NOAA Requires License For Photos of the Earth

Teancum writes "In an interesting show of the level of regulations private spacecraft designers have to go through, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has demanded that American participants of the Google Lunar X Prize obtain a license if their spacecraft are 'capable of actively or passively sensing the Earth's surface, including bodies of water, from space by making use of the properties of the electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected, or diffracted by the sensed objects.' What prompted NOAA to ask for this license came from a visit by the XPrize staff to the NOAA offices in Maryland. What is going to happen when 'space tourists' bring their private cameras along for the ride?"

Absurd!

[vivaoporto (1064484)]

As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?

Re:Absurd!

[brxndxn (461473)]

As if RIAA and MPAA weren't enough, now this NOAA: Who's come next, AAA?

That's why I'm in AA.

Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[xmas2003 (739875)]

Here's the letter from NOAA to the Lunar X participants [noaa.gov] that outlines how this is pursuent to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 - says it may take up to 120 days to obtain the license - think about that before you take your first picure! ;-)

In the meantime, you can use existing satellite photos to image your house [komar.org] and here's a cool way to get a nifty Earth view. [fourmilab.ch]

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Plazmid (1132467)]

Well then, looks like the winner of the Lunar X Prize won't launch in the US, and probably won't start a business here either.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[ryanisflyboy (202507)]

Here is a link to the act itself:

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html [nasa.gov]

It looks like the purpose is to protect the commercial interests of private space companies. If all the sudden people are launching rockets and giving away the data for free, that hurts space commerce. The goal here, again, is commercial. They want to create a commercial space enterprise. So while that sector is growing Uncle Sam is going to protect it.

Because they have a policy of being "nondiscriminatory" they have to either charge everyone, or charge no one.

However, one could argue that if your goal is non-commercial this wouldn't apply to you.

This policy probably had good intentions, but is now very out of date.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

It looks like the purpose is to protect the commercial interests of private space companies. If all the sudden people are launching rockets and giving away the data for free, that hurts space commerce. ... This policy probably had good intentions, but is now very out of date.

Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions. It can only be a favor to existing commercial interests in return for their lining politicians' pockets.

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[yndrd1984 (730475)]

Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions.

Of course it does! Outlawing designated drivers forces people to use taxis, which helps the economy. Only allowing only professional movers to take furniture in and out of houses prevents injuries to out-of-shape people. And of course, making every babysitter get registered as a state-certified child care provider would reduce the risk of harm to the children, and would also keep for-profit day cares in business, which means more jobs.

See, nothing but good intentions!

Re:Notice from NOAA to Lunar X Prize Participants

[jcwayne (995747)]

I, for one, never welcomed our road to hell paving overlords.

Wow

[jrwr00 (1035020)]

Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!

Naming rights

[Enderandrew (866215)]

That's the Budweiser Moon© now, they paid for the naming rights.

Re:Wow

[dattaway (3088)]

Um, Wow i didnt think you could copyright THE EARTH.. What next? The Moon!

I'm sorry, but the Moon is a registered trademark according to the USPTO. Seriously. 9482 entries with "Moon"

What will happen?

[The Man (684)]

Well, in order to understand what will happen with this sort of thing, one first needs to understand why so many banks are headquartered in Bermuda, Macao, Jersey, and Guernsey and why shipping companies are so often headquartered in the Marshall Islands. Once you understand that, you'll know the outcome of US policy on private space travel.

Re:What will happen?

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

If Cuba ever gets its act together, it could become the hub of private space.

Secrecy to the nth absurd

[twatter (867120)]

The Space sensing act of when??

Is the US government the only entity that can image the planet from orbit?

What, are they scared I might take a photo of the aliens in Area51?

And what if I'm snapping away at Africa? Australia?

Do I go to jail or what??

Ridiculous.

Re:Secrecy to the nth absurd

[by Anonymous Coward]

it's not ridiculous at all.
when you think about it, taking a photo of the earth from space isn't (conceptually) any different from walking into a store a stealing a CD.

