Hacker News Reader

The quote says right there "for entertainment purposes". Stock footage is not that. And come on, being able to use NASA footage in your own works is one of the least exciting parts about space travel.

> But SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is subject to copyright. It cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for permission. Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers.

So much pessimism. I think it's great a private for profit corporation is doing as much as it is given it has no obligation to do so.

>> as it is given it has no obligation to do so.

That's the big change, the lack of obligation. If SpaceX is going to be fulfilling government contracts, on government facilities/ranges, using countless government employees, resulting footage should be free.

It hasn't happened yet, but with human spaceflight nearing we may see SpaceX drafting license deals in a manner NASA never contemplated.

SpaceX recently relicensed their photos to an Attribution-NonCommercial license, when previously they were effectively public domain under Creative Commons Zero: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/88449p/spacex-just-retroa...

Yup. The last thing SpaceX wants is to see somebody else make a buck from their footage. We have seen NASA logos in a thousand scifi productions. We will never see the SpaceX logo used in such a manner.

Is that pure speculation? SpaceX isn't protesting the countless YouTube videos and derivative works from their launches.

Are you expecting SpaceX to allow their (copyrighted) logo to appear in various media without requesting permission first?

NASA's copyright policy is the exception, not the rule.

SpaceX's trademarked name and logo are still limited by the usual trademark stuff even if they're in public domain video or images.

NASA's copyright policy is US government wide, it's just that most of the rest of the government actively dodges it by hiring photographers and letting them own the copyrights.

I meant that the US government policy is the exception compared to US law, not to the rest of the government. Private companies should not be required to make anything public just because their customer is NASA (or the US government, for that matter.)

NASA doesn't have a copyright policy. As part of the us fed its works don't get copyright protection. That isn't an exception. It's the law.

Your posts show an obvious bias against spaceX. Why the hate?

Bias? Im critical of the US government's intellectual property policy in relation to spacex contracts and speak to nothing else. If that constitutes some sort of bias then unbiased criticism is impossible.

Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage.

> Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage.

SpaceX footage was never public domain. It’s completely different camera systems, etc. There is no regression here in rights because they are completely different things.

It sounds like your problem is with the government not putting speculations in the launch contracts to demand footage be released to public domain. That’s the real issue and that’s where it should be fixed.

Huh. Is there a record of which photos were originally CC0? If you've already downloaded them as CC0, and they were once licensed as such, you can't just take it back. It's like releasing into the wile with GPLv3. You can re-license it if all the authors agree, but the original code at the point of re-license, if you have a copy, can never lose its GPLv3 status.

I think if you are receiving public/govt/fed money to do your mission(s), then the footage should also abide by the non-copyrightable footage as well.

Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects. For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX to design and build the crew dragon.

I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to private property.

If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an unreasonable burden.

Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.

SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for.

Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?

I think you are reading too much into my original statement. I did NOT say I think 100% of all SpaceX footage should be made public domain. I specifically stated that if it is funded by govt funding, then it should.

But it’s completely arbitrary. Why the footage and not the source code for all of their software as well?

The footage isn’t what’s being paid for by the government. The only thing that’s being stipulated is that the satellite makes it into its required orbit. Everything else is ancillary to that. This includes footage, software modifications required, internal communications during launch, the parts purchased for the launch vehicle, and on and on. You’re just arbitrarily requiring one of those things should now be public without a justification.

Honestly, I completely skipped your second paragraph. I definitely see a difference in your example. To me, the SpaceX missions done on behalf of the public via NASA/ESA/etc is the result/output of the govt spending. That should always be made public.

The use of the software is just a tool used to produce said output, so no, I would not automatically suggest the the code should be made available. If the govt funding paid for that software, then yes, it should be made available. There's a difference between funding the development of software vs buying a license to use software.

> Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced?

Yes. Public money, public code. https://publiccode.eu/

There is a huge difference between software created for the government and software the government uses.

I agree 100% that when the government creates a contract for new software to be written, the government (the public) owns that code and it should be open source.

But if the government uses existing products and services, such as macOS, I think it is wrong to say that the public now owns macOS and that apple must open source their code.

Similarly, is NASA contracts spaceX to design and test a new rocket, then that new rocket arguably belongs to the public and should be open source. But it is wrong to claim that the public now owns everything SpaceX might produce, such as video content, just because SpaceX took on a government agency as a customer.

SpaceX deliveries what they are contracted as a private company to provide. To my knowledge, this does not include putting mission footage into the public domain. Adding additional requirements increases the cost passed on to the tax payer.

Where is the line? My company worked with NASA and SpaceX to send mice to ISS. How much of my work should now be available to the public?

