Starship Asterisk*

Copyright law is very gray. It would probably depend on who had the better lawyer... but it's true that those tidbits of your image could get copied over and over with some domino effect because all of the Mozilla apps are released with a very loose license. Wasn't saying this battle wasn't worth fighting. Of course that's up to you. Personally, I just gave up on it. I don't even sign my images. I went from being totally anally retentive about copyright to virtually not caring at all. Kind of funny. :)

Agreed but from what little copyright law I know I am under the impression that if you don't assert copyright ownership you can lose it. With an image like the APOD image (which I have licensed for sale more than once) I don't want to risk losing the copyright. Since I'm not a lawyer and not about to hire one for something trivial like this, asking Mozilla to remove that usage seemed like a good idea and one that others here might wish to know about.

Comes with the territory. I used to get upset about copyright infringement too. Most battles aren't worth fighting.

I just filed my first DMCA notice and it involved this image (cropped portions) being used by THREE different people for Firefox Personas. Silly people to use something so well known. Hopefully they won't be there real long.

I had completely forgotten this thread but it's somewhat ironic that this image was at one time disparaged as a fake or a derivative of a Windows Desktop or some such nonsense, then is stolen. Perhaps people thought they could just crop any old portion from a photographer's work and that would be just too cool and never noticed.

Gee, two different photos of Aurora Borealis actually look similar.

Could it be because they're both good photos, showing actually what Aurora looks like?

So much time and effort has gone into trying to discredit an absolutely beautiful photo because it looks a little like another photo of the same type of subject material, but from a completely different place. I can't even begin to imagine a motive for doing so.

Aviatress, if you can't immediately see that these two photos are completely different from one another, save for similar subject material, perhaps you should should consider submitting to some neurological examinations.

-Noel

No way that they are the same.

In one picture there looks like mountains and the other one there is trees .

Santa,

First your pic is great and everyone here (except one person) did not believe the work was a copy of the Vista background at all. On the contrary it is VERY obvious they are not the same image.

The person who made the accusation was proven wrong by a number of posters and yet she/he felt the need to continue the argument with no proof on her/his side to back it except "anyone can photoshop".

That is a poor argument because with Photoshop I could make Halle Barry look like the Jovian moon Io if I wanted (but why would I :D ).

Aviatress owes you an apology but from her/his tone I doubt it will be coming.

...
If anything this thread has been useful in getting new readers and old lurkers signed up.

Interesting the lengths some will go to stir up . . .'ill feelings' when the truth is easier to believe and easier to demonstrate.


Now that I finally joined I may just have to contribute in other, more pleasant, threads/conversations...



...tom...
.

Aviatress, I believe you owe Bud Kuenzli a public apology in this forum.

Given the depth and multitude of his aurora photos, he has no reason to copy a photo of aurora from a desktop wallpaper file. None.

The two photos aren't even close to the same. Yes, they are green aurora. But the Vista one isn't even reflecting the aurora in the lake properly. What's that green at the far end of the lake?

Suggesting that Bud stole the Vista photo is an insult to his reputation and talent. You need to apologize - publicly.

Hi everyone. That's my photograph that APOD published. If you look reaaaly reaaly closely at the full size version I sent them you can actually pick out a mistake in the pano process. I failed to completely airbrush out part of the overlap from one frame to another. If you would like to see more of my work you can do so at http://pbase.com/santa/aurora which has some of my favorites, and for even more you can check out http://www.pbase.com/santa/aurora_miscellaneous where every shot (even the self portrait which was done with a self timer) was taken by me. These are, of course, just the keepers. I have 49.21GB of aurora photography on my computer at the moment. Much of it is garbage but I also have many undeveloped raw files.
Often I'm flattered when somebody thinks something I've done is too good to be true. Telling stories of shooting aurora at -50F can bring the "I don't believe it!" response, as can stories of being lost on the Tundra, alone at -45F or chased by bear stories. I just chuckle at those "I can't believe it!" responses.
This, however is a bit more than that. Next time you accuse somebody of image theft, have the courtesy to contact them first. These two images are NOT the same image and I have the raw file from which I created my panorama to prove it.
The statement you attribute to me was indeed written by the APOD staff. You didn't get anything right. (said to the OP)
I am, BTW, a retired High School teacher, Principal, and technology manager living in North Pole, Alaska. I did indeed use Photoshop on the image, but it is a stitching of ...I think...6 individual images. Could be four or five.
This isn't going to be an on-going debate. I'm just telling the facts, once. I have not been to this web site before and was only directed here by an online friend who recognized the situation for what it was. With that, the OP and anyone else is free to think whatever they wish. Square world, universe revolves around the Earth...whatever. Bye. Take care, and thanks for the defense by those with neurons firing properly.

Wow. Maybe Aviatress forgot to take a pill. Maybe a higher dosage would help.

Anyway, I have known Bud for a while and can vouch for the authenticity of this image. It was obtained using a digital camera, maybe a Canon D20.
He takes three exposures, one right after one-another, while panning. Then they are stiched togeather and maybe touched up a little to hide the seams. That's all. No deceptions. No plagerism.

I can also vouch for the fact that there are no shortages of auroras in Alaska since I make my living on them. Why would a person living "in the zone" even begin to consider stealing someone elses work when they can go out their front door and get their own? Why would anybody be inclined to even suggest it?

So my hat is off to Bud (We know him as Santa). Congradulations on yet another fantasitic image and I look forward to seeing many more in this new solar cycle 24.
Best Regards,
Dennis Anderson, Night Trax Photography, Homer, Alaska

I can see the two pictures that were posted in this forum. And yes they are similar, in that they both show the same thing: an aurora. But to translate one image to another just to post it on APOD would be pointless. The photoshop work required would be quite a bit to change the aurora shape, the landscape shape, and to make it all look reasonable. I can agree that they are two entirely different images.

