3 ms·

>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, photograp

>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 ago
People 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 ago
Why 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 ago
    I 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.
alistairSH 2y ago
Why is this a positive? It cuts out professional (but independent) photographers and limits the pool to agency-employed photographers. Current state: Agency photogs can take photos (and their employer can resell them). Professional, independent, photogs can take photos (and resell them). New state: Agency photos can take photos (and their employer can resell them). Professional, but independent, photogs can take photos (BUT NOT RESELL THEM).
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Why is this a positive? It cuts out professional (but independent) photographers and limits the pool to agency-employed photographers. ULA is a private, commercial entity, but most of what they do is paid for with American tax dollars. As such, as a taxpayer I prefer having photographers not make free money off of the taxes I paid because that's not what I agreed to pay taxes for. Note that this new agreement doesn't prohibit independent photographers from selling for educational purposes ("work[ed] for the media") and otherwise most(any?) non-commercial purposes ("post their work on social media", et al.). I am 300% okay with that as a taxpayer paying for the things being burned into film.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    It also doesn't prevent "the press", as commercial entities, selling prints for profit, making free money off of the taxes you paid.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      It is ostensibly for educational purposes. Such is the world of pedantry.
  - tzs 2y ago
    > As such, as a taxpayer I prefer having photographers not make free money off of the taxes I paid because that's not what I agreed to pay taxes for I don't recall the US tax system ever asking individual taxpayers to agree to individual items of government spending. I've only ever seen it presented as "you owe this amount and are legally required to pay it".

FredPret 2y ago

People 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 ago

Why 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 ago
  I 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.

alistairSH 2y ago

Why is this a positive? It cuts out professional (but independent) photographers and limits the pool to agency-employed photographers. Current state: Agency photogs can take photos (and their employer can resell them). Professional, independent, photogs can take photos (and resell them). New state: Agency photos can take photos (and their employer can resell them). Professional, but independent, photogs can take photos (BUT NOT RESELL THEM).

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Why is this a positive? It cuts out professional (but independent) photographers and limits the pool to agency-employed photographers. ULA is a private, commercial entity, but most of what they do is paid for with American tax dollars. As such, as a taxpayer I prefer having photographers not make free money off of the taxes I paid because that's not what I agreed to pay taxes for. Note that this new agreement doesn't prohibit independent photographers from selling for educational purposes ("work[ed] for the media") and otherwise most(any?) non-commercial purposes ("post their work on social media", et al.). I am 300% okay with that as a taxpayer paying for the things being burned into film.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  It also doesn't prevent "the press", as commercial entities, selling prints for profit, making free money off of the taxes you paid.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    It is ostensibly for educational purposes. Such is the world of pedantry.
- tzs 2y ago
  > As such, as a taxpayer I prefer having photographers not make free money off of the taxes I paid because that's not what I agreed to pay taxes for I don't recall the US tax system ever asking individual taxpayers to agree to individual items of government spending. I've only ever seen it presented as "you owe this amount and are legally required to pay it".