Photographer outs Taylor Swifts hypocrisy

[jaggysnake57]

so this in its self isnt tech news but given that her recent antics with Apple were reported on here i thought this would be a good follow up story.

 

 

Taylor Swift achieved a major victory today as her open letter to Apple persuaded the huge company to start paying artists for their streamed work during customers’ trial periods.

 

While many have congratulated her very swift win on the matter, prominent music photographer Jason Sheldon has since released an open letter of his own to the pop star, highlighting alleged double standards.

In it, he publishes a contract which Swift allegedly makes photographers sign which stipulates that they may only use the pictures they take once and that all rights belong to the artist.

 

so basically she forces her photographers to sign an agreement that only pays them once, gives her all the rights and allows her to use the photos as and how she sees fit when she likes and free....these are artists too and there work is IP......so all that bollox about being for the little man was just that.....and it seams that her move was all about her and all about the money

 

below is the full letter

 

 

Dear Taylor Swift,

I have read your open letter to Apple where you give your reasons for refusing to allow your album ‘1989′ to be included on their forthcoming Apple Music streaming service.  

(For reference: http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor)

I applaud it. It’s great to have someone with a huge following standing up for the rights of creative people and making a stand against the corporate behemoths who have so much power they can make or break someone’s career. 

For instance, you say:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company

It is shocking, like you say, that any company should expect to exploit artists.  It’s not on at all.

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows

Ah..  but this is the thing Taylor, you say it’s not about you – but clearly it is.  Why else would you make such a public statement about how you’re standing up for the rights of new artists and bands?  Are you really supportive of other artists?

These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.

And this is the echoed sentiment of every professional photographer.  Some are afraid to speak up for fear of being blacklisted by management and PR companies who seek to control the public perception of their talent..  For every artist that is in a secure enough financial and influential position to stand up against the likes of Apple without having to worry that Apple will publicly block your ability to earn a living from their iTunes market place, there are hundreds of professional concert photographers who don’t enjoy that security..  they don’t have the voice you do, and they don’t have the public favour that you have when it comes to demanding fair rights for their work, and they have a much higher risk of being prevented from working in future, not just at your shows, but any show which is connected by the same promoter, venue, PR, or management company.

Which brings me to the point of this open response to you.  I admire your message, I really do.  I just think it loses the gravitas it rightly deserves, because of this:

Now..  forgive me if I’m wrong, but if you take points 2 and 3 in that contract (which is provided to Photographers who need to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets), it appears to be a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity.  You say in your letter to Apple that “Three months is a long time to go unpaid”.  But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….

How are you any different to Apple?  If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great..  make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support.  But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?

Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.

But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation

With all due respect to you too Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy.  Photographers don’t ask for your music for free.  Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.

Time to stop being ‘Mean’. 

Sincerely,

Jason Sheldon 

 

 

source http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/22/photographer-accuses-taylor-swift-of-being-a-hypocrite-over-copyright-in-new-open-letter-following-her-apple-victory-5257575/?ito=facebook

[Jaybird]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[minibois]

she sounds like such a whiny kid..

[Norman_the_Owl]

I don't like any musicians, but damn taylor swift is the worst

[Alurit]

is this tech news though? The Swift righting to apple was kinda relevant, cause it was news about a tech company practising shady business strategies, and this is about a popular mainstream musician being hypocritical, which doesnt have much new info

[givingtnt]

I don't like any musicians, but damn taylor swift is the worst

why don't you ? what do you have against artists ? if you don'T like them, do you listen to music ? how can you live without music ?

are you even sane ?

[Norman_the_Owl]

why don't you ? what do you have against artists ? if you don'T like them, do you listen to music ? how can you live without music ?

are you even sane ?

I have nothing against artists, i just don't happen to like any of them.

Do i have to think a musician is an amazing person to listen to music?

 

What makes you think people can't live without music? I don't usually listen to music and i'm fine.

[Dzzope]

You could argue that they should need permission to take any pictures and that if they didn't agree then they would have none..

 

But yea.. lil bit hypocritical.

[Tech_Dreamer]

for a 'Taylor' she sews pretty good if she feels like it..

[qwertywarrior]

why don't you ? what do you have against artists ? if you don'T like them, do you listen to music ? how can you live without music ?

are you even sane ?

dude cool down

[o0Martin]

I think the photographer is over reacting a 'little' bit... obviously she did it for her own benefit and more cash but still...

You don't pay the whole production company every time a music video is shown do you? Companies don't pay photographers every time they put up a poster to advertise their product? 

Seriously this photographer needs to chill  :huh:

Not like she's reselling the pictures directly, just using them for image or advertisement jeeez :blink:  

[jaggysnake57]

is this tech news though? The Swift righting to apple was kinda relevant, cause it was news about a tech company practising shady business strategies, and this is about a popular mainstream musician being hypocritical, which doesnt have much new info

If she hadn't written about apple then I would say no, in fact I wouldn't have read the article, but given the recent action with Apple I would say it's more follow on news

[Sauron]

It doesn't look like the same thing to me... she isn't asking these photographers to take pictures of her, she doesn't resell them as her product. She has a right to her privacy and if someone wants to make a living off of her image, she has a right to establish the conditions under which that will happen.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

It doesn't look like the same thing to me... she isn't asking these photographers to take pictures of her, she doesn't resell them as her product. She has a right to her privacy and if someone wants to make a living off of her image, she has a right to establish the conditions under which that will happen.

