[HN Gopher] After years of leniency, ULA cracks down on hobbyist...
___________________________________________________________________
After years of leniency, ULA cracks down on hobbyist photographers
Author : notamy
Score : 103 points
Date : 2024-07-31 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| voisin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They 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 wrote:
| It's not public space, it's a launch facility literally on a
| military base.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| It'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 wrote:
| No 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 wrote:
| Well said.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| There'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 wrote:
| Read TFA. The press is unaffected.
| Gare wrote:
| Is there a "press license" in USA?
| TylerE wrote:
| Not 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 wrote:
| its 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You are defining freedom of the press to only apply to a
| narrow definition of press composed solely of
| professional agencies which certainly wasn't the case at
| inception of our country and is also misaligned with
| legal interpretation thereafter.
| lazide wrote:
| I'm guessing you get arrested (and released with no
| charges) a lot?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| This dig is so off I honestly don't know what you are
| getting at.
|
| Freedom of the press can't be limited to government
| defined group without being abrogated entirely. It is
| rather the freedom of a citizen to inform their fellows.
|
| Likewise national security concerns isn't licence to
| impose commercial limits on such freedoms without an
| actual security concern. Once you allow photos to be
| shared there is no security interest in who gets paid.
|
| Failure to attend to the relevant and discard the
| irrelevant makes it hard to arrive at a reasonable
| argument.
| lazide wrote:
| I'm noting that it's been fashionable to go after people
| making these types of arguments for... a decade now?
|
| Or 'protest zones'.
|
| Either way, I'm struggling to think of a time where the
| military was okay with folks being around they didn't
| have control over.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Read the comment you replied to, they clearly know that.
| LegitShady wrote:
| everybody is the press in the USA. The first amendment
| guarantees this. This arbitrary idea that you're only
| press if you belong to some media org is
| unconstitutional. There is no organization in the
| government or in private hands that certifies you as
| press for the purpose of the law.
|
| The ULA has actually kind of screwed themselves with this
| - its not a safety policy on base because they're still
| allowing some photographers who belong to media orgs.
| They're allowing photographers who dont belong to media
| orgs so long as they agree to not sell pictures. The only
| thing this policy does is restrain the first amendment
| rights of a subset of photographers.
|
| As far as I can tell its an infringement on first
| amendment rights and ULA has carefully crafted it so they
| cannot argue a safety or security reason. It clearly only
| affects those who want to sell the product of their
| photography, and only those not in some media org that
| has no bearing on who is press to the law.
|
| They kind of f'd themselves with this. Did they not run
| it by a lawyer? Or do they assume nobody makes enough
| money doing rocket photography to actually sue them?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| To be clear, while I think it's a shitty decision,
| there's no First Amendment issue here. ULA isn't a
| government organization. They rent the launch site from
| the government, but under terms that clearly must permit
| them to restrict access.
| ricketyricky wrote:
| *actually
| superb_dev wrote:
| There'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
| akira2501 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| ...the what? We're worried about cows overgrazing a pasture
| full of photos of ULA launches?
| akira2501 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I... 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 wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| stavros wrote:
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > The tragedy of the commons is the concept which states
| that if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite,
| valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to
| overuse it and may end up destroying its value
| altogether.
|
| The photographers don't destroy the value of the space,
| as it's there after they leave, as whole as before they
| came. The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to
| resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Otherwise using
| any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to
| resources that can be consumed/destroyed.
|
| Physical space and access are both resources. Two objects
| can't occupy the same physical space. Access is provided
| on a first come, first served basis.
|
| > Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the
| commons.
|
| When one person using the resource, even temporarily,
| deprives another of using it, then we are in similar, but
| obviously not identical, territory.
|
| Critically, since we CANNOT increase the amount of space
| for photographers on the site, we face the same
| _immediate consequences_ as the given example.
|
| If we didn't then this article would not exist and we
| would not be having this discussion.
| stavros wrote:
| Again, that's not what a tragedy of the commons is.
| Temporarily using a finite resource isn't a tragedy of
| the commons. It's just usage.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You are just using the term incorrectly the same way
| people try to wield logical fallacies as if they are a
| spell in Harry Potter as if naming the argument obviates
| the need to make the argument now you scramble to hold
| the position.
|
| Not having enough of something isn't a tragedy. It would
| be a tragedy if people with a pop up T-shirt site
| prevented actual journalism for lack of resources but we
| have no reason to believe that is so and that is
| prevented by giving priority to those affiliated with
| actual publications ahead of bloggers and capping total
| cameras. The solution doesn't make sense even if the
| tragedy were real
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Uh. Unless you are into some heavy animist stuff, taking
| photos does not "use up" the object being photographed.
| You're capturing photons which are emitted or reflected by
| the object being photographed - or are you concerned that
| we will run out of photons? I can assure you, we will not.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| How does stopping people from selling photos deal with
| this? Logically you simply figure out priority and if that
| is insufficient you could use a lottery. Also you propose
| the problem but offer no evidence that it exists.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But what is the limited resource here? If one person takes a
| picture of an ULA launch that doesn't meaningfully prevent
| anyone else from taking a picture of the same launch. And if
| they sell that picture as a poster that doesn't meaningfully
| prevent anyone from posting or selling their pictures.
|
| Of course you could argue that everyone selling their pictures
| as prints drives down the price. But that's just normal market
| dynamics. The only people harmed by that are ULA's merch
| department selling fewer of their own posters.
|
| If ULA's revenue depended on the sale of prints I would kind of
| get the argument, but that's not how rocket launches have
| traditionally been financed.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > But what is the limited resource here?
|
| The space where the cameras are setup.