His image may well have been edited, but there is no way that it came from the window's vista background.

You are incorrigible. It is possible, I admit to that, but it is also highly unlikely. This is something like looking at two photos of the same person and claiming that the second photo of that same person is a manipulation because the people look the same.

Edit: By the way, I'd be interested in seeing your work. If you want to see mine, it's at http://www.geckzilla.com or [url=http://gecky.deviantart.com/]gecky.deviantart.com[/url] if you like deviantart. Specifically, many years ago I made some repairs to an old photograph which would be in the same line as this conversation:
http://gecky.deviantart.com/art/Old-Photograph-Repairs-3681536

Anybody's work can be criticized and judged. If you've ever used the internet before, you would know that there are people who do submit false work.

I would hardly consider the manipulation to be "painstakingly difficult"; if you've ever seen some of the work people have created from a given few images on photoshop (especially in photoshop contests), it would be clear to you that making such a transformation from the wallpaper image to the APOD would be effortless compared to the advanced work of others.

I've taken professional photography classes and used the program long enough to know how it works. I'm not saying that the APOD is fake and I'm not saying that it is not, but I'm saying from my personal judgement that manipulation can be done to create it, so I'm not entirely convinced of its legitimacy.

Apparently, you don't handle opinions well, which is a shame. I'd love to waste the rest of my time arguing on this topic, but unlike you, I'm much too busy and have things to do. Don't worry, though; you can still be a douchebag and post more replies if you wish.

Amendment to my statement that there are no signs of manipulation on Bud's photo:

There is one line on the left side. This is a stitch line that went unnoticed. To make a panorama sometimes photographers take several photographs of the same scene and stitch them together. This can produce a higher resolution image and much wider field of view than cropping a single photograph. This is only further proof that the photographer took not one but several photos of the same scene that night. Here is another one taken of just the right side of the same lake:

http://www.pbase.com/santa/image/86109379/original

You are right, Photoshop can be used to manipulate photos. However, you should not take a photographer's integrity so lightly. First, check the photographer's website for his other photography. His name is Bud Kuenzli, believe it or not he is a real person and you can find many of his other aurora photographs here:
http://www.pbase.com/santa/aurora

Second, in order to manipulate that APOD into existence based solely on the Windows Vista wallpaper would be painstakingly difficult, especially considering the fidelity and resolution of the image you claim is the fake. Because I know exactly what processes one would have to go through in order to perform such a task, I can very easily say that it would be many times easier to actually photograph the aurora than it would be to create it.

Third, given the photographer's considerable portfolio, it is easy to see that he is the real deal and has a lot of experience photoraphing aurorae.

Fourth, there are no visible signs of manipulation other than the usual level and color adjustments that even the most amateur photographers do all the time. There are no mismatched textures, the perspective correct, there are no repeating textures, the grain is consistent throughout the image, and the stars themselves match up to their positions in the photograph (stars near the corners will be distorted by the camera lens).

Furthermore, there are too many inconsistencies between the two photographs for them to have even been taken in the same positions on earth, or for them to even be taken with the same camera settings. The grain is different, the terrain is different, the stars are different, the water is different, and the one you claim is the original is actually BLURRIER and of overall much lower quality than the Bud's image. Once someone manipulates an image, the result is inevitably of lower quality and shows many inconsistencies, not the other way around.

Indeed, one would have to be either insane or ignorant to make the accusations which you are making. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is the latter.

I'm sure pictures can be manipulated on it. That's what the program is used for. If you don't know that, then I wouldn't consider you much of an expert.

I'm an expert on Photoshop. You're wrong.

Expertise? I'm merely stating that I'm not convinced. If you wish to know more about photoshop, feel free to do some research on what it is and how images can be manipulated on it.

Aviatress, please explain in depth what you mean and include images to illustrate what you mean. I expect to see a similar end result to the APOD photo from you. Given your expertise on the subject it should be no problem.

It's called "photoshop,", and people know how to use it.

No way are they the same.

You can see the silhouette of two 'hills' in the Vista image with a valley in the middle but there is only one hill (left) in the APOD. This isn't even the same lake or at least it isn't taken from the same place.

Second the APOD image is a wider angle shot than the Vista one.

Third, you can see the tree detail on the left hand side in the APOD but there is no such detail in the Vista pic.

Fourth, the lake reflection is completely different. The Vista one has a mirror quality while the APOD reflection is more diffuse.

Fifth, I am not sure because both images are small but the 'whorl' shape of the aurora in the Vista pic is not present in the APOD pic.

The only thing these pics have in common is that they are green auroras over a lake.

way too similar to be convincing

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071009.html

[quote="Aviatress"]The author of this picture claims "...."[/quote]The description is generally written by the staff, not the photographer.

[quote="Aviatress"]It's bullsh*t. I bought my laptop months before the picture was supposedly taken, and it's one of the wallpaper options (for Windows Vista). As a matter of fact, it's my current wallpaper! What a disgrace.[/quote]There are some similarities, but it is not the same image:
left Vista, right APOD.

[img]http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6126/nighttimeaurorajp5.jpg[/img] [img]http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3080/aurorakuenzlimz8.jpg[/img]

The author of this picture claims the following:

"This digitally fused breathtaking panorama was captured late last month across one of the Chena Lakes in North Pole, Alaska, USA, and includes the Pleiades open cluster of stars on the image right. The shot is unusual not only for the many wonders it has captured simultaneously, but because lakes this far north tend to freeze and become non-reflecting before a sky this dark can be photographed."

It's bullsh*t. I bought my laptop months before the picture was supposedly taken, and it's one of the wallpaper options (for Windows Vista). As a matter of fact, it's my current wallpaper!

What a disgrace.