Can Someone explain?

So I looked on Amazon.  I found this:

Can someone explain how DK Publishing has a copyright on this book, yet all the pictures in the book came from NASA?

Oh wait, maybe because, DK Publishing credited NASA for each photograph.

Idiots got to be stupid.

Advertisements

128 thoughts on “Can Someone explain?

      • It illegible? No. It legible plenty. Me make point about NASA having deal with publisher. You compare to Hoge stealing copy/photo, slapping copyright. It not same thing.

      • The “deal” they had with NASA is the same “deal” they have with every other citizen of the United States. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books are copyrighted but contain NASA images. How is that possible in your deranged world of NASA COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ELVENTY? How about the works of Bad Astronomer Phil Plait, who heavily uses NASA photos in his copyrighted book, “Death from the skies!” Because they all do the same thing Hoge does, and credits the images to NASA. Now take a long drink of Syrup of Ipecac and cut out the twit vomit, which is what makes your TL illegible, not the fact that you can type complete words. Or are you using VR today?

      • Speaking of Plait, an great place to confirm Bill’s assertion (just play along here) would be to look at all the Apollo Hoax books that are published. They are all full of NASA pictures, yet they are anti-NASA. Why would NASA give permission to publish those pictures in books that are horribly critical of it?

        (Ah, the moon hoax days. What a fun time. Arguing with nuts who now look like Willie Nelson Bryan comapred to Bill)

      • So the only books with NASA pics in them have “special deals” with with publisher?

        Every one?

        I’m going to have to look thru all my old Apollo books and see if that’s true.

      • Yes. They all have special deals. Like… the same special deal every other citizen of the United States has. Give credit, no issue. Done.

  1. CB dives right in to show how wrong and conservative and dumb you are and proves your point for you.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsGL23aCUAEGopz.png:large

    Sure looks like a page full of NASA acknowledgements to me.

    I hear he took a Karate class once but could only master “Punch Your Own Face”. He then screamed “LIBELDEFAMATIONFOCUS” at his instructor as he staggered out of the room to go find a bar he could stand in with his bruised and pretend the fight was over.

    • Oh now stop. Don’t invite Bill into any bar I work at. Which is most on the south end of Huntsville. I mean if Bill does file the Harassment charge he threatened, I’d hate for him to find he couldn’t get an adult beverage in this town. You’ll force me into buying him a Schmalfeldt.

      • That’s actually a play on his old brag about being the last one standing in all the barfights he’s been in.
        Which I believe as much as anything else he claims.
        I’ve always envisioned him wal-hanging and hiding the one time he was anywhere near a fight in a bar then rushing over after the finish (in his imagination) and declaring himself the winner by virtue of his residual vertical alinement.

      • Residual Vertical Alinement? RVA? Love it. Adding it to my vocabulary. Can’t wait to use it on the next drunk… as in, your RVA is temporary.

    • Hey Andy, how’s married life treating ya? Man I miss the good old ISCA days.

      You’re missing a significant piece of the story, since I didn’t actually reference it on my blog. But of course, you’re absolutely right. A copyrighted work can contain other people’s copyrighted or otherwise protected work, if notice is given. Thanks for playing!

  2. You’re just as right as you were about Hoge’s case in general. Slam dunk. (Laughing at you.) So, your publishing experience says having a special arrangement with NASA, a signed contract providing the publisher with images that are not generally available to the public, arranging interviews with astronauts, and basically working with DK publications as a joint project with the book being sold in NASA gift shops is the SAME THING as some dude not even giving NASA the credit they ask for, no link, just “image Credit: NASA”, sometimes plagiarizing the text, and then slapping his copyright on there.” 17 USC 403, 17 USC 506(c)(3).

    Would you like to see this lovely oceanfront property in Colorado I have for sale?

    • Yes Bill, I am. Wanna know why? Because it is. Call up and ask a PAO at your nearest NASA facility and ask what you have to do to visit their viewing room. That’s all that is needed. There was no “contract” between the publisher and NASA, there was the same basic agreement NASA has with the public.

