3 ms·

>Why is this a positive? It cuts out professional (but independent) photographers and limits the pool to agency-employed photographers. ULA is a private, comme

>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".
- jeff_tyrrill 2y ago
  (nitpick to the overall thread but interesting) There is at least one exception: On form 1040, you have a yes/no option to redirect $3 to the presidential election campaign fund. This does not affect the amount of your taxes; it's a personal funding choice.
alistairSH 2y ago
Commercial media is still allowed to make money off “your tax dollars”, so this argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Why can NYT profit from ULA operations but not an independent photographer. Note that the agreement still allows media to sell prints and things. They aren’t just limited to “reporting” for public gain.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  If the media also couldn't make money, that would be even better. But reality is seldom ideal, so I will take what victories can be had.

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".

jeff_tyrrill 2y ago
(nitpick to the overall thread but interesting) There is at least one exception: On form 1040, you have a yes/no option to redirect $3 to the presidential election campaign fund. This does not affect the amount of your taxes; it's a personal funding choice.

alistairSH 2y ago

Commercial media is still allowed to make money off “your tax dollars”, so this argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Why can NYT profit from ULA operations but not an independent photographer. Note that the agreement still allows media to sell prints and things. They aren’t just limited to “reporting” for public gain.

Dalewyn 2y ago
If the media also couldn't make money, that would be even better. But reality is seldom ideal, so I will take what victories can be had.