Working with vs funded by is the line in my opinion. Did you get private funding to carry out the mission and paid NASA/SpaceX to get a ride and use ISS equipment? Or did you get a grant to fund the mission from govt tax dollars? Private funding = keeping results private Public funding = making results public

If providing that footage is part of the government contract and paid for by the government then sure, I think that's clearly fair.

However if the government didn't ask for it and hasn't paid for it specifically, if the company chooses to do it anyway then they own it and it's up to them. Otherwise where do you draw the line as to what video and photography created internally by government contractors in their usual course of business should have to be publicly released?

I think they're finding some good PR and passive positive lobbying (where fans write their congressperson about all the cool stuff we can do in space) is coming from their publicity. They're also putting pressure on their competitors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc) by constantly being in the news.

Where is ULA's reusable rocket stage? Where is Arianespace's Starship competitor? Why is NASA building a disposable rocket?

>Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers. You wont see the failure footage from SpaceX ever used as nasa footage was used by countless scifi productions.

SpaceX literally uploaded a video of all their crashes spliced together in a comedic montage. It's called How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster.

https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ

Even crash footage is good PR for them. There are still millions of Americans who do not know what SpaceX is or what it does.

The crash compilation is public [1] because they were tests with minimal customer risks involved. You wouldn't find footage of CRS-7, with its dozens of NASA payloads, disintegrating on any of SpaceX's official media channels.

[1] But not public domain. It's still copyrighted.

You mean this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAX7UFd70M8

SciNews is not one of SpaceX’s channels.

SpaceX have unlisted their CRS-7 broadcast, but they have not taken it down. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeiBFtkrZEw

Classic HN. Finding a way to spin something great into something negative.

It’s tiring.

> I think those running TV news networks would rather return to the old system whereby they could show the footage whatever and whenever.

I don't think the opinion of "those running TV news networks" really matters all that much when we're talking about space.

The fact the content is copyright makes it no less amazing to witness (at least for me and many friends). It has been a source of inspiration in a time of predominantly divisive news.

The quality of the coverage has set a new bar for space companies / agencies. That alone is amazing because we all get to benefit.

I think he just means he likes watching rockets launch.

It's important for the future of our sci-fi movies. They ought to be using SpaceX-branded stock footage instead of what, rendering space scenes like a bunch of cavemen?

If you want SpaceX produced footage to be public domain, ask NASA to put it into the contract. Pretty simple.

NASA broadcasts and public-domains all SpaceX launches where they're the customer.

I don't much care for this take. In my opinion, a private and profitable space company is a massive, game-changing advancement in human progress. Maybe, just maybe, we'll actually send people to the planets when it's in somebody's direct financial interest and ability to do so, rather than have to beg a bunch of image-sensitive politicians to fund it.

Against that possibility and chance, I honestly don't give a damn about whether or not some of the footage is public domain. I'd rather argue about who has the right to do what with various bits of launch footage from our Martian colony. Beats the heck out of having more public domain launch footage to use in sci-fi movies, and having our crowning achievement in human space exploration being a handful of short missions to the Moon that left behind absolutely no useful infrastructure, and was only done to show up our geopolitical rivals.

>We won't ever see SpaceX crash footage used for much of anything.

We will if SpaceX allows it. How can you be sure they won't?

We can't be sure they will, that's the problem.

I can watch every launch live from my desk in glorious HD with multiple camera views, telemetry, and expert commentary. It costs nothing to watch. This is freaking amazing.

> As products of the US federal government they were not subject to copyright protection.

This really is not a good assumption. The federal government has plenty of ways around this. The federal government can buy copyrights, and also enter into work for hire arrangements with contractors and employees. When naked and operating without contracts, the federal government does have this default status, simple boilerplate copy and pasted contracts change this.

> So no, this is no amazing thing.

Putting the legal aspects to one side, do you not think it's amazing? If not, what would it take to impress you?

Everything major ever attributed to the USA for all eternity. And otherwise it's not amazing. Seems pretty obvious what they are about.

Or maybe there are several people with very specific interests about what logos appear in the stock footage used in hypothetical documentary style near future science fiction movies ...

Except technology achieved many other things besides shooting rockets into space, one of which is really good CGI, so it's really not about the ability to tell a good visual story.

I've seen plenty of SpaceX crash footage used by others than SpaceX. While you might have a point when it comes to Intellectual Property, I think you're taking that a bit out of proportion.

> Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers.

This is probably true, but it's hard to be certain that they'd prevail. Has this actually been tested in court?

> No questions asked.

Unless it's critical or satirical of the military, like Starship Troopers.

Go back and watch the livestream Boeing had when they were testing the Starliner.

> Except that it isn't.

Except that it is. Free as in beer, not as in freedom.

"Free as in advertising," not "free as in speech."