      And I’m not commenting on the completeness of Hoge’s credits, but it is clear to anyone who isn’t suffering from a case of twiticus vomitus that Hoge gave credit, and therefore didn’t attempt to copyright the specific picture, like you keep trying to claim. So return to your vomitorium and spew forth more nonsense. Since you’ve already won, and Hoge has already been arrested by the FBI/NASA for his crimes. Really, how do you have time to post so much worthless crap to twitter when you should be managing the moving crew that is moving your stuff into Hoge’s old house.

      • You’re just as right as you were about Hoge’s case in general. Slam dunk.

        Mike, when did you say Hoge’s case was a “slam dunk”? As I recall you were quite critical of his case, enough that you made a new friend when Bill quoted you on twitter.

        Was that before or after he sent you a C&D?

        WMS Radio Network @wmsbroadcasting · Jun 30

        Now, if Mr. Malone wants to test me, and he probably will, I have given him a proper C&D on his blog and here on Twitter. Leave. Me. Alone.

        Bill, if you want to.be. left. alone., why are you contacting Mr. Malone on his blog?

      • I assumed that Bill removed his stupid C&D when he contacted me the very next day. Not that his C&D meant a damn thing, I’d rarely, if other than asking for a retraction, ever contacted him directly first. But then, Bill will cry sarcasm or something.

  3. I just spoke to a lovely young lady at the NASA photo office. She is forwarding my question to Bert Ulrich in the legal office. She said, “Sure, you can use our photos on the blog.” And, Hoge’s credit line is just fine. Then, I asked if I could copyright a page that has the NASA image on it. She said, “No. That violates the terms.” I asked if she was certain, she said she was, but she would forward my question to the legal office.

    So. Using a photo? No problem.
    Hoge’s credit of the photo? No problem.

    Hoge’s blanket copyright of 70 pages containing NASA images in March, April and May?

    Eees no legal.

    Call for yourself. I didn’t catch the lady’s name, but she sounded like a very pleasant, intelligent young woman who seemed to have an African-American tinge to her voice.

    • I suspect this is much like the time you asked for legal help online, but didn’t provide as accurate a picture as you should. So I called my IP attorney and asked him, since I’d trust him over the receptionist you talked to any day. And from what you asked, she’s right. But from what you didn’t ask, you’re wrong. When you copyright a work that contains other peoples copyrights that you both attribute and have permission to use, (and let’s not hear about Hoge’s attribution anymore, ok? You’ve just been Ipecac’d of that) just like Hoge does and did, but you give credit to and for the use of the copyrighted work, your claim of copyright does not claim a copyright of the individual IP that you used. Instead, you are copyrighting the associated work which surrounds the IP being used. It’s a standard understanding of the law, and NASA depends on people, and even encourages people, to use their public domain works to get the word out about their mission.

      • I specifically asked the lady if I put the photo credit on the photo, can I copyright the blog entry? She said “No.”

      • She’s wrong. If that weren’t the case, entire collections of books and countless documentaries couldn’t exist. Did you make it clear that the picture wasn’t the only thing on the entry? Did you make it clear that he wasn’t copyrighting that entry individually, but as a collected work? Did you make it clear that there was much more on the site than the picture?

      • She probably won’t wrong, just given incomplete information by you. And so she made a call based on incomplete data that resulted in an inaccurate analysis. But it’s just easier to say she’s wrong. Plus, she’s a photo editor, not the IP lawyers.

      • Sure you did. You made it perfectly clear to your “photo editor” that you were copyrighting everything, not just the picture, everything. You know, like what books and movies do with NASA photographs every day.

      • 3.2.1 May another publisher or individual republish a U.S. Government work and assert copyright?

        A publisher or individual can republish a U.S. Government work, but the publisher or individual cannot legally assert copyright unless the publisher or individual has added original, copyright protected material. In such a case, copyright protection extends only to the original material that has been added by the publisher or individual. (See 17 USC § 403 regarding copyright notice requirements for works incorporating U.S. Government works.) Many of Hoge’s use of NASA material are a headline, and image, a credit, and nothing else.

      • You mean because I can understand writing when it’s wrote?

        17 USC 403

        Sections 401 (d) and 402 (d) shall not apply to a work published in copies or phonorecords consisting predominantly of one or more works of the United States Government unless the notice of copyright appearing on the published copies or phonorecords to which a defendant in the copyright infringement suit had access includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title.

        In other words, Hoge’s copyright notice MUST STATE THAT ONLY HIS ORIGINAL WORK ON THE BLOG POST IS COPYRIGHTED, AND THE NASA IMAGE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. It’s really very simple.

      • As required by 17 U.S.C. 403, third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material produced by U.S. Government agencies must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the U.S. Government material incorporated and stating that
        such material is not subject to copyright protection.

        http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/11/07/000456286_20131107155900/Rendered/PDF/826030WP0Fisca00Box379865B00PUBLIC0.pdf

      • Yes, apparently, I can.

        As required by 17 U.S.C. 403, third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material produced by U.S. government agencies must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the U.S. Government material incorporated and stating that such material is not subject to copyright protection.

        Hoge claimed copyright IN TOTO for March, April and May 2014.

      • I made it perfectly clear. Read back. I spoke as if it were my blog. “So, if I just put, “Photo Credit: NASA” under the photo, that is sufficient?” She said yes. Then I asked, “OK, now suppose I want to file that blog entry with the US Copyright Office with the NASA image. Would that be OK.” She said, “Ooooooh, no. I’m aftraid that would be a violation of our terms.”

        And you also seem to have difficulty grasping a very basic concept of publishing. Publishers can sign contracts with government agencies to use their material, and copyright the entire work. If Hoge has such a contract, he’d better bring it to court with him.

        Sorry. I’m still laughing at you for saying the Photo Editor of the NASA Website is WRONG!!!

      • I’ll take my IP Lawyer over your photo editor any day. And he says you’re wrong, and she’s wrong. IP Lawyer… Photo Editor… Yea, that’s the ticket Bill, laugh away.

      • Sure, as soon as you pony up his $300 an hour fee, and travel to his office in Huntsville. Oh wait, since I’m actively engaged him on various issues of copyright, no you can’t. At least, not outside of a courtroom. In other words, hire your own attorney, Bill.

      • How about a Judge? From her Memorandum Opinion. “At the hearing on the Motion, plaintiff offered an exhibit, introduced without objection, in support of his claim that he submitted copyright applications in June 2014 covering material posted on Hogewash! during March, April, and May of 2014, as well as the blog post that plaintiff purchased from “Krendler.”

      • From the same opinion. “Plaintiff does not argue that he has obtained a certificate of registration for the Hogewash! website or for any other material at issue. Rather, plaintiff asserts that he has met the Copyright Act’s registration requirement by submitting an application for copyright protection, and that he has offered sufficient evidence of that application.” No mention of exceptions for 70 blog posts.

      • From the same opinion. “In any event, the exhibit seems to reflect four copyright applications, all submitted in early June 2014. Three applications pertain to the Hogewash! website, which is classified on the U.S. Copyright Office website as a “Daily Newsletter[],” and cover the periods of March, April, and May 2014.” No mention of exceptions for 70 blog posts.

      • Would this be the same IP lawyer that in one of your previous blogs deemed Hoge’s ToS as sound enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law?

        And the when it didn’t…?

        I’m thinking you might want to reevaluate this IP lawyer’s advice.

      • And really, Michael – why do you insist on being so obtuse?

        That ToS your lawyer found to be solid wasn’t so solid as the judge in the injunction case eviscerated it.

        Your lawyer was wrong.

      • and bunny boy makes an appearance, albeit with Mr. Hoge’s picture as his AVI…
        so Michael, what is your policy on commenters attempting to impersonate other people when they comment??

        O.o

      • That’s not Bunny Boy. That’s Wee Willy — Team Kimberlin’s rabid and vile attack pet who is completely obsessed with performing sexual acts with chickens.

