Open main menu

TUSC token: 364a8706895df1c9a2646a9e29319e7aEdit

I am the proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hey over hereEdit

Well I'll be. I noticed you hadn't been around en-wp nearly as much, but I didn't realized you moved. :). I saw some WMF stuff I felt I wanted to respond to, and kinda got involved in a little bit of editing while logged in. Anyway - I'll get an email sent out in the next couple days and we can get caught up. All the best my friend Ched (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

wtf? The article? Oooppps - forgot to sign? Me over here at commons? Ohhh ... I never got an email sent - sorry. I'll do that tomorrow if you'd like. Not sure what the wtf means. Ched (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Ched, nononononono, I meant about the article. That's so totally bizarre. What the hell was McClain thinking?! For that matter, I thought their internet activity was monitored by ground. This is bad for NASA. Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I was shocked. (and wasn't sure if you'd heard yet). Something like this is bound to attract much more mainstream news media I would think, so I suspect it will get much uglier before it gets better. Like you, I was amazed that she even had the ABILITY to use her card like that. Perhaps Worden is overstating things, but it is still bound to get more attention (although perhaps that's what Worden wants). If McCain really did anything more than check on things, then it really has the potential to give NASA a black eye. One silver lining ... the old "Don't leave home without it." catchphrase is likely to become popular again. :-D Ched (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, while I'm here - could you point me to any policy about pictures of books? Ched (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Ched, pictures of books? Um, if there is cover art, it would be copyrighted unless it is pre-1923. Do you have anything particular in mind? Huntster (t @ c) 23:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That pretty much answers my question. I have some books on NASCAR that I've used in the past and intend to use in the future for reference material. Most have some photos on the cover, and IIRC that is considered, or at least covered under, art. It was more a curiosity question than anything, although I also am wondering what happens when someone is called out in that regard too. Ched (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
well, the offending image would either be taken to discussion for deletion if it was questionable, or speedy deleted if blatant. If the user had a history of flaunting the rules, especially if they should obviously know better, they'd eventually get blocked for community disruption. Pretty much the same as, just with local spin on things, mostly the "no fair use" rule. Huntster (t @ c) 00:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Ched Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much what I figured. In all my time I only remember 2 or 3 arguments about whether or not someone was accurately depicting the information in a book, so it's not a big deal at all. Ched (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Venera images copyrightEdit

Hi! I don't know if you remember me, I'm the one who is very interested in images of solar system bodies. I remember you as someone who is very knowledgable on copyright questions, which can get confusing with non-NASA space program images. Of late, I have been particularly interested in the only images of the surface of Venus, all of which were taken by Soviet Venera landers between 1975 and 1981. This is something we've discussed before, and your comment in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 8#File:Venera9.png was authoritative, especially since the NASA gallery under discussion later added wording that those images were not necessarily public domain.

To get to the point: all of the Venera images of the Venusian surface are available in top quality on this webpage owned by one Don P. Mitchell. On this page from the same site, Don Mitchell describes in (to me) believable terms how he legally owns the copyright to the entire website, including the images, which he claims to have had a significant hand in creating.

Could this be true, or is Mr. Mitchell deluded? Or do we need more information from him to determine? And if Mr. Mitchell does not own the copyright to these images, who does? As noted at Roscosmos, there was no central Soviet space agency. How could we find out? What do we make of ru.wikipedia's attribution of one of the images to NPO Lavochkin: [1]?

Sorry for all the questions and thank you so much for your help! A2soup (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A2soup: regarding Mr. Mitchell's website, he can claim copyright over works *he* has produced. The images are not his, no matter how much processing work he has done. If they were public domain, sure, he could claim copyright over the modified copies, just as you can do with NASA material, but as far as we are aware the early Soviet spaceflight works remain copyrighted to the Russian government, who is the inheritor of the central Soviet material.'s use of that file is probably okay, since they are claiming fair use. As far as the attribution, NPO Lavochkin appears to have been the responsible party for the Venera program, so there's no issue. We credit various works to NASA/JPL or one of its other centers all the time, for example. Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you for clarifying all that. So it seems like if you wanted to get the images freely licensed, the party you would need to convince would be NPO Lavochkin? A2soup (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
A2soup: precisely, if it regarded the original material. If you wanted to use Mr. Mitchell's enhanced works, you'd need an agreed-up license from both Lavochkin and Mitchell. 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 01:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Huntster".