9 ms·
After years of leniency, ULA cracks down on hobbyist photographers
- voisin 2y agoI am unclear on what’s happening here or what grounds ULA has to prevent photos from being taken. How can someone prevent someone from taking photos in a public space? Edit: found the answer deep in the article. “ The launch site is not a public space but rather a ULA-operated facility on a US military base”
- DiabloD3 2y agoThey can't, and like many companies and organizations, they are going learn the hard way. To those downvoting: ULA is going after anyone taking photos, not just ones that have been invited onto the property. RTFA. No one should sign any agreements if they feel they're being forced to, and make sure you have your lawyer in the loop.
- cshimmin 2y agoIt’s not public space, it’s a launch facility literally on a military base.
- Dalewyn 2y agoIt's public space in the sense that it's government facilities located on government property. The US military is an arm of the US government and everything is paid for with tax dollars. Access to the public-at-large is obviously controlled as you implied, though, since it is a military facility.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y agoNo sane person thinks a US military base qualifies as "public space" for photography purposes. Those insane enough to think it does usually end up arrested for taking pictures of classified things.
- boringg 2y agoWell said.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> The language was clear: Photographers were welcome to set up remote shots at ULA launches if they worked for the media or wanted to post their work on social media. However, photographers could not sell this work independently, including as prints for fellow enthusiasts or for use in annual calendars. If they're OK with posting it on social media, it's very clear security isn't the concern.
- Buttons840 2y agoThere's a difference between limiting photographs for national security reasons, and limiting photographs for profit motive or control of the press. I think I'm a sane person, I and think if the press is allowed to take photos on a military base, they should also be allowed to sell those photos. This seems very related to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; it's literally the government trying to limit these things in this case.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoRead TFA. The press is unaffected.
- Gare 2y agoIs there a "press license" in USA?
- TylerE 2y agoNot as such, but working for a credible agency is certainly a thing. Could be a newspaper or a TV station, or a syndicate like the Associated Press or UPI.
- LegitShady 2y ago
- ricketyricky 2y ago[flagged]
- superb_dev 2y agoThere’s usually tons of viewing spots for pedestrians, are those on the property still? I bet some will be able to get good shots from afar
- kotaKat 2y agoYes. These agreements are ones for photographers to get "privileged" access to leave equipment inside the secure zone.
- akira2501 2y ago> Dodd said he is confused about why ULA would care whether these hobbyists make a little money from their efforts. To avoid the tragedy of the commons.
- kmeisthax 2y ago...the what? We're worried about cows overgrazing a pasture full of photos of ULA launches?
- akira2501 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons It's a finite resource that's being provided for free. The photographers making money have every interest in monopolizing that space. Leaving this situation unchecked produces consequences that are so predictable they have their own specific label.
- kmeisthax 2y agoI... don't think this is about the physical space that the cameras take up. I think someone at ULA management thinks they can make $$$ selling stock photos of launches, but someone else still wants press organizations to have pictures, so the compromise was "media organizations only, must show evidence of publication, no sublicensing".
- stavros 2y agoThis isn't a tragedy of the commons, as this isn't even in the commons: it's a private space. The ULA should just charge for access.
- akira2501 2y ago> it's a private space. That is being provided for free on a first come first serve basis. I'm not sure why it's difficult to apprehend the challenges that naturally come with this type of arrangement. > The ULA should just charge for access. This would increase the operational load from serving this group. It seems to me this is the opposite of what they want.
- Dalewyn 2y ago>Photographers were welcome to set up remote shots at ULA launches if they worked for the media or wanted to post their work on social media. However, photographers could not sell this work independently, including as prints for fellow enthusiasts or for use in annual calendars. I see no problem with this policy and frankly applaud it. >said David Diebold, a photographer for Space Scout, on X. "Being forced to sign an agreement ..." Nobody is forcing or being forced to sign anything.
- FredPret 2y agoPeople get so confused. Person A wants good thing Y. But B, the creator of Y, wants Z in return. Does this mean B is forcing A to do anything?
- unethical_ban 2y agoWhy do you applaud it? If this were a change that wasn't a cash grab for ULA, would they not say so? Why the silence on the change? Respectfully, you're being pedantic about the use of the word "forced". They changed the terms of an arrangement without warning or explanation.
- Dalewyn 2y ago>Why do you applaud it? Making money off of other peoples' work for nothing has never rubbed well with me. Much less if "other peoples' work" is American tax dollars. >If this were a change that wasn't a cash grab for ULA, would they not say so? Why the silence on the change? Because they don't need to justify themselves. It's a proposal to which photographers so concerned can either sign off or walk away from, ULA is fine either way. >They changed the terms of an arrangement without warning or explanation. No, they did not. Whatever agreement they and the photographers had will be in force until whenever this new agreement succeeds. The photographers can choose to either sign it or walk away, they aren't being forced to sign anything.
- unethical_ban 2y agoI didn't downvote you since I'm part of the conversation. But of all the business practices and use of tax dollars to criticize, low-middle income photographers selling photos and doing marketing for the US space program is a really strange hill to fight on.
- kmeisthax 2y agoULA wants photographers to work for free getting pictures in the media. The way photographers were making this work was by selling photos after the fact. If ULA wants that to end (presumably so they can sell pictures themselves), then photographers should respond in kind: don't take pictures of ULA launches at all. Treat it like a union strike.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThe media was already present at these launches and is still allowed. TFA even had a photo of a reuters photographer setting up.