It's a privacy thing.

[Shaitan Apistos (1104613)]

I can totally understand this, If my Florida was flapping in the breeze I wouldn't want people taking snapshots either.

This is actually for real

[Steve1952 (651150)]

This is actually for real. See:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c1029W3AOE:e25773 [loc.gov]:

SEC. 202. CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION.

(a) LICENSE REQUIRED FOR OPERATION- No person who is subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States may, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate, operate any private remote sensing space system without a license pursuant to section 201.

(b) LICENSING REQUIREMENTS- Any license issued pursuant to this title shall specify that the licensee shall comply with all of the requirements of this Act and shall--

(1) operate the system in such manner as to preserve the national security of the United States and to observe the international obligations of the United States in accordance with section 506;

(2) make available to the government of any country (including the United States) unenhanced data collected by the system concerning the territory under the jurisdiction of such government as soon as such data are available and on reasonable terms and conditions;

(3) make unenhanced data designated by the Secretary in the license pursuant to section 201(e) available in accordance with section 501;

(4) upon termination of operations under the license, make disposition of any satellites in space in a manner satisfactory to the President;

(5) furnish the Secretary with complete orbit and data collection characteristics of the system, and inform the Secretary immediately of any deviation; and

(6) notify the Secretary of any agreement the licensee intends to enter with a foreign nation, entity, or consortium involving foreign nations or entities.

Re:This is actually for real

[baby_robots (990618)]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space when we don't even have jurisdiction 10 miles off our coastline.

Planting the Flag in the New World

[Original Replica (908688)]

It seems like it would be hard to enforce jurisdiction in space

But that's really the whole point you see; extending government jurisdiction into space. Suppose Virgin Galactic builds a space hotel, is it an independent nation? A privately owned holding not subject to any man made laws? What about 100 years from now, I'm sure the governments of Earth would prefer to have control over Lunar He3 resources. [wisc.edu] To do that they need to start slowly establishing authority in space. Next, any space hotel will be declared to be under the control of the home nation of the corporation that builds/operates it. Then that nation just expands it's sphere of influence in the name of security,exploration and manifest destiny. Really it's just a land grab.

Close your eyes!

[by Anonymous Coward]

That would seem to include eyesight. I guess everyone will need to fly blind.

And people wonder why...

[by Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world is nowadays inclined to treat american laws with a huge "fuck you".

Seriously, the russians (already doing it) and - god help us all - the british (virgin) are the ones already strongly involved in private space tourism. America sucks so much these days.

I say screw em

[CrazyJim1 (809850)]

What are they gonna do, shoot down your satellites? Doubtful. They have NO AA.

In the Soviet States of America......

[budword (680846)]

All Soviet jokes aside, anyone notice how much the United States is resembling more and more the old school buffoons of the USSR ? It was illegal to possess accurate maps in the old USSR, to protect state secrets. Now we have the US claim you need a license to take a picture of the earth. It's just a 21st century version of screaming, "Papers Please". I for one, don't hail our old overlords.

NOAA is the good guys

[daemonburrito (1026186)]

This is law, and is totally out of the control of NOAA.

I've done a lot of work with NOAA and NOAA datasets and this sort of thing happens a lot, because of businesses who believe that "the government should not be in the business of distributing data". Predictably, they lobby congress. FWIW, I've witnessed NOAA passively resist this bullshit as much as they can.

BTW, if you find this sort thing disgusting (as I do), stop going to weather.com and accu-weather. They are the worst offenders. Every couple of years they try to shut down NOAA ftp servers so they can be the gatekeepers of taxpayer-funded data (like maps).

This law, in particular, is a piece of a strategy that didn't work in the early 90s, thanks in large part to career people at NOAA. They got this law passed, but they weren't able to shut down the ftp servers.

Please don't blame the NOAA people. Blame the businesses like weather.com and accu-weather, and blame a bribable congress.

And this

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

Here's the direct language of the bill [loc.gov]