Interesting :)

also this image is the exacte one I use as bacground on my phone, lol. looks like a face, can see the eye, nose, mouth, hair...

The article doesn't seem to link to a source from NASA saying what's changed. It also seems to be based on much older articles e.g. https://www.diyphotography.net/nasa-makes-entire-media-library-publicly-... from 2017.

See https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/what-license-are-images-available-in-... for some discussion on the copyright/licence status of NASA images.

Also even if they are public domain, see https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/derivative-works-from-things-that-are... for a discussion on whether that applies in countries other than the US.

The official nasa site still has lots of stipulations that would stop all the assets from being "copyright free" https://nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html

Please do not go nuts and continue to verify the terms indicated on individual images on each nasa page.

Many of the assets may be public domain or some form of copyleft, but don't assume all of them are. Also "copyright free" and "has no copyright" are generally terms used by people that don't know how copyright works. Things can't be copyright free unless:

1. The asset falls into the Public Domain based on age (nasa assets have not done this) or ...
2. The assets have been explicitly dedicated to the Public Domain (possible for nasa assets, but you need to locate where this is stated) or ...
3. The assets were explicitly licensed under terms that are so permissive they are considered "copyright free", for example cc0 or wtfpl. (Again this will be explicitly stated, so we need to find where this is stated)

It's better to consider an asset under the Public Domain "license" or the CC0 license, etc. than to think of it as "copyright free".