Could anyone send me a clear 3 MB moon photo to project for a high School Play.
I could spent a little on it I thought I had one but can't find it.
Thank you,
George
Not all instances of using a photo of the moon from the Internet would be construed as "stealing"; some photos are available to be used for free without a license, other photos could be fall under "fair use"; still other photos could be in the public domain (ex: a photo taken by a NASA probe)
So let's not throw around words like "steal" so impetuously, ok?
mdude85 wrote:
Not all instances of using a photo of the moon from the Internet would be construed as "stealing"; some photos are available to be used for free without a license, other photos could be fall under "fair use"; still other photos could be in the public domain (ex: a photo taken by a NASA probe)
So let's not throw around words like "steal" so impetuously, ok?
How about trying to "throw" out some support for our industry by guiding someone to purchase something? I mean even microstock is better than telling them to get something for free...and are you going to be there guiding them on what's free and what's not off of google if they grab one by mistake?
Brent Ward wrote:
How about trying to "throw" out some support for our industry by guiding someone to purchase something? I mean even microstock is better than telling them to get something for free...and are you going to be there guiding them on what's free and what's not off of google if they grab one by mistake?
No, it's not my responsibility or obligation to do so, just as it's not your responsibility or obligation to donate money so that the OP can purchase something.
mdude85 wrote:
Not all instances of using a photo of the moon from the Internet would be construed as "stealing"; some photos are available to be used for free without a license, other photos could be fall under "fair use"; still other photos could be in the public domain (ex: a photo taken by a NASA probe)
So let's not throw around words like "steal" so impetuously, ok?
Gonna have to agree with Mdude. I know my tax money paid for those nasa moon photos and if he uses a public domain nasa photo there is No need for OP to pay again (as a US citizen) especially since this is for educational purposes.....
It's not like he asked for a moon photo for a billboard or Ad.
I'm a 3rd vote for free moon photos.
All you copyright mavens need to research the economics of infinite supply.
This is a school play, not an ad campaign. Even if it were and ad campaign, Moon photos are a dime a dozen. Everybody who rented a long lens once has one. None of them are unique. The moon hasn't changed much in the last million years. If you care about the few cents you could be making off a moon shot, something is wrong with your business model.
haijak wrote:
I'm a 3rd vote for free moon photos.
All you copyright mavens need to research the economics of infinite supply.
Doesn't matter HOW many images of the moon there are, they are still copyrighted and not public domain unless it's from NASA or the photographer has released it to public domain.
Other photographers telling people that it's okay to swipe something instead of paying 10 bucks is destroying the industry that you yourself are part of. It's like people who work in a sock plant in the US, going to walmart and buying socks made over seas, then having the nerve to complain when they lose their jobs...
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.
Brent Ward wrote:
Doesn't matter HOW many images of the moon there are, they are still copyrighted and not public domain unless it's from NASA or the photographer has released it to public domain.
Other photographers telling people that it's okay to swipe something instead of paying 10 bucks is destroying the industry that you yourself are part of. It's like people who work in a sock plant in the US, going to walmart and buying socks made over seas, then having the nerve to complain when they lose their jobs...
The owner of the copyright can license the photo to be used by a variety of parties with no fee or consequence. The mere existence of a copyright does not bar distribution of a photo per se. Again, using words like "steal" and "swipe" give a negative connotation to a perfectly legal option of obtaining an image for free.
If the OP wants to purchase a photo, he is free to do so, but I am doing my part to provide an alternative choice to purchasing photos...obtaining them for free from people willing to distribute them for free. I don't believe that doing so implicates me in the destruction of the photography industry any more than giving someone driving directions to the nearest Wal Mart implicates me in the destruction of the sock industry.
This following post got away from me a little. It's been brewing in me for quite a while.
I apologies to gmff, for it being so far off topic. I don't have any decent moon shots, sorry.
Brent Ward wrote:
Doesn't matter HOW many images of the moon there are, they are still copyrighted and not public domain unless it's from NASA or the photographer has released it to public domain.
Your using legal arguments against a moral judgment call.
It's like charging $50 shipping on something advertised for $5. Sure it's perfectly legal, yet still very wrong.
Other photographers telling people that it's okay to swipe something instead of paying 10 bucks is destroying the industry that you yourself are part of. It's like people who work in a sock plant in the US, going to walmart and buying socks made over seas, then having the nerve to complain when they lose their jobs...
Never said it was a good idea for someone to steal a moon photo for a school play. I just think it's a silly idea to make them to pay. But your point is correct. I and those like me would be similar to your sock manufactures, if we complained about it. But we aren't. You are.
Say somebody used a bump key to break into my house to use a tissue. I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. No damage, total lost value $0.002, nothing worth getting truly upset over. It's the difference between making a judgment call by rationally looking at the circumstances of an individuals actions, or how those actions conform to some ideal you built in your imagination.
Time and time again I see people here post about this topic, thinking that everyone has some self evident inalienable right to be paid for something they create. That is simply not the case. You certainly have the right to ask to be paid. But nobody MUST pay. They can go elsewhere to get a different price, or just skip it all-together. If they choose to steal it, legally damage needs to be proven (in legal theory any way, practice seems to be different). That's easy in the case of physical goods. In the case of intellectual goods it is much more complicated.
Currently people have convinced the ignorant public and judges to that if somebody asked to wave a magic wand to enter my home and create a tissue out of thin air, instead of just doing it without my permission or knowledge, I could have charged him for the new napkin he made, and any others that other people might have magically made from his. Which is an argument that magically creates damage out of thin air by making moral assertions that don't apply to the circumstances of the actual situation.
We "copyright progressives" if you will, understand that we can't make a living with the same old socks we have been. We need to find ways of adapting to the new situation, without getting hung up on how we imagine things should work, but instead on rationally looking at the circumstances of the situation and adapting to it.
haijak wrote:
We "copyright progressives" if you will, understand that we can't make a living with the same old socks we have been. We need to find ways of adapting to the new situation, without getting hung up on how we imagine things should work, but instead on rationally looking at the circumstances of the situation and adapting to it.
So am I right in guessing that photography isn't your full time job?
Copyright licensing isn't how people imagine things should work, it's what people fought for so hard resulting in the copyright act being passed in 1976.
haijak wrote:
Currently people have convinced the ignorant public and judges to that if somebody asked to wave a magic wand to enter my home and create a tissue out of thin air, instead of just doing it without my permission or knowledge, I could have charged him for the new napkin he made, and any others that other people might have magically made from his. Which is an argument that magically creates damage out of thin air by making moral assertions that don't apply to the circumstances of the actual situation.
.
I dunno but when people start using magic wands as points of logic, I tune out and consider their argument to be a bit 'thin'...but that's just me.
