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.
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.
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.
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.)
