NASA? Or Masterfile?

[lucia]

Can anyone tell me if this image is NASA? Or Masterfile?  Here's the scoop:

With picscout image search activated, I visited a blog that I know nearly always hotlinks (good way to avoid copyright snafus!)  While there I found this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/GPM.jpg

Note the image suggests it is from NASA.  The picscout tool suggested this image (or a very similar one) is managed by four groups. One is Masterfile:

http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#id=&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=680-02755091n&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=alice
It is evidently a picture of hurricane isabel
http://www.masterfile.com/search/enlarged_pricing.html?img=680-02755091

You can also get it from
http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=1574r-015334
http://www.mediabakery.com/searchresults.asp?image=PUR0024418 (Who is offering licenses for an amount I would dub "a shitwad of money".)
(The other agency had a coding error when I tried to load.)

Now, it seems to me rather likely that an image taken from space could-- quite likely-- be taken by NASA.  Does anyone know how to figure out if this image really belongs to the US taxpayer?   And if so, is there some reason anyone should pay Masterfile, mediabaker or anyone else anything to use these?

[SoylentGreen]

They could be NOAA or military, also.
This kind of reminds me of how Getty licenses historic photos that have fallen into public domain after the copyright has expired after many decades.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I posted something about this scenario a while back. It does seem that most images from space would be originally from NASA. But there are a few other factors to keep in mind:
• Other countries are also "up there" and may have different arrangements as to who can sell their images.
• This is the age of CGI (computer generated images). That could possibly not even be a photo, but a rendering.
• There is evidence that at least one of the stock agencies has taken images in the public domain and sold them.

Here is the hurricane on NASA's site: http://www.nasa.gov/connect/chat/hurricane_chat.html

The original image you showed includes the international space station. My guess is that in that case someone used a public domain hurricane pic and added the cgi space station. But all the plain hurricane links you posted? I don't know how they are doing that.

I have an idea. Why not send Masterfile a demand letter? We, the taxpayers, own that image. They are not only presenting it as their own, but they are seeking to profit from it. As we all know the penalty for this sort of infringement is something like $150,000 and could lead to decades in jail. But since we would rather end this amicably, we would be willing to accept $7500 as long as they remove the image immediately.

[lucia]

This kind of reminds me of how Getty licenses historic photos that have fallen into public domain after the copyright has expired after many decades.

Is licensing under those circumstances legit?  I get that someone might store an original and charge people to download copies.  People in crafts do that all the time for old turn of the last century knitting and crochet patterns. A customer who finds their store can pay $2 or hunt around until they find the thing somewhere else. Many will pay for the convenience.  But it would seem odd if the person providing the downloads claimed to issue licenses.  The whole idea of the license seems to presuppose that the person licensing the item owns whatever is licensed!

I'm not a legal eagle, so I'm finding this puzzling.

[Peeved]

Seems to me I've read here on the forums at one point about this. Not sure if it was McFilms or Soylent?

It was something to the effect that the trolls can legally take an image that is "Public Domain" and then alter it in some way or take a photograph of it and then claim copyright on THEIR version which may be just slightly different! I think it was discussed that this is totally "legal" to do.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this.

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, this was touched on before.  I think that it was McFilms, and a few examples were provided.
I think that Getty runs a couple of photoshop filters on the images, to enhance them.
I figure that it's also done to give them cause to state "copyright Getty".

S.G.

[lucia]

I think this is what happens: If someone uses the image search tool and comes across the image of the hurricane, the tool will suggest 4 commercial sites where you can pay for a license. It will not suggest NASA where the original is located.  Obviously, anyone who is accustomed to getting images should realize that an image taken form outside the earth's atmosphere may well have originated from a government entity and search further.

But still... the tool will undoubtably result in naive people paying for images that ought to be free.

[Moe Hacken]

Am I missing something here? Four different sites are selling licenses for the same image? Can all four send an extortion letter for an infringement or is there supposed to be only one entity that can enforce the copyright?

Another example is Google maps. Maybe they own a satellite, or maybe they pay the many private satellite companies for the data, or all of the above, but they do put detailed copyright slugs on the bottom of each and every satellite map image you look up on their "Maps" page which include several copyrights and credits. For example:

http://goo.gl/maps/EgQt

That happens to be HAN's address in Honolulu, in case anyone's in the neighborhood and wants to say hi to Glen Carnen for us. Haven't heard from him for a while.