Live Dust Devil? |
Live Dust Devil? |
Mar 10 2005, 11:17 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Rover Driver Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 2-May 04 From: Litchfield Park, Arizona (Phoenix area) Member No.: 71 |
Man, this looks an awful lot like a dust devil in the distance. What do you think?
|
|
|
Mar 17 2005, 05:16 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14433 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
QUOTE (Of counsel @ Mar 17 2005, 04:26 PM) The more complicated question is whether your "derivative works" from those rover images are entitled to protection. I'm not going to try to define where one draws the line between a derivative work (which is entitled to no copyright protection) and a protectible work that includes enough "creative expression" to differentiate it from the orginal JPL images. I think the difference between http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/navigops/...ATA800P2267L2C1 and http://mer.rlproject.com/s410_husband_t.jpg is significant. It's the result of hours of work- and in the case of a full panorama, days of work. Just because JPL have (or in the case of the Larry's Lookout pan, will) taken the same data to generate a different looking mosaic imho doesnt weaken the fact that when I generate something as a result of hard work from public data, that something is mine. The same is true of the images within 'Full Moon' for instance. Yes - source imagery is freely available photographs - but the stitching work he did to generate the large panoramas render the results to be his own work. That they are published in a book doesnt render them any more or less his own work than a mosaic I publish online. You can bet your ass that if someone lifted imagery from Full Moon and passed it off without credit, Random House / Johnathan Cape would be after them, and rightly so. If imagery I, or anyone else have made is worth 'lifting' without credit, then imho it infers that the creativity and effort involved in making it is of a scale that defines it as being eligable for copyright. If it wasnt, then the person 'lifting' it would simply make it themselves instead of grabbing it. This is where I wrongly assumed spacedaily had gone wrong, in actual fact, Stephen had generated the RGB imagery himself - and it was basically the same as what had appeared here - indistiguishable - so even if he HAD lifted it, it wouldnt really be an issue. HOWEVER A large, complex mosaic, panorama, animation etc - that is a different story. There is creativity, time, experience and in the case of some panorama software - money involved in making that picture - as a result it is someones property. An even greater issue than this, however, the moral issue. You just dont steal someones hard work - it's as simple as that. Ask them, give them credit, but dont take without asking. That is something that has happened with an image of mine on a website I found whilst randonly googling. Not even downloaded and added to their own webspace - actually straight direct linked from my own webspace. I simply re-uploaded the image with the words "IMAGE THIEF" on top of it Doug |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th June 2024 - 12:13 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |