On 17 September 2012 04:07, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Point is place and time does not matter as the object would look the same.
A couple of amateur observatories would not be able to produce images that
can rival Hubble which is in orbit.
Do you see the problem?
--
geni
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am
Have you searched for it?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/09#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects
2012/9/17 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the
Thanks. I didnt search. I looked in the last 250 revisions of the page. I
didnt look back far enough.
John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Sep 17, 2012 8:42 PM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you searched for it?
I am not arguing that we should declare all deep space objects to be in
PD. I am proposing that we pursue congress pass a law to grant the needed
legal basis as I feel this should be public property. I am open to
alternative suggestions mind you.
Point is place and time does not matter as the
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am
not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws
governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space
objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the
On 15 September 2012 07:24, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am
not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws
governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep
