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.
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.
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.
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?