Celestia Forums

Almost dropped my teeth when I saw that first one and said, "wait just a minute, that can't be Celestia." And it wasn't. Nice pics though, I especially like the last one.

Funnily enough...aside from the little green men the last one is probably the most realistic as it was the only one actually taken by the probe.

I'm told by a reliable source [ed: actually, I don't really know how reliable Fridger is ] that the others were produced with ray-tracing, etc. I assume he would have used topographical data from spacecraft, and then modelled the scenes in 3DS or Softimage, etc...

I'm told by a reliable source [ed: actually, I don't really know how reliable Fridger is ] that the others were produced with ray-tracing, etc. I assume he would have used topographical data from spacecraft, and then modelled the scenes in 3DS or Softimage, etc...

Looks like Terragen 2 ...

The top picture features Arsia Mons. Above that are two craters of smaller volcanoes
called Biblis Patera and Ulysses Patera, left to right. On the left horizon is a
dark line that is topped by a lofty plateau 900 miles away called Olympus Mons.

The second picture features Olympus Mons. In the forground are some rough lava flows
from Olympus Mons. They are 500 miles from the center of Olympus Mons. The artist
has covered the intervening lowlands with clouds.

Th fourth picture has flattened the curve of Mars extremely. It is not
possible to look from the east end of Valles Marineris, like this, and
see Olympus Mons without flattening the planet. In this flat-Mars picture,
you can see 3000 miles. From left to right:
Arsia Mons : 9 south, 120 west
Pavonis Mons : 0 north, 113 west
Ascraeus Mons : 12 north, 105 west
Olympus Mons : 18 north, 133 west
Tharsis Tholus : 13 north, 92 west

Here is a list of all 16 major volcanoes on Mars :

#1 Ceraunius Tholus : 24 north, 97 west
#2 Uranius Tholus : 26 north, 97 west
#3 Uranius Patera : 27 north, 93 west
#4 Tharsis Tholus : 13 north, 92 west
#5 Hecates Tholus : 33 north, 210 west
#6 Albor Tholus : 19 north, 210 west
#7 Biblis Patera : 2 north, 124 west
#8 Ulysses Patera : 3 north, 122 west
#9 Alba Patera : 40 north, 110 west
#10 Apollinaris Patera : 9 south, 186 west
#11 Tyrrhena Patera : 22 south, 253 west
#12 Olympus Mons : 18 north, 133 west
#13 Arsia Mons : 9 south, 120 west
#14 Pavonis Mons : 0 north, 113 west
#15 Ascraeus Mons : 12 north, 105 west
#16 Elysium Mons : 15 north, 213 west

The volcanoes are near the equator of Mars. There are no major
volcanoes near the poles.

The artist is of those pictures flattens Mars to group features that are
not possible to see together when orbiting Mars. I like the pictures!
For example, the third picture shows the west end of Valles Marineris with
Arsia Mons and Pavonis Mons, but then, incredibly, he shows Olympus Mons
on the right, 1500 miles away!

The fifth picture also flattens Mars so we can see farther than the normal
horizon would allow. In the foreground is a small part of Valles Marineris.
To the left is a fog-filled major part of Valles Marineris. Below the Sun,
on the horizon is a broad shield volcano called Arsia Mons.

If those pictures are by Veenenbos, then I believe he was indeed using Terragen.

...John...

Yeah, those are Veenenbos images (apart from the last one)... I think that some of those were released before Terragen 2 came on the scene - Terragen does have a curved terrain facility, you just need to do some postprocessing to do the horizon clouds etc - and it looks more like the output of Terragen than what I've seen so far of Terragen 2. His later stuff is using the development release of TG2 though.

EDIT - it was Veenebos who put those on ImageShack right? Otherwise this is a rip (copyright violation)...

chaos syndrome wrote:EDIT - it was Veenebos who put those on ImageShack right? Otherwise this is a rip (copyright violation)...

If I had edited out Veenebos' copyright and tried to claim these as mine, or tried to make some commercial gain from these, then that would probably be a copyright violation, however as I believe Veenebos originally published these for peoples enjoyment, and has no objection to them being re-distributed then I don't believe it's a rip.

Of course, if Veenebos objects to this then I will happily remove them.

BTW: More of Kees Veenebos' work can be viewed here: http://www.space4case.com/space4case/index.php

Chuft-Captain wrote:If I had edited out Veenebos' copyright and tried to claim these as mine, or tried to make some commercial gain from these, then that would probably be a copyright violation, however as I believe Veenebos originally published these for peoples enjoyment, and has no objection to them being re-distributed then I don't believe it's a rip.

Sorry, but what you believe is irrelevant. If the copyright owner expressly and explicitly gives you permission to copy and repost his images then you can do it. If he doesn't, then you can't and you are violating his copyright.

Veenebos is not going to complain because in all likelihood you haven't asked him if you can post them. He probably doesn't even know these have been reposted.

As it is, there's no need to copy these images at all. You should have just pointed people to his website where people could enjoy all of his images. You should certainly delete the images from imageshack.

Sorry, CC, but Malenfant is right.

I could edit your postings to remove the references to Imageshack, but I think it would be best if you edited them to include links to the author's Web site.

selden wrote:....include links to the author's Web site.

I've already done that Selden (my posting above MaleInfant's above includes a reference his website)

For everyone elses peace of mind.... the copyright owner has expressly and explicitly given his permission. Let's hope that puts the matter to rest. There's far too much stress on this thread. Let's just enjoy the guy's images. That's what he wants you to do.

Great!

Yeah, sorry for jumping on you like that - I didn't think it was done with malicious intent, but regarding use of other people's images it is always better to be safe than sorry.

Hi guys,

Next time before beating each other up about copyright, you might like to educate yourselves on the law first.
In my humble opinion, the nature and context of this use of material constitutes a "fair use" under U.S. copyright law.
(Laws are generally framed in such a way as to allow a certain amount of common-sense to prevail)
I'm assuming the servers are located in the U.S.?

For future reference:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I'm no mind-reader, but somehow I have the feeling this is not the last I'll be hearing about this.

Re-publishing something on the Web is not fair use.

Could the Chuft-Captain please provide evidence that the artist has given permission to copy his artwork and repost it on an image-sharing site? Because frankly I'm suspicious. The guy has several galleries of his own on his website, why on earth would he give someone permission to copy them and post them somewhere else online?

If it's a case of getting a reply of "yes" to "can I show your pictures on a forum?", that is not permission to copy and repost them on a different server; it means you can post a link to those pictures on the original website.

The distinction may seem irrelevant in practice, but legally there is a vast difference. In one case you're pointing people to the website, in the other you're taking IP and reposting it somewhere that you have no right to do so.

chaos syndrome wrote:Yeah, sorry for jumping on you like that - I didn't think it was done with malicious intent, but regarding use of other people's images it is always better to be safe than sorry.

Cheers, no problem.

selden wrote:Re-publishing something on the Web is not fair use.

The law appears to disagree with you:

US Copyright Office wrote:Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?€”

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

(Emphasis added)

The copyright notices have not been removed either, so it seems to run smooth with section 106a as well.

I'm active in a swedish photoforum and the same question has been answered there too. There is no legal problem to publish these pictures here.

If you "know" this by what seems to be logic, forget it, what may be logic to me is not always logic to you, right?

Asi que...

Just my humble opinion...