Zazzle removing public domain content?

[jennifer22]

Does Zazzle simply remove content it thinks is a copyright violation before allowing the designer to provide proof of legitimate use? It seems like this may be the case, which makes me concerned about the hours upon hours of work I've spent on my stores that use public domain content, such as BeautifulSpace, which uses public domain space imagery, mostly from NASA.

For example, I just lost many products I incorporated this footprint on: https://rlv.zcache.com/svc/getimage?id=73a84021-000a-41bd-8da3-4927eac8d4ce&max_dim=280.

This is public domain content, as is most NASA imagery. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Footprint.gif

[Scott]

I would reply back to the email from CMT and ask for further details.

[jennifer22]

Thanks, @Scott. I did reply back, I just haven't received a response yet. It's just a bit frustrating, as I spend quite a bit of time ensuring images I use are in the public domain, so having this design wiped out is concerning. I like to use Zazzle's design feature to create a lot of the layouts, but if Zazzle often deletes designs without notice, it may be better to create off-site. I hope I can get this design back. I really liked it.

(On a side note, I completely agree with removing copyrighted images -- it's just important to make sure an image actually is copyrighted, rather than in the public domain. E.g., content produced before 1927 is public domain in the United States, as is content produced by the US government, including NASA.)

[Barbara]

I just read through NASA's rules on commercial usage, and though there's a lot of devil in the details, that footprint doesn't appear to fall within the list of restrictions, which are mainly for logo, insignia, and astronaut names and faces.

EDIT: I'm not entirely sure, but I just looked again, and it may be that you have to request approval from NASA before an image is used commercially.

Colorwash's Home

[jennifer22]

Thanks, @Barbara. It's not required to request permission of NASA for typical photos, even for commercial purposes, but, as you mention, it is necessary before using their logo, insignia, photos of faces, etc. This text is a bit more clear: https://gpm.nasa.gov/image-use-policy And this lawyer's website is also a bit more clear: https://www.vondranlegal.com/how-to-legally-use-nasa-images-in-your-youtube-blogs-and-social-media

(I agree the official guidelines at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html are really confusing!)

[Barbara]

I wish lawyers wouldn't write those things. LOL

Colorwash's Home

[jennifer22]

I know, right? It took me so long to figure out what's okay to use and what's not. This is not for my main store, but I personally love space photography, so I opened up a new store to allow some of these beautiful images to get on more products.

[Barbara]

@jennifer22  The images that pull me in are the ones of galaxies and nebula that are a blast of color on black. They aren't real, though, are they? I've never been able to pinpoint the origins of them.

Colorwash's Home

[PenguinPower]

They are probably from Hubble - and yes the color is false, though on some at least, the colors have meanings - different elements have been given specific colors. Pillars of creation is probably the most famous.. but there are many that are breathtaking.
https://astronomy.com/news/2017/04/best-of-hubble-images
Photos from the new James Webb space telescope  should bring us more of the same, and be even better.

[Barbara]

@PenguinPower  That's it--Hubble. I know it can't be the James Webb Telescope because I'm remembering images from a few years ago.

@jennifer22  That's what I thought--that the colors have been added.

Colorwash's Home

[jennifer22]

A lot of recent ones are from the new James Webb Telescope. Regarding the color, it depends on what we mean by real. Many of these new ones are not in the human visual spectrum; they're using near-infrared wavelengths and then corresponding these wavelengths that we cannot see into colors. At least that's what I gather as a non-scientist 🙂 They're pretty amazing. The James Webb telescope is just a few months old. Here are some of its first images: https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages (more info at https://webbtelescope.org/)

ETA: Found this about the James Webb's NIRCam. It captures near-infrared, which is the light that is just beyond what our visual system can see. https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/instruments/nircam.html

[WHS_Designs]

I had one design that was erroneously yanked, and was subsequently undeleted (reinstated).

[jennifer22]

Thanks, @WHS_Designs. That makes me feel better 🙂 Now I just have to hope Zazzle responds to the email inquiry I sent...

[WHS_Designs]

I'm sure they will. Your livelihood (and to a lesser extent, theirs!) would benefit from it! 🙂 

[whimsywhim]

Yes.  I have strongly urged Zazzle to freeze disputed products to give the designer time to prove its legitimate use.  I had a Van Gogh painting removed from products because content review thought Van Gogh painted a joint.  He didn't.  He painted a cigarette.  Cigarette is even in the title.  After proving the facts, I had to put the painting on products again and advertise them again.  

This can be fixed by placing disputed products on hold instead of getting rid of them instantly.

[RGebbiePhoto]

Do you all understand there is up to a $10,000 FINE PER INSTANCE if you are in the wrong, correct? It's their way of being overly cautious. And, as seen above, they DO have the capability of reinstating a design/product. But, as most things, I'm sure it's dependent on how they are approached. 
I've had images pulled, best sellers wiped out. However, in retrospect, had to appreciate the time I had, and that it was removed before things became an issue for me.

[jennifer22]

A follow up -- I heard back from Zazzle, and apparently Zazzle has been previously reached out to by a Buzz Aldrin company regarding infringement on their rights. I don't agree with this company regarding the footprint being their copyright, but I respect Zazzle's caution in removing the image. So, just a heads up to everyone to be careful when using anything involving Buzz Aldrin.

[KeegansCreation]

That's good to know. I'll add that to my ever lengthening list of things that seem like they should be ok to use but are not. The updated list:

• Mark Twain
• Oscar Wilde
• Photos of the Eiffel Tower at night
• Robert Frost poetry- while some of it is in the public domain, some of it is not. 
• The term Farm Boy
• "think pink"
• Salvidor Dali
• Escher
• Lifeguard (the word has been copyrighted)
• "smiley" in reference to the smiley face, and also the smiley face itself (all smile faces must be a little different from the classic one and not be called "smiley")
• Live,Love,Laugh
• "Fight Like A Girl"
• "No one fights alone"
• "Good Vibes Only"
• Photo of Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the moon.

[jennifer22]

out of curiosity... is the Eiffel Towel during the day okay?

[KeegansCreation]

Yes. While in Paris I took many photos of the Eiffel Tower during the day and used them without incident. It's the Eiffel Tower lights, rather than the tower itself, that is copyright protected so daytime photos are ok.

[jennifer22]

Good to know. I recently went to Paris and have images of the structure, but I’m not a photographer, so I’ll leave that product creation to the specialists 🙂

[JB]

This is interesting, because usually photographs the copyright belong to the photographer. So photographing a structure, yourself, can't be used? lmao. humans make things so convoluted. That is really blowing my mind... lmao...

[allanGEE]

Add "Every Child Matters" to that list.  😞

[CrazyMermaid]

Really? The public paid for that footprint. Not like he paid for NASA. 

[jennifer22]

Yes, that's why it's in the public domain (although anything he'd be physically identifiable in, such as a photo of his face, would not be in the public domain). But for Zazzle and for us, it's probably not worth arguing with his company.

[Windy]

Are those the footprints of Buzz Aldrin? Is that the problem ? 

[jennifer22]

They are, but it shouldn't actually be a problem, as the only thing he should be able to copyright is his actual likeness, not anything related to NASA's space mission. Even a non-identifiable photo of him would be considered government material and thus hold no copyright, such as an image of him in full astronaut gear (with no visible identifying physical characteristics). And a photo of a footprint is one more removed from that...

[Windy]

I totally agree. They are not even his FOOTPRINTS. They are NASA-owned SHOEPRINTS. I think this claim on the part of Aldrin's people is entirely spurious.

[Barbara]

Note on Mark Twain: A lot of his oldest writing is in the public domain, which means you have to do the research first. I found a quote site with the info, but it was several years ago, so I dare not advise.

Colorwash's Home

[Barbara]

Reading through the information on the NASA site, it appears all the photos are free to use for education, news, and things of that ilk. It was more the commercial uses that are somewhat restricted, which might include the footprint. I understand this when it comes to institutions such as colleges that make money selling products, but I'm not sure I understand it with NASA. Do they make extra money from t-shirts, hats, etc? Is it a matter of their licensing the images to companies who are protecting their investment? None of it makes sense to me.

Colorwash's Home

[jennifer22]

Commercial use is restricted if it would imply NASA endorsement, such as by using their logo. These two sentences help:

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services.

If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person.

And, it's under the non-commercial section, but they also state:

NASA content - images, audio, 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 subject to copyright in the United States

Regardless, this confusing language was why I originally had to search further for clarification. Here's one source that provides information in easier to understand language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NASA_images

Under United States copyright law, works created by the U.S. federal government  or its agencies cannot be copyrighted.

[Barbara]

---

@jennifer22 wrote:

Regardless, this confusing language was why I originally had to search further for clarification. Here's one source that provides information in easier to understand language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NASA_images 

---

I found the page confusing because of all the images, which included those of people that couldn't possibly be used for commercial purposes, not even if they belonged to NASA itself.

Be careful giving trust to wikipedia or -media. A small for-instance was last week when I was watching someone being interviewed who said his biography stated he went to a particular college that he'd never even been near. We're better off going to original sources, though government sources can be tough since, I swear, the people who write for the agencies are the same ones who write instructions for the IRS.

Colorwash's Home

[jennifer22]

Good point. This was just a sample of a place that put it in easier to understand language. Here's another NASA source that is also a bit easier to understand: https://gpm.nasa.gov/image-use-policy