7 ms·
I 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
by voisin 2y ago
I 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 agoits not a thing in terms of rights or laws. By choosing arbitrary media orgs who can and disallowing normal people who are also press by law, they're kind of screwing themselves here. They can no longer claim this is a security or safety issue.
- TylerE 2y agoI don’t think they were saying that, just some posted here. They’re allowed to set the rules on private property. A NASA launch site is not a public park.
- 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.