        I know. Eew.

      • Team Kimberlin: “We ALWAYS have your best interests in mind”.

        Your concern is touching, Fergie.

      • Admit it, Mike. After all these long years of perfection, you’re wrong about something. You can not copyright the property of the United States of America. 17 USC 403. Read it. Aloha.

      • Bill, I never said you could! Go back and find where I said I could claim copyright on anything NASA produces as imagery, or any other government agency. And for you to say I did, means you are a liar. So either back that up with where I claim that, or shut up.

        I’ve said that Hoge DIDN’T copyright NASA images. And he didn’t. Just like all the thousands of books, documentaries, and movies that have used NASA images and videos don’t claim when they copyright THERE works. Because, you know, they credit NASA and don’t claim copyright on NASA’s stuff.

        Now really, since you’ve already won the copyright case, Hoge is being arrested for violating NASA, and you really need to pack up your stuff so you can move into Hoge’s house and possess his woman, don’t you think you’ve got enough on your plate already?

      • Show me on his copyright application where he specifically excludes the 70 blog entries containing NASA photos.

        If you’d like I can post the application on my timeline again.

        And my lord, are you a SNOT when you’re incorrect!

      • Whatever Bill. You said your goodbye, so take it. I’ve explained why he didn’t have to exclude them, and you’re ignoring it and assuming that in the case of Hoge, it has to be done to the specification of Schmalfeldt or it is a violation, never mind that we’ve given you multiple examples of the exact same thing. The copyright claim at the end of Avengers didn’t mention that it specifically excluded the works of NASA or any of the other many various copyrighted works used in the production of the movie. And why should it? Marvel specifically attributed each and every copyrighted work in the credits, making it clear they weren’t claiming copyright on any of the stuff they got from NASA or anyone else. So why does Hoge have to act differently?

    • I say he didn’t even call anybody and this “Photo Editor of NASA” has a vibrant and rewarding career,,,somewhere in the back of his skull. I wonder if there are robes and a scepter that go with the job?
      She probably lives just down the neuron from the Christmas Eve Court Clerk and two lobes over from the Front Porch Deputy.

  4. Now, let us address what Hoge did or did not copyright.

    From his Opp to my Mot. to Dismiss:”Mr. Hoge alleges in his amended complaint that timely applications for registration have been filed with the Copyright Office.” He does not say, “Except for 70 blog posts containing images produced by NASA, a United States Government Agency.”

    His Copyright Application has four entries. One for the “work” he “purchased” from “Krendler.”

    The other three are for “Hogewash” as a “Daily Newsletter”
    1. 05/2014
    2. 04/2014
    3. 03/2014

    The application does not say, “Except for 70 blog posts that contain material produced by NASA, a United States Government Agency.”

    Anything else I can help you with?

    • Are you really this dense? Because he didn’t have to. He properly credited and used with permission each and every time such a photograph was used in his blog. It is clear to anyone that Hoge is not asserting a claim of copyright over any picture he attributed to NASA. That’s what attribution means. the mere fact that he attributed the work to the proper agency means he’s not asserting copyright over them To be otherwise is nonsensical and would make entire collections of books instant copyright violations.

      • You seem to be having trouble with a very simple concept. The US Government is not “other people.” And the photo office at NASA said, “no eees legal.” Entire collections of books that secure the cooperation of NASA and are granted explicit permission? Different story. NASA gave “DK Publishing” “special access” to material that was not available to the public.

        Again, Mike. We’re not talking about “the copyrights of other people.” We’re talking about 17 USC 403 which says, “YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT THE WORK OF THE US GOVERNMENT!”

        Each page of Hogewash has “© W.J.J. Hoge” right under the banner. That copyright does not stop at the beginning or end of a photo.

        Same concept as using any photo, really. Only we’re not talking about USING the photo. We’re talking about COPYRIGHTING it, WHICH HOGE DID!!!

        Sleep well.

