[X] My Assistant

[mars loon]

I suspect that Aviation Week has certain rights to the image now, and sold it...

...it's *still* nice to be responsible for a full-page of New Scientist, though!

Bob Shaw

Bob, All

We are virtually certain that Aviation Week did not sell the image.

Based on your description, it appears that New Scientist magazine reprinted, without permission or proper credit to the 4 authors, the image we submitted to APOD and which appeared on APOD on 28 Nov 2005.

We are FLATTERED and HAPPY that they reprinted the image, but do request proper credit. That is simply the standard copyright practive and courtesy, to accord credit, especially for a science magazine.

Can you or someone, please possibly scan or post the article and email to the authors so that way we may see exactly how it has appeared.

currently I only have access to this abstract:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18825315.100

thank you

ken

[djellison]

What I just can not believe is that New SCIENTIST... (I'll say that again..SCIENTIST) confused the phrase et al (used a dozen times on just about any science paper ever written) and made it into Marco's second sirname Etal.

That's bad enough - but to then put (sic) at the end, which basically says 'Yes, we know it looks odd that the guys name ends in Etal, but it's right, we checked, honestly' - is just SHOCKINGLY bad practice by whoever put it in there. I'm more upset by their utter stupidity then their failure to ask us & AW first. The answer would, of course, have been yes, but to screw it up so badly is shocking for what I thought was a good publication.

Doug

[lyford]

Well next issue they are going to do an article on the great Irish inventor, Pat Pending.

[Bill Harris]

This sounds like very poor editorial practice for New Scientist.

It depends on your agreement with AW, but typically you license the use of an image under agreed-upon terms and retain ownership and all other rights to the image. In this case, you probably would grant one-time exclusive use with reprint privledges. An image is rarely sold outright, especially a unique image like this one.

Unless specifically granted, AW cannot "sell" use of your image. Not knowing any more details, I'd say that New Scientist used the image without authorization and may be liable for substantial useage fees. You may not want to be hard-headed about this, but you do need to press _any_ infringement issues assertively. If you don't, it sets a bad precedent for anyone who wants to mis-appropriate that image from you or any image from anyone else in the future.

As much as we'd all like to hear how this drama unfolds, you may want to consider what you say in public on this matter. And be careful what you post or publish from the NS website here, if you infringe on them, that could compromise your position. Posting the link to the abstract was OK.

I do photography as an amateur-professional sideline, and I get stuck with issues like this from time to time. "BT,DT".

--Bill

[chris]

What I just can not believe is that New SCIENTIST... (I'll say that again..SCIENTIST) confused the phrase et al (used a dozen times on just about any science paper ever written) and made it into Marco's second sirname Etal.

That's bad enough - but to then put (sic) at the end, which basically says 'Yes, we know it looks odd that the guys name ends in Etal, but it's right, we checked, honestly' - is just SHOCKINGLY bad practice by whoever put it in there.  I'm more upset by their utter stupidity then their failure to ask us & AW first. The answer would, of course, have been yes, but to screw it up so badly is shocking for what I thought was a good publication.

Doug

Doug,

I've got a copy in front of me. Just to clarify, the "(sic)" must have been added by Bob to indicate that part of the credit reads "ETAL" and that it wasn't an typo on his part. The text as printed reads, exactly:

MARCO DI LORENZO ETAL COURTESY AVIATIONWEEK/JPL/NASA

The lack of a space between AVIATION and WEEK suggests to me that more than one space has been lost at some point. Somebody has been a bit slapdash, and the magazine needs its wrist slapped.

Chris

[Of counsel]

Bill is correct. The dispute that our fine colleagues here at UMSF (the "authors" of the "work") have with New Scientist's use of their work depends upon their agreement/contract with Aviation Week. It appears to me that the authors put so much work into the cover that they in fact own the copyright, but their contract may have assigned the "re-copy" rights to Aviation Week in some fashion. Depending on the terms of their contract, IMHO either Aviation Week or the authors may very well may have some legal dispute with New Scientist if NS did not have proper permission.

[CosmicRocker]

There are so many web sites that simply cut and paste content or links from other web sites. It's often done without attribution these days, and it reminds me that the WWW is still like the Wild Wild West of the United States, not so long ago. It's good to note that there still are some Marshals around.

[Bob Shaw]

What I just can not believe is that New SCIENTIST... (I'll say that again..SCIENTIST) confused the phrase et al (used a dozen times on just about any science paper ever written) and made it into Marco's second sirname Etal.

That's bad enough - but to then put (sic) at the end, which basically says 'Yes, we know it looks odd that the guys name ends in Etal, but it's right, we checked, honestly' - is just SHOCKINGLY bad practice by whoever put it in there.  I'm more upset by their utter stupidity then their failure to ask us & AW first. The answer would, of course, have been yes, but to screw it up so badly is shocking for what I thought was a good publication.

Doug

Doug (et al):

I am wholly, entirely, completely, indivisibly, totally and utterly responsible for the (sic). It was put in to make the point that NS had, indeed, assumed that ETAL was a bit of a surname! And yes, it was obviously poor proof-reading that let it slip into the magazine, but there's been much worse in the past, I'm sure. FWIW, the page in question was much more in the territory of the graphics designers than the guys who write the editorial text, and it's a fact of life that the folk who do graphics are at heart only able to see text as black marks on paper - and the folk who write copy don't see graphics! So, on a page with a big picture and some text the proportion of schoolboy howlers dramatically rises. Still, at least the image wasn't reprinted by the Grauniad, which might have been *really* creative!

