.) - Gazebo (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


3O[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/05#Copyright_law_minutiae - found my edits (which Denniss reverted) to be reasonable.--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create another PD licensing template for NASA and JAXA[edit]

Generally Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reserves its rights on the copyright and only allows media and educational use. However, With a very specific condition, JAXA has a policy that all images on JAXA web site that are related to "an astronaut's on-orbit activities and training at NASA, launches of the Space Shuttle and others related to the Space Shuttle or International Space Station are owned by NASA."

In this instance I would like to propose to create another template (Template:PD-USGov-NASA-JAXA) specifically for this. The text on that template should be something like:

This file is in the public domain because it is a NASA imagery. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) copyright policy states that, "Amongst images used on JAXA's web site, ones related to an astronaut's on-orbit activities and training at NASA, launches of the Space Shuttle and others related to the Space Shuttle or International Space Station are owned by NASA." NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template:PD-USGov-NASA, JAXA copyright policy, NASA copyright policy page.)

This will provide a direct and clear explanation of the licensing in those specific situations. Please let me know your thoughts. Z22 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If the JAXA holds some NASA images and clearly marks them as such you can use the standard NASA template. The website just states they use some images from NASA, not all of the images related to Astronaut training etc may be of NASA origin though. --Denniss (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is in many cases the marks are unclear and possibly having to rely on the general copyright policy as stated here. I think this is more than just talking about JAXA holding NASA images on the sites. Otherwise, they don't not need to be in this specific list of activities. They already have a note like, "When the material is provided by NASA, please follow NASA guidelines." So, that is not the point. I think this specific note is a reflection of an agreement with NASA for images from a very specific list of activities that they consider NASA to be the owner of those images regardless of participation of JAXA astronauts in such activities. Z22 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
If the markings are unclear how should you be able to know it's an image of NASA origin? --Denniss (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Knowing it is NASA origin by the JAXA copyright policy and use the proposed template for licensing tag. It is same way how people know images on NASA websites are of NASA origin through NASA copyright policy and use Template:PD-USGov-NASA as most NASA images have no marking. Z22 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Clarify PD status as applying in the US and add warning about copyrighted content at NSSDC site[edit]

Please consider changing

''This file is in the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]''' because it was solely created by [[w:NASA|NASA]].

to

''This file is in the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]''' in the United States because it was solely created by [[w:NASA|NASA]].


Also, would it please be possible to add the following note to the warnings, after * Images featured on the ''[[w:Astronomy Picture of the Day|Astronomy Picture of the Day]]'' (APOD) web site may be copyrighted. [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/about_apod.html#srapply]:


* The [[w:National_Space_Science_Data_Center|National Space Science Data Center]] (NSSDC) site has been known to host [[Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/08#Copyright_status_of_File:Venera_13_-_ven13right.png|copyrighted content]] even though its [http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-faq.html#use photo gallery FAQ] states that all of the images in the photo gallery are in the public domain.

Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)