      • Yes Bill, the copyright actually does stop at the photograph, because you know… Attribution. And there is no “special access” there is only access. NASA is a government agency, and part of it’s mission is the release and dissemination of those photographs. Hoge has never extended his claim of copyright to those photographs. Ever. Not once. No matter how many times you say it, doesn’t make it so.

        And does Aloha means something different in Maryland?

      • He has copyrighted every part of every page of every entry for March, April and May. He doesn’t exclude them, as a matter of logic, they are included in his copyright claim.

      • Neither does the copyright claim at the end of movies, or at the front of books, or the copyright claims of thousands of works that use government imagery for their creation, yet you don’t see NASA going all jackboot thug on those people. Why? Because crediting the work means you aren’t exerting your copyright claim for the work. Now why don’t you do what you promised and get off the subject. It’s clear you want a special Hoge violation created.

    • Hey, “Bill,” could you please “put” more “stuff” in fake “air quotes?” It’s really “entertaining” and certainly “emphasizes” the “truth” of your “argument.”

    • I keep hearing about these flow charts, but must have missed them. I saw his math proof, that would have gotten an F in basic geometry, but not the flow charts.

      • I missed the math proogs. Those must have been “special”. I’ll see if I can find a copy of one of the Feldtcharts.

        I’m wondering if his NASA clerk is related to the Midnight Holiday clerk at the courthouse that he uses when he wants to verify what he is thinking with his mouth?

        Glad to see him demonstrate his incapability with Venn diagrams almost immediately on the heels of my comment.:
        “The copyright covers EVERYTHING!!”
        No, it covers the material on the page but ouside the attributed material.
        “Thats EVERYTHING!!! Nice lady on phone say so!”
        Please go away. I think you’re S-field has ruptured a vein in my skull.

        I’m also saving the line “…seemed to have an African-American tinge to her voice.” in my catalog of Schmalfeldtian Creepy Wierd Turns of Phrase That Nobody Else Anywhere Writes Like That.

      • If it was the one I am thinking about. It was the flow charts were apart one of his failed doxes with Howard Earl, and Robin Causey. It before the 100th failed dox of Howard and I , and now that Chris guy.

        Speaking of that. I thought he wasn’t allowed here until he answer those questions of failed dox? Or was that just at Paul’s blog? Sorry, it’s hard to keep up. My real life actually gets in the way here.

      • Gotta love adult swim. And by the way, Kyle. I’m disappointed. You need to double your comments here. I can’t have Bill be #3, no matter how much he double ant triple responds to his own comments. It’s up to you Kyle. Step up your game, or I’ll doom clock you.

      • Come to think of it, I don’t recall ever seeing a flow chart with TWO yes legs coming out of multiple boxes. Exactly how do you take two different legs for the same answer? The man is dumber then a box of rocks.

      • There is also a box in the lower right with two “no” legs. The way the chart is set up shows that he just never considers that he might be wrong about something.

      • Shame on you. You’re acting like you have never seen him give 2 different answers to the same question. Yes this. Yes that.

  5. boy he just keeps beating that dead horse hoping it takes him where he wants to go don’t he??

    #FAIL

    O.o

  6. ” as a matter of logic, they ”

    How can anyone not convulse with laughter when he uses a line like this?

    Tip Bub: you and Logic are not best buds. He doesn’t like you at all anymore since you twisted him and warped him and told people he said all sorts of things he never said. In fact I’m pretty sure that Logic has a registered C&D letter waiting for you at the Post Office, so hop on your walker and toddle right down there and let’s never hear you pretend to wield logic again. It causes huge vicarious embarassment feelings in everyone who see’s you try to pull it off. It’s like watching a deranged naked homeless person attacking an oak tree with a dead pigeon for backsassing them. Everyone wants it to stop and go away as soon as possible.

  7. He’s going to make the judge decide…it’ll just show the judge that he is chronically wrong in his assertions. Especially if he displays half the passion in court as he has on twitter today.

  8. 3:48

    Michael, upthread there is a comment by someone who calls himself “themockerycontinues”. This happens to be a friend of Bills named William Ferguson (@wilsb8). He is using as his avatar a picture of Hoge. That seems to me to be somewhat out of bounds and against your comment policy. But maybe not, I guess it’s your call.

