Hacker News Reader

Comment by optimiz3 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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?

>> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com