I am shocked that he made such an obvious error Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true. We are saying the one from the space station is public domain. You appear to be confusing the two separate images. The can cede all print rights to the AP, and give them copyright control over the still images. No, but the point is that Noe Castillo, or (his/her) reps can resell the rights to the AP. How hard is that to understand? Collapse replies (10) Reply View in chronology Posting on YouTube doesn’t make something public domain. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.ģ – video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as “reps” for the original image copyright holder. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.Ģ – 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.
Are nasa images copyright free license#
Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. Mike, I think you have to remember a few things here:ġ – in posting on Youtube, you haven’t made anything public domain. 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.įiled Under: copyright, copyright notices, public domain That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the images tagged © YouTube. 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.
But, of course, that doesn’t mean YouTube gets the copyright. Here’s one:Īnd yet… the article even admits (directly) that these images came from Videographer Noe Castillo, who uploaded the clips to YouTube. That’s because above the image stamped with © AP are two images stamped with © YouTube. 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 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: However, I’m beginning to wonder if some UK papers just stamp a totally bogus copyright notice on batches of images. 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. Wed, Jul 27th 2011 04:06am - Mike Masnick
0 kommentar(er)