  9. Very easy to win an argument when you delete the comments of the person you’re arguing with, you dishonest piece of shit.

    • Folks, I just checked my trash folder here on WordPress, and I have deleted or not approved (and yes, it was deleted) a four word comment of “And there’s my answer” which was such a non-sequitor I did, in fact, delete it. Because it wasn’t an answer to a specific question, it was an avoidance of an answer to a specific question. Since Bill has enjoyed my patience on issues ranging here far and wide, and the only times I’ve deleted his comments is when they were so off topic they didn’t make sense, and since Bill continues to insult me personally, and since Bill refuses to retract defaming and inaccurate information he’s published about me, doesn’t participate, but rants endlessly about things that are of not the subject of the actual discussion, twitter bombs the same regurgitating information over and over and over again, getting more vile and insulting with each iteration, expect new rulz soon. This has been a public service announcement.

      • So, you received NOT ONE of my responses where I quoted one government source after another as saying, “As required by 17 U.S.C. § 403, third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material appearing in (Agency) Web pages must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the (Agency) material incorporated and stating that such material is not subject to copyright protection.

      • Bill, the spam folder is empty, the trash folder has the one post. Don’t know what else to tell you except Aloha. And by that I mean what that word means in Alabama. You asked for it, you’re getting your fondest wish.

      • So, I typed replies, hit the reply button, saw the “reply successful notification”, and somehow, by MAGIC, a data elf gobbled down the proof that your theory is full of shit?

        I didn’t know data elves were a problem in Alabama. I’d call Terminex.

      • Bill, you are a vindictive lying asshole. I’ve already claimed the one post I didn’t approve. You talked to “THE” photo editor of NASA. Now, instead of relying on legal writings that no one ever argued against, why don’t you retract the statements you’ve been disproved of, and come clean on Twitter? Or are you balls to small and full of other people seamen to do that?

      • First:

        Jerry Fletcher (@guntotingteabag)
        July 9, 2014 at 4:14 pm
        It’s a never ending circle of stupid with him. You started to see why bunches of us just laughed at him in Wisconsin in late 2011 and late 2012 when he stuck his nose in Wisconsin politics? ~ an approved message from this blog and post.

        Then:
        You forget, Michael, that under Schmalfeldtian protocols misquoting or selectively quoting a statute or ordinance is uber-trump-ace; and any refutation, or further analysis is void, moot and null. Thus he has answered your questions, and you must abide by the answers no matter how wrong they turn out to be.

      • Are you blind?

        https://runwolf.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/can-some-explain/#comment-2124
        https://runwolf.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/can-some-explain/#comment-2127
        https://runwolf.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/can-some-explain/#comment-2131

        You’ve made perfectly clear what the law says. What is also perfectly clear is that your interpretation of the law, and your application of them to the facts at hand, is tendentious to a fault and flies in the face of numerous examples given to impeach your position.

        Leaving aside the question of whether he used the right form, Hoge appears to have registered for copyright on his blog as a compilation rather than registering individual posts. As such, the copyrighted work does not consist predominantly of Government material. Further, when he’s used government material, he’s credited it, and his TOS specifically states that his copyright applies to his original work only.

      • Oh, and Bill, Try reading your own copy/pastes:

        …consisting predominantly of the material produced by U.S. government agencies … ~Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog and post

        pre·dom·i·nant·ly adverb \-nənt-lē\ : for the most part ~Merriam Webster’s online dictionary

        He has copyrighted every part of every page of every entry for March, April and May. ~Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog and post

        Mr. Hoge publishes about one “star porn” each day. These are in addition to his weekly mock radio dramas, updates on his shooting, and his various court actions. They are entirely exclusive of his other daily postings of Team Kimberlin reports and Prevarications du jour. Finally, each instance is attributed, subsequently isolating them from the copyright umbrella.

        Sorry, Michael, I had to get some closure on that one.

