Space 'brushes' and props
Serene Night
Posts: 17,560
I use a lot of backdrops and have seen brushes sold at other stores, but would like some easy to use stars, planets, nebula etc, Sort of like what Ron does. Very realistic ones.
Would also love some asteroid props, and planet props to use renders.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You can find a lot of space related brushes on Deviantart.
http://browse.deviantart.com/resources/applications/psbrushes/?q=space
http://naldzgraphics.net/freebies/a-compilation-of-free-space-brushes-for-photoshop/
The dA link has some great brushes. I hadn't seen the second link before, ty Vaskania :)
Thanks. I've seen some of these. I admit, I tend not to download freebies unless they have commercial use listed, and I don't have to credit them. (It is not that I don't think they deserve credit, simply, I don't want stuff on my machine I have to remember to cite and aren't available for commercial use.
This is why I'd love a product that was purchasable with no strings attached.
I can understand that. I think brush creators who think about commercial usage is a much smaller percentage than those who don't. Most assume hobby use, or don't care one way or the other and don't think to specifically state it.
Well the issue is, if those brush maker took NASA photos and made the brushes, then they technically can't offer the rights to use them commercially because they never owned any of the rights, because NASA 's photos are owned by NASA, not by the guy or gal who made the brushes. And yes I called them makers and not creators because taking someone else's photos and turning it into a PS brush is simply making not creating.
Actually, NASA images are basically public domain. Always pays to do one's research.
Also, quick note about creation vs 'making.' It really depends on what went into it. If one uses resources and combines them to some percentage (which varies according to particular circumstances) it is actually 'legally' considered 'creation' rather then simply 'making.' Without knowing the extent one simply converted something vs used various resources to create their final product, I would tend to err on the side of the artist for credit purposes, and the side of the original source for legal purposes. That is, I would not make claims against their right to claim it as an original product without knowing for sure they did in fact just copy/translate, but I would treat my personal use as if it was copied if I wasn't sure. In this case, it doesn't matter, per link above.
Thank you for that information about NASA public domain, it's good to learn something new everyday.
Your point about making vs creating was valid btw FirstBastion. I wasn't meaning to sound like I disagreed with you, rather just meant to round out the information. There is a difference between creating and translating. Both are valid functions, but they are different functions :)
About the research comment, it was actually was self reflective...
Back when NASA first started putting up images, one of my thoughts was of usage since CC was just getting to be a popular concept at that time. So I went out right away to look up what I could or couldn't do with the images. It is a great resource that people don't realize is available to them. Basically, what NASA said at one point was that the images were paid for by tax dollars and therefore were by definition public domain. It seems there is some precedent about things being created by governmental bodies being public domain at least to citizens of that area (although I've never seen it limited to a specific 'public.') Things change over time however, so I would always recommend doing research to see what the current status of any particular resource/use is. That was what the comment was meant to convey but of course didn't since I didn't include enough information.