Copyright on Webb Space Telescope Images: I shot a couple of dahlia blossoms, and went to put them on a plain black background, but then they reminded me of galaxies. So I went looking...

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I shot a couple of dahlia blossoms, and went to put them on a plain black background, but then they reminded me of galaxies. So I went looking on the internet for images of outer space, and stumbled upon one of the first images from the Webb Space Telescope. I like the way the blossoms look on that background, but I began to wonder if I might be violating some copyright if I posted the result here on the Hog, or on flickr.

I'd very much appreciate any assistance anyone could provide on this issue.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Does their website have a usage disclaimer?

User ID

cbtsam wrote:

I shot a couple of dahlia blossoms, and went to pu... (show quote)

If you pay taxes you are part owner.

No hey problemo. Even if you are not an owner, theyre public domain so go for it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

cbtsam wrote:

I shot a couple of dahlia blossoms, and went to pu... (show quote)

A quick trip to Google revealed that Hubble and James Webb photographs are generally in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. So.e images are apparently registered and protected by JPL and other participating organizations. So...you have to look.

Interestingly, though, images from the joint NASA/ESA SOHO Solar Observatory are copyrighted. So it's not quite as cut and dried as might be thought.

And...use of the NASA emblem and logo js prohibited.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Longshadow wrote:

Does their website have a usage disclaimer?

They seem to say Webb images are not copyrighted, but that others who take images with the scope can copyright them. There was no explicit copyright claim on the image I used.

BTW, I forgot to mention that I cut and pasted relatively large but clearly incomplete pieces of the image I found to construct my background.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

User ID wrote:

If you pay taxes you are part owner.

No hey problemo. Even if you are not an owner, theyre public domain so go for it.

Thanks for your assistance.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

larryepage wrote:

A quick trip to Google revealed that Hubble and James Webb photographs are generally in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. So.e images are apparently registered and protected by JPL and other participating organizations. So...you have to look.

Interestingly, though, images from the joint NASA/ESA SOHO Solar Observatory are copyrighted. So it's not quite as cut and dried as might be thought.

And...use of the NASA emblem and logo js prohibited.

Thanks for your help here.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I agree with User ID. Your taxes and my taxes paid for the telescope. It belongs to you and me. I'll bet there would be a long hard fight in a courtroom if you were charged with copyright violations!

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

Retired CPO wrote:

I agree with User ID. Your taxes and my taxes paid for the telescope. It belongs to you and me. I'll bet there would be a long hard fight in a courtroom if you were charged with copyright violations!

We, as taxpayers, pay for everything the government does, uses, or occupies. That doesn’t mean we have a right to claim ownership. Try walking onto a government military base and tell the MP at the gate, that the base belongs to you and you are going to take a walk through it to inventory your “belongings”.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I think that anything on social media is fair game.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Retired CPO wrote:

I agree with User ID. Your taxes and my taxes paid for the telescope. It belongs to you and me. I'll bet there would be a long hard fight in a courtroom if you were charged with copyright violations!

Your statement is almost correct, but the error makes a big difference. You say that the telescope "belongs to you and me." That's not really true. If it were, we could each go into JPL, sit down at the desk, press the buttons or keys, and take the pictures we want to take. That's never going to happen.

In reality, the telescope belongs to all of us. That sounds quite similar, but in practice is very different. Like a company we might own stock in, an organization has been put in place to make operational decisions and handle operational needs, issues, and problems. That organization is charged with doing all that while looking out for our interests as owners with very tiny individual minority shares. The welfare of the group is what must prevail, not the will or whim of individual owners.

We have all seen (and some have experienced) what usually happens when a single investor gets out of hand in a company. It is at best chaotic and at worst catastrophic for that company.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

gvarner wrote:

I think that anything on social media is fair game.

You think wrong. Do you really think copyright law doesn't apply to online posts?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

JohnSwanda wrote:

You think wrong. Do you really think copyright law doesn't apply to online posts?

Yes I do. They’re on a public forum. If you have evidence that proves your point I’d like to see it. For example, a lawsuit settled in favor of a member of this forum who discovered that their posted photo was used by another person who sold it for profit. I’d like to know that.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

gvarner wrote:

Yes I do. They’re on a public forum. If you have evidence that proves your point I’d like to see it. For example, a lawsuit settled in favor of a member of this forum who discovered that their posted photo was used by another person who sold it for profit. I’d like to know that.

If the member won his lawsuit, how does it follow that anything on social media is fair game?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

JohnSwanda wrote:

If the member won his lawsuit, how does it follow that anything on social media is fair game?

Besides getting it backwards I see that you have no evidence. In this context, a lawsuit settled in favor of the photographer would show that such material was NOT fair game, that there was a copyright restriction. This website has no references to copyrights for posted photos that I could find.