      • Never mind what NASA says about the use of their photographs, it’s all about this nebulous law that uses big words that don’t apply to this situation. On the exact same page Bill got the phone number for THE PHOTO EDITOR of NASA, it says;

        “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.”

        That’s why I stopped discussing it with him. He was being both an idiot, and not conversing but ranting. He refused to listen to anything anyone else had to say, and kept repeating himself. If anything, he may have had a point that NASA itself was violating the federal law by giving such a general release for use, although that’s not true since part of the legally coded mission for NASA is the dissemination of air and space information and technology to the general public. In other words, NASA is following it’s mission in allowing the broad use of it’s images.

        Please note, this general license for use includes many things which would be copyrighted, including textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. All of these things would be copyrighted, and no one, not any reasonably competent judge, would find that any of these activities, assuming they properly credited NASA, would find them infringing on anything. Even in the case of a photo collection that was entirely made up of NASA photographs, the creator could still copyright the specific layout and format without infringing on NASA’s right to prevent someone from claiming copyright.

        To make it even more egregious, Bill lied to “the photo editor of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency” (because that’s how journalists behave) and expects us to accept his version of events as true… because he doesn’t lie to us? That’s such an amazing leap of non-logic as to be laughable.

        One other point, the idea that he raised that a publisher in the UK doesn’t have to follow American Copyright Law that made me literally laugh out loud. I’m surprised in all of Bill’s research into copyright he never heard of the UCC or the Berne Convention. The UK is a member country to Berne, therefore US Citizens enjoy copyright protections in the UK. Berne does require that you file your infringement in the country that it is infringed, so no you wouldn’t haul a UK publisher into an American court, but an American, under Berne, has standing in the UK.

        The reverse is also true. A citizen in a Berne country has standing under US Copyright Laws as well. However, the specific book in question was advertised as being Common Core Compliant, which is a US Education Policy signed by 45 some odd states. Being Common Core Compliant indicates that the book in question was intended for sale in the United States, and as another user found, is in fact offered for sale in the United States. Therefore, the UK Publisher is subject to US laws concerning the copyright.

        But again, this all goes to show that Bill doesn’t research the law, he cherry picks it. Once he finds that one, to him, damming piece of evidence, he stops. He doesn’t look for anything else and that’s why he is constantly surprised by what happens next. And why he couldn’t step up to the plate and answer why so many publishers of various media continually use NASA images in their copyrighted works without ever getting into trouble. Because he found a law that said you can’t, despite the law that says NASA is supposed to do exactly what it is doing. Specifically section 102 of the NASA act, which makes NASA’s primary mission to benefit all mankind.

      • I must offer a retraction, and since it was in my comment above, I’ll retract it here. Because of the way I read most of the comments via the iOS WordPress App iPhone version, the comments don’t always show exactly what they are replying to. I mistakenly assumed that Bill was talking about my original post, not about the Apollo 11 hoaxers. Of course, since an American version of the book was quickly posted, the question is moot. So I was in error saying the UK book was “Common Core Approved.” It wasn’t. My apologies to the Apollo 11 Hoax Conspiracy Theorists for associating them with something as foul as common core. Again, my apologies to Bennett and Percy.

      • Funny thing that Common Core. It’s a bit of a red herring. More precisely, it is hypertypical of mega-government intrusion. Thus one side can point to what it says it is on paper, a really nice idea about having baseline metrics for fundamental literacy and numeracy; and the other side can point to what it becomes under the malignant invisible hand of bureacracy, a crutch for substandard educators to lean on rather than teaching the fundamentals.

        I find myself weeping for the youth in public schools whose parent abandon them thence with the expectation that they are being educated in a vacuum.

      • Ho nieve Gus. If only it was that good. Instead of the multibillion dollar money making scheme by third class publishers and fourth class internet consultants.

      • Point made and taken. I guess I lump the Education/Union/Industrial complex in with the Bureaucrats. I will stand on it being a turd in a Snickers® wrapper, how it got to be that way is fodder for an entire book.

Comments are closed.