I suspect that your deal with AW&ST included a reprint element, and that NS picked the image up as stock footage. Or, indeed, assumed that they were dealing with an attributable but non-copyright asserted image (as in NASA images - for example, the paintings which Don Davis did for Galileo etc).

I'll scan the page in question and post it here shortly - if anybody wants a B I G version then e-mail me and I'll send you a high-res file.

It's quite a coup getting published by NS, and I'm sure that they'll publish an errata if you ask - they regularly run a 'For the Record' spot on the Letters Page where they correct errors.

NS (which is now shut until next year) may be contacted via a forms-based web page at:
http://www.newscientist.com/contact.ns

Or try the Editor:
jeremy.webb@newscientist.com

Bob Shaw

[mars loon]

Doug (et al):

I am wholly, entirely, completely, indivisibly, totally and utterly responsible for the (sic). It was put in to make the point that NS had, indeed, assumed that ETAL was a bit of a surname! And yes, it was obviously poor proof-reading that let it slip into the magazine, but there's been much worse in the past, I'm sure. FWIW, the page in question was much more in the territory of the graphics designers than the guys who write the editorial text, and it's a fact of life that the folk who do graphics are at heart only able to see text as black marks on paper - and the folk who write copy don't see graphics! So, on a page with a big picture and some text the proportion of schoolboy howlers dramatically rises.  Still, at least the image wasn't reprinted by the Grauniad, which might have been *really* creative!

I suspect that your deal with AW&ST included a reprint element, and that NS picked the image up as stock footage. Or, indeed, assumed that they were dealing with an attributable but non-copyright asserted image (as in NASA images - for example, the paintings which Don Davis did for Galileo etc).

I'll scan the page in question and post it here shortly - if anybody wants a B I G version then e-mail me and I'll send you a high-res file.

It's quite a coup getting published by NS, and I'm sure that they'll publish an errata if you ask - they regularly run a 'For the Record' spot on the Letters Page where they correct errors.

NS (which is now shut until next year) may be contacted via a forms-based web page at:
http://www.newscientist.com/contact.ns

Or try the Editor:
jeremy.webb@newscientist.com

Bob Shaw

Hi Bob,

thank you for the additional info here and earlier

I have already emailed them at several addresses with no word back. thank you for the editors direct link.

will send you an email for the hi res file. thank you

ken

[Bob Shaw]

Here's a low-res scan of the NS page, plus a crop showing just the credits:

Bob Shaw

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[mars loon]

Here's a low-res scan of the NS page, plus a crop showing just the credits:

Bob Shaw

Hi Bob,

thanks for the very helpful info and scan and am optimistic that things will sort out well given some time.

In the meantime, I've just seen it in the 24 Dec "New Scientist" issue on the newsstand in a US Bookstore (Barnes and Nobles). It is an attractive looking layout and reproduction for those who are interested to see it before the next weekly issue appears.

ken

[mars loon]

The "SPIRITS SOAR" panorama has just been selected by The Planetary Society for "The Year in Pictures 2005".

Please see that link below as well as a few other recent appearences.

Here are a summary of links to published and/or online versions of the "SPIRITS SOAR" panorama for the story written by Craig Covault, Senior Editor for Aviation Week.

The image was originally printed by Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine for the 14 Nov 2005 issue magazine cover and included 2 additional images inside with the full cover package and 6 page story.

Link to AWST story and online pdf:
http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/cha...ews/11145p1.xml
http://www.aviationnow.com/media/pdf/spiri...18f_col_a2b.pdf

Also printed in the 12 December 2005 issue on p. 6 of Letters to the Editor

Link to NASAWATCH story:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1075

Link to online NASAWATCH/Spaceref pdf reprint:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/SPIRITAWST.l.jpg

Link to APOD image reprint:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051128.html

Link to "De Standaard", a leading Belgian newspaper, reprint on 1 Dec 2005. Full page color image/story on p 91
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=2613

Link to "New Scientist" reprint on 24 Dec 2005. Full page color image/story on p.14
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=32934

Link to "Siderial Times" newsletter issue of Dec 2005 for the Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton. All 3 color images reprinted. Click on site map, scroll down to Siderial Times online and click on Dec 2005 issue to download pdf file.
http://www.princetonastronomy.org/

Link to The Planetary Society website and "The Year in Pictures 2005" headline. click on link and then scroll down to September 28 and click on "Space Enthusiasts Create Art"
http://www.planetary.org/home/
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/1231_Th...tures_2005.html.

Another image from the Aviation Week project was posted online by my teammate Marco at this link:
http://www.uai.it/index.php?tipo=A&id=1098

Our Marsmate Nico, also published a 2 page wide pancam mosaic in the 12 Sep 2005 issue of Aviation Week on p. 60/61. The image displayed exquisite detail of the Thira and Gusev Crater rims from the summit of Husband hill. It was included in an article titled 'King of the Hill' and was written by forum member Michael A. Dornheim.

Please contact us if you would like to print the "SPIRITS SOAR" images in a magazine or elsewhere or post online with credit to the 4 authors and Aviation Week. And please inform us if you see it elsewhere. Thank you

ken

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

Is that Aviation Week magazine still available ?

[chris]

You will all be pleased to hear that in today's issue of New Scientist (11/Jan/06), on page 22, in the "For the record" section, appears the following:

We missed part of the credit for the Mars rover photo (24/31 December 2005, p14). It should have read "Marco Di Lorenzo, Bernhard Braun, Doug Ellison and Ken Kramer courtesy of Aviation Week/JPL/NASA".

Chris

Edit: Corrected typo

[Tesheiner]

Do Lorenzo?