- abid786 2y agoA union strike requires a union. That’s why it works because everyone votes the same way. What we have now is prisoners dilemma; some photographers will take pictures of ULA launchers and others will not.
- zeroxfe 2y ago> ULA wants photographers to work for free getting pictures in the media. That seems like a stretch. I'm sure ULA would have no problem getting pictures in the media without hobbyist photographers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- paxys 2y agoSucks, but this is pretty standard for any such event. For example you can't legally sell photos you take at a concert or sporting event or inside a company's offices. They might let you take photos for personal use and to share with friends, but that's about it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kragen 2y agothis may be true in cuba or something but it is not generally true in places like the usa, canada, or the eu, where you can generally do anything you like as long as there isn't a law against it
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoYeah. About that... Is there a law against taking photos at a concert or sports event and selling them? I don't know either way. I'd normally be with kragen on this, but... I have become cynical enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the sports leagues had gotten laws passed about it. Does anyone know?
- madaxe_again 2y agoNo, no specific law, but in a private space they can set whatever conditions of entry they like, such as “no photos”. There are laws around photography in public spaces, usually around being a pain in the ass and harassment or malice, but in a private space it’s up to the entity controlling the space.
- kragen 2y agoharassment laws also apply in private spaces probably if you violate those conditions of entry, what you're facing is a suit for damages for breach of contract. if you uploaded your photos to wikipedia that doesn't make the wikimedia foundation liable the way they would be if there was a copyright being violated or an invasion of privacy, so the breach of contract suit may not be very useful to the plaintiff
- ceejayoz 2y agoULA thought one of these photos was epic enough to buy it and install it two stories high in their lobby - https://www.johnkrausphotos.com/Galleries/Launches/Delta-IV-WGS-9/i-CGNqT3t/A https://www.johnkrausphotos.com/Galleries/Launches/Delta-IV-.... This is a very odd decision.
- readthenotes1 2y agoMaybe they thought it was odd to have to buy to take a picture of their own rocket?
- ceejayoz 2y agoI've had to buy pictures of me. My wedding, for example. It's pretty normal.
- patmorgan23 2y agoJust because you own (or are) the subject does not mean you have the copyright of the photographic work produced by the photographer.
- paulmd 2y agoIt'd be ironic for that photographer to turn the tables and come after them for violating exhibition rights - just because you purchased a copy of a work does not mean you can just show it in a public location to whoever you want. Famously, movies...
- robxorb 2y ago> "I'm just shocked they don't want more coverage of these things and not less." I'm having real trouble parsing this, can anyone break down the double-negative for me? Or does it simply not make sense?
- hapidjus 2y agoWhy would they want less coverage not more?
- dooglius 2y agoIf you leave off the "and not less" it's more readable and you get the point
- zem 2y agothey should want: more coverage, and not less [coverage] they will be getting (due to this measure): less coverage, and not more so it sounds like they don't want more coverage (and not less coverage), which is shocking
- xyst 2y agoI see a screenshot of the ULA email, but does anybody have the pdf ULA expects photographers to sign?
- tamimio 2y agoULA just wants to monetize it and take in the bigger piece of the cake. I wouldn’t be surprised if they introduced a membership to take pics due to “social media pressure” in the future. I’m just glad these people aren’t in charge of the space itself, or they would charge you fees to capture the totality eclipse!
- LegitShady 2y agoif your rocket launching company that uses government bases and resources needs photography income enough to flirt with first amendment lawsuits you should probably stop investing in that company.
- loa_in_ 2y agoThey might not need it, but want it. Any market captured is profit. And if not profit then at least more spending money.
- ortusdux 2y agoWould it be possible to trademark the design of a rocket and then use that to prevent people from profiting from photos?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- shiroiushi 2y agoThat sounds akin to trademarking the design of a building, constructing that building in the middle of Manhattan, and then suing people who take photos of it.
- ortusdux 2y agoIIRC, images are fine as long as the the trademarked landmark is less than 50% of the frame. The Seattle Space Needle is trademarked, so profiting from a full photo of it would be infringement, but it can be in the background or skyline without issue. My favorite example reciently is the Eifel tower. It's old enough that any trademark claim on the design has lapsed. To get around this, when they switched to LED lighting they trademarked the patterning of the lights. So daytime images are royalty free, but nighttime photos require licensing.
- Yizahi 2y agoULA: write it down, write it down! :) /s
- bityard 2y agoThe headline here and on TFA is incorrect, ULA is cracking down on _professional_ photographers who are not directly employed by the media. Hobbyist photographers who don't sell their pictures and just want to take cool shots of spaceships are not affected by this.
- m4rtink 2y agoThe way things are going (no ULA rockets being even partially reusable) it makes perfect sense! Gonna milk those few remaining launches until it become unthinkable to launch anything with them due to cost. ;-)
- Terretta 2y agoFrom quite deep in the article, an interesting note: “It could be that the company's legal department got involved after there was a fatal heart attack during camera setup for the recent launch of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft on an Atlas V rocket.”
- some1else 2y agoThis is seemingly the only other piece of info I could find: Spaceflight community mourns loss of ULA Chief Scientist Bernard Kutte https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/08/14/spaceflight-community-mourns-loss-of-ula-chief-scientist-bernard-kutter/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/08/14/spaceflig...