After years of leniency, ULA cracks down on hobbyist photographers
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
That seems like a stretch. I'm sure ULA would have no problem getting pictures in the media without hobbyist photographers.
This is a very odd decision.
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”
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.
Access to the public-at-large is obviously controlled as you implied, though, since it is a military facility.
Those insane enough to think it does usually end up arrested for taking pictures of classified things.
If they're OK with posting it on social media, it's very clear security isn't the concern.
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.
They’re allowed to set the rules on private property.
A NASA launch site is not a public park.
A NASA launch site, even a military base - as government property it formally falls within the scope of the First Amendment. However, once you start evaluating the case law exceptions, almost certainly one or more of them will apply, effectively cancelling out the First Amendment in practice.
By contrast, a purely private launch site, like SpaceX’s Boca Chica, isn’t normally within the scope of the First Amendment to begin with, so we don’t even have to consider the exceptions.
I think the fact that ULA’s site is leased government property doesn’t per se remove it from the First Amendment’s scope (unlike purely private property such as Boca Chica). But even though it is technically in scope, once the exceptions are considered, it might as well not be.
That said, one can think up rather unlikely hypotheticals in which it might make a difference in practice. Suppose, however bizarrely, SpaceX chose to allow a religious group to hold services at its Boca Chica launch site, or a political party to hold a rally there - and then denied requests from competing religious/political groups for the same privilege - as a purely private site, that would likely be within their 1st Amendment rights. By contrast, if they wanted to do the same thing on property they lease from NASA at KSC - or from Space Force at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg - it could well violate the First Amendment were the government to allow them to do that. Of course, in reality, it is extremely unlikely SpaceX would ever want to do such a thing.
I don’t agree with this ULA decision, and I extra disagree with ULA’s apparent avoidance of public discussion of the reasons behind it. But I’d be very surprised if any court ruled against it
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?
“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.”
Spaceflight community mourns loss of ULA Chief Scientist Bernard Kutte
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/08/14/spaceflig...
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.
I'm having real trouble parsing this, can anyone break down the double-negative for me? Or does it simply not make sense?
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
Hobbyist photographers who don't sell their pictures and just want to take cool shots of spaceships are not affected by this.
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?
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.
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
they're working on it: https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ip-matters/transcripts/ip-m...
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)
yes, i'm pretty sure what ula is doing is legal
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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".
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.
Note that the agreement still allows media to sell prints and things. They aren’t just limited to “reporting” for public gain.
But reality is seldom ideal, so I will take what victories can be had.
To avoid the 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
I'm sorry you and so many choose to ignore this and insist the conversation stick to terms defined a century ago. When the original idea from antiquity is broad enough to encompass the very simple notion I put forward.
"That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common." - Aristotle
There is no tragedy as of yet as far as anyone has asserted by any definition and certainly not one of the Commons given the space has a singular steward who manages use and conditions of access.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/styles/hero_small/...
It's hard for me to believe that anyone can't look at this and just see the obvious administrative issues involved.
If you need to limit numbers, issue press passes to orgs and give a certain number of remaining slots away via lottery.
They tend to be more aggressive. Their familiarity with the site lends them to act like they own it or that their presence is more justified than a mere casual. They camp out and grab spots or pre-register in a way the precludes other more casual participants from ever getting a pass. They create administrative burden where none might otherwise exist.
> If you need to limit numbers
I think they want to limit the behavior. This is a favor they are doing for interested parties. It's a shame that some people tend to ruin it. Perhaps I'm being _exceptionally_ charitable to ULA here, but in my experience with similar situations, I genuinely think that's what is occurring here.
Which explains their reticence to speak on the issue and the for profit photographers clearly getting a puff piece written exclusively from their point of view.
Is there any evidence for the behavior you now assert is happening?
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.)