Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Contents

[edit] Incorrect wording

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)

[edit] Logos are public domain.

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)

[edit] Perhaps another note...

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.
Circle-question-red.svg The factual accuracy of this description is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

, 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)

[edit] SOHO images require permission for commercial use?

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 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)

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

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)

[edit] Unbalanced HTML tags

{{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)

[edit] JPL

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)

[edit] Some questions about PD vs. restrictions

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)

[edit] Language

{{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)

[edit] No warning if STScI is specified ?

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)

[edit] Created by NASA?

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)

[edit] Greek translation of the template

{{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)

[edit] SOHO warning

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

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-USGov-NASA"