[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] contents under education/information licenses

Tue Nov 21 15:03:07 UTC 2006

On 11/21/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
[snip]
> No.
> I'm discussing images of satellites, space launchers, astronauts, inside
> of spacecraft, and other similar content that carries the image of the
> launching institution.

Then why do you cite identifying marks, and our handling of our own
logos as justification for your arguments?

You seemed to be arguing that there was a material difference between
US protection for the purpose of mischaracterization and the
protection provided in Europe. But I don't see how that would at all
apply to pictures of spacecraft. (...and in fact I feel fairly
confident that the protection provided in the EU in most cases is not
only more comprehensive than the US protection, but is more
comprehensive to the point of obnoxiousness in some instances, but I
don't think we even need to get into that argument)

> Research images (e.g. images of phenomena) are another issue. However,
> ESA does not own the copyright to such images ; because of ESA's nature
> as a consortium, images from such or such instrument may be copyrighted
> by whichever institute provided the instrument.
> You will learn more about it by reading m:ESA_images

Much (a majority? I think so, but I don't have a cite... )of NASA's
work is executed by a consortium of contractors called "USA" you can
read more about it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Space_Alliance .

NASA contracts are negotiated so that the work of these contractors
can be released as public domain. Perhaps the ESA could learn a thing
or two from us greedy Americans who insist that our public money be
spent to create public resources. ;)

> > "You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what
> > use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so
> > long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
> I don't see what you mean. Such material could be used for any purposes
> of information or education, including informing other people, as
> opposed to, say, doing advertisements for a supermarket chain or a
> politician.

You're producing a strawman, ... I did too.. The problem with strawman
arguments is that they aren't all that informative.

"For educational use" has a lot of problems. It's not possible to
define "educational use" in a way which achieves your desired outcome
without also impeding a lot of other uses which you would probably
agree should not be denied.

> There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading
> m:ESA_images .

I have read it, and the biggest misunderstanding I see here is a
mistaken idea the the situation in the US is different from the rest
of the world.

In any case, the proposal the ESA opt-in for free images will increase
the pool of free images available, and I strongly believe a sudden
loss of commitment to free content on our part will remove the
incentive.