Voyager 1, earth, moon and milkyway. Fan Art

Comments:

• 

  BMF
  

  I'm sorry, but Voyager was a government program funded by the taxpayers. As such there should be no copyrights to the visual portrayal of the satellite.

  I've worked for the Department of Defense for more than 20 years and in my experience, this isn't fan art. It's like making a model of a B-2 bomber--that's not fan art.

  If I were you, I'd ask the Blend Swap admin to remove the fan art restriction.

  Written December 28, 2012
• 

  origalde
  

  But i agree for "fan art"

  Written December 29, 2012
• 

  origalde
  

  Nobody is perfect, sorry. But compare a B-2 and voyager 1 on the same level is an idiocy. Voyager 1 = discovery B-2 bomber = destroying

  Cheers dude

  Written December 28, 2012
• 

  BMF
  

  You missed the point. Voyager, B2, the Pentagon, the White House or whatever government products made with tax dollars are not copyrighted and you are free to model them, take pictures of them, use them in works of art, etc. freely.

  However, if you want to designate it as fan art, then that's your call. I was just trying to be helpful in pointing out that it's not fan art under any definition.

  Cheers dude

  Written December 29, 2012
• 

  IdiAminDada
  

  Idiocy is trying to stop commercial use of the public domain. If this were possible all the public roads would look like swiss cheese because nobody would pay workers to fill the pot holes or resurface them.

  Written July 14, 2017
• 

  nickbrunner
  

  Nice scene! Well done!

  Edited December 28, 2012
• 

  origalde
  

  Thanks nick very well

  Edited December 28, 2012
• 

  Atom
  

  @BMF: The copyrights are on the images themselves. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/useterms.php

  You can not repost NASA's images as CC0 work. Fan art is a nice compromise this should probably be CC-BY, however. (i.e. By NASA)

  Written December 29, 2012
• 

  mofx
  

  Hmm, I'm thinking Atom is right looking at NASA's licensing, however, I'm not sure what images where used and category they should fall under, but I think at a minimum there should be a credit to NASA and a link back to the images used just to be safe and courteous. Probably shouldn't be CC-0 either.

  Written December 29, 2012
• 

  BMF
  

  First, my initial comments were directed at the model and not the textures. A model of a McDonald's sign would likely be fan art, but using a photo with a McDonald's sign in the background as part of a street texture would not likely be considered a violation of any trademark or copyright restriction. If they were, then Google is in deep trouble for publishing its Street Views.

  Here are the guidelines off the NASA website:

  ---

  Still Images, Audio Recordings, Video, and Related Computer Files

  NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

  This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA-sponsored.

  NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material except in cases of advertising. See NASA Advertising Guidelines.

  ---

  My guess is that the image used in this case is probably a painting that the artist copyrighted. But even then it most likely falls under the "fair use" rules as long as the artist is credited. The scene is not being used for commercial purposes and would most likely be categorized as educational model with regard to fair use.

  In any case, giving NASA credit, would likely be sufficient. The rule of thumb is that government products are not restricted because we the taxpayers are paying for the product. There are exceptions specified in US law such as use of the great seal, but they are very limited.

  But as I said in an earlier post, Origalde is free to mark it however he wants.

  In any event, it's a good model and a visually interesting scene.

  Written December 29, 2012
• 

  origalde
  

  Yes BMF i agree with your point of view about : "If I were you, I

  Written December 30, 2012