|
| > that doesn't meaningfully prevent anyone else from taking a
| picture
|
| Only so many cameras can be setup in that space. I assume
| that once enough people are let in they have to start denying
| other people the ability to enter.
|
| I think people are massively confused here. You can
| photograph and sell pictures of ULA launches all day if you
| like. What you can't do is apply for special access to an
| area of limited space and then sell the pictures taken from
| there.
|
| This seems pretty simple to me. You simply have to choose
| what you want. Sell pictures or be in the special area.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The space where the cameras are setup.
|
| That's... pretty unlikely considering the size of the
| launch site versus the space a camera and a tripod take up.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/28/18744502/spacex-falcon-
| he... has pictures of a similar setup. Oodles of space.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > That's... pretty unlikely considering the size of the
| launch site versus the space a camera and a tripod take
| up.
|
| I think photograph 2 of 9 in the bottom carousel makes
| the problem pretty clear. You have issues of road access,
| number of people, number of vehicles, cooperating between
| different groups photographing and probably competition
| over the "ideal" places to photograph from.
|
| There's also other images in that carousel of people
| wandering around and even taking pictures from the middle
| of a roadway.
|
| I think everyone is assuming that ULA can just open the
| gates and let random groups of people in and it will all
| be just fine and naturally work itself out. I think these
| people have never had the responsibility of managing a
| crowd of any size (particularly one including semi
| professional photographers) and it's why I specifically
| invoke the tragedy of the commons.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| And these road issues apply to people selling photos, but
| not those just posting them to Instagram?
| akira2501 wrote:
| Here's the site:
|
| https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/styles/hero_sma
| ll/...
|
| It's hard for me to believe that anyone can't look at
| this and just see the obvious administrative issues
| involved.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's hard for me to understand how the administrative
| issues could only apply to photographers who sell prints
| but not those who merely post to social.
|
| If you need to limit numbers, issue press passes to orgs
| and give a certain number of remaining slots away via
| lottery.
| squigz wrote:
| What has changed? Are ULA launches suddenly much more
| popular that they need to consider space constraints?
| michaelt wrote:
| _> But what is the limited resource here?_
|
| I mean, it sounds like there's a special bus, to take these
| photographers to an area with limited access?
|
| And given the talk of remote camera setups, presumably that's
| somewhere it's not safe for people to be during the launch?
| And so presumably they have to send a guard or two to make
| sure nobody wanders off, and if anyone gets lost it delays
| the launch?
|
| I could understand if the bus was full, or if they had more
| people than the guards could handle.
|
| (Of course, if that was the problem you'd think they'd have
| stated it clearly, and allocated the limited press access
| based on audience and reach. And I can't imagine anyone the
| size of a rocket company gives a shit about the profit margin
| on posters. So I don't know what's going on.)
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| alistairSH wrote:
| 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).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| ULA 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 wrote:
| The media was already present at these launches and is still
| allowed. TFA even had a photo of a reuters photographer setting
| up.
| abid786 wrote:
| A 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| paxys wrote:
| Sucks, 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.
| kragen wrote:
| this 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 wrote:
| Yeah. 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 wrote:
| No, 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 wrote:
| harassment 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
| kragen wrote:
| surely there is in places like north korea, but
| specifically in usa, canada, and the eu, there is not yet
| such a law: https://old.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/b
| 7h22d/legalit...
|
| they're working on it: https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ip-
| matters/transcripts/ip-m...
| runlevel1 wrote:
| We're talking civil liability, not criminal.
|
| They can make your access contingent on agreeing to their
| terms. Even if the venue is publicly owned. So buying a
| ticket to a concert at, say, Red Rocks, which is owned by the
| city of Denver, doesn't automatically entitle you to be able
| to record the performance.
|
| So, what if you don't buy a ticket and, instead, setup a
| camera with a parabolic mic and telephoto lens from public
| space outside the venue? You still don't have the copyright
| for the music or this performance of it. So you can't go
| selling videos of concert.
|
| Now, I suppose it could _become_ criminal in some cases. For
| instance, if you 're trespassing somewhere you don't have a
| right to be, or if it rises to the level of criminal
| copyright infringement.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I think what ULA is doing here is dumb.
| But I think it's legal.
|
| (IANAL)
| kragen wrote:
| see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41122790
|
| yes, i'm pretty sure what ula is doing is legal
| poikroequ wrote:
| It's not that simple. For concerts and sporting events, you
| likely agreed to certain terms and conditions when buying the
| ticket that prevent you from selling those photos. I don't know
| about inside a company's offices.
|
| Another issue is capturing copyright or trademarked material.
| If you take a photograph of a Mickey Mouse statue, you may not
| have the legal right to sell that photograph.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| ULA 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-....
|
| This is a very odd decision.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Maybe they thought it was odd to have to buy to take a picture
| of their own rocket?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I've had to buy pictures of _me_. My wedding, for example. It
| 's pretty normal.
| paulmd wrote:
| It'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...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They clearly licensed it from him. He's got a photo of
| himself in the lobby.
| robxorb wrote:
| > "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 wrote:
| Why would they want less coverage not more?
| dooglius wrote:
| If you leave off the "and not less" it's more readable and you
| get the point
| zem wrote:
| they 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 wrote:
| I see a screenshot of the ULA email, but does anybody have the
| pdf ULA expects photographers to sign?
| tamimio wrote:
| Probably will be handed over in site.
| btmills wrote:
| The author shared the agreement at
| https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1817918826518065485
| tamimio wrote:
| ULA 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 wrote:
| if 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.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Would it be possible to trademark the design of a rocket and then
| use that to prevent people from profiting from photos?
| bityard wrote:
| The 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-31 23:01 UTC)