This isn't about privacy and paparazzi, these are professional photographers who do photo shoots for magazines and basically have to give up all the rights to their work.

[Sauron]

This isn't about privacy and paparazzi, these are professional photographers who do photo shoots for magazines and basically have to give up all the rights to their work.

 

Again, it's not Swift who's asking them to. If anything they should complain for not having a fixed monthly income instead of being paid per photo.

[Snickerzz]

she sounds like such a whiny kid..

most of her songs are about her boyfriends and breaking up... did you expect anything else?

[o0Martin]

This isn't about privacy and paparazzi, these are professional photographers who do photo shoots for magazines and basically have to give up all the rights to their work.

 

If they're contractors for magazines then they work for the magazine, if they're self employed and a music artist hires them to take photos for their posters/album art or w/e then they work for the music artist under that contract, they produce their media under the guidance of the music artist and then they get paid for their service and for the rights to use and own the photography, you can't really expect music artists to have to pay the said photographers every time they want to use one of the images that they contracted the photographer to produce? 

 

They are paid for their service, use of their equipment, their expertise and then the right to own and use the media which is produced. 

 

If the music artists then resells the media they produced then I think it would be unfair, but using it as advertisement or w/e is common practice, not just in the music industry in pretty much all industries which require advertisement, this photographer directing this letter at Taylor Swift right after the apple thing is obviously just asking for attention, they probably didn't even care before all of this blew up 

[RH00D]

It doesn't look like the same thing to me... she isn't asking these photographers to take pictures of her, she doesn't resell them as her product. She has a right to her privacy and if someone wants to make a living off of her image, she has a right to establish the conditions under which that will happen.

 

 

This isn't about privacy and paparazzi, these are professional photographers who do photo shoots for magazines and basically have to give up all the rights to their work.

 

Correct this is not about paparazzi.

 

And not just magazines but also for album covers, the artwork in the booklet in the CD. All the imagery used in marketing, on web sites, physical ads, etc. Those pictures are taken by professional photographers and photography is a very serious job and requires a ton of skill at a pro level, this is not snapping pics with your smartphone. They deserve to be paid well. Most professional photographers at that level will have easily invested $30,000 in equipment even only after a few years. They deserve to be properly paid for their work and not forced to hand over the rights of their IP for a one-time payment meanwhile Taylor Swift and co get to make money off it forever while the person who did 100% of the work never sees another dime.

 

It's sad how undervalued photography is. Hardly anybody outside of the photography world actually understands how much work and dedication it requires to do well.

[JAKEBAB]

I thought this straight away i never thought this was about the little guy and i couldn't believe Linus thought it wasn't about her own personal gain.

[Bouzoo]

I got why the topic about Taylor Swift bashing on Apple Music was here, but a photographer bashing on her? Tech News?

[o0Martin]

It's sad how undervalued photography is. Hardly anybody outside of the photography world actually understands how much work and dedication it requires to do well.

 

It's not as if they are drastically underpaid... There are a lot of professions that could do with a pay rise way before professional photography. 

[jaggysnake57]

Again, it's not Swift who's asking them to. If anything they should complain for not having a fixed monthly income instead of being paid per photo.

 

so swift should stop bitching and aske for a fixed monthly

 

If they're contractors for magazines then they work for the magazine, if they're self employed and a music artist hires them to take photos for their posters/album art or w/e then they work for the music artist under that contract, they produce their media under the guidance of the music artist and then they get paid for their service and for the rights to use and own the photography, you can't really expect music artists to have to pay the said photographers every time they want to use one of the images that they contracted the photographer to produce? 

 

They are paid for their service, use of their equipment, their expertise and then the right to own and use the media which is produced. 

 

If the music artists then resells the media they produced then I think it would be unfair, but using it as advertisement or w/e is common practice, not just in the music industry in pretty much all industries which require advertisement, this photographer directing this letter at Taylor Swift right after the apple thing is obviously just asking for attention, they probably didn't even care before all of this blew up 

 

photographers create art and they should be paid as such just like musicians should you cant have double standards

[o0Martin]

photographers create art and they should be paid as such just like musicians should you cant have double standards

 

So if a designer creates a set or a sculpture or w/e that is used in every live performance of a music artist then they should be paid per use too? They shouldn't instead just draw up a contract based on the intended use and the effort and cost of making it then sell it to the musician? They should instead be paid based on how much their work is used? 

 

Music is different from photo's, all forms of art are different from one another, why should the way they are paid be the same? 

[Mulsanne]

Correct this is not about paparazzi.

 

And not just magazines but also for album covers, the artwork in the booklet in the CD. All the imagery used in marketing, on web sites, physical ads, etc. Those pictures are taken by professional photographers and photography is a very serious job and requires a ton of skill at a pro level, this is not snapping pics with your smartphone. They deserve to be paid well. Most professional photographers at that level will have easily invested $30,000 in equipment even only after a few years. They deserve to be properly paid for their work and not forced to hand over the rights of their IP for a one-time payment meanwhile Taylor Swift and co get to make money off it forever while the person who did 100% of the work never sees another dime.

 

It's sad how undervalued photography is. Hardly anybody outside of the photography world actually understands how much work and dedication it requires to do well.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I have roughly 10 grand in equipment and I simply do it on a casual basis, I rarely take compensation since thats just not what I want out of my hobby but at least where I live, Photographers get 1000000% ownership of their photos regardless of what the contract states. 

 

Contracts might stipulate that the client wants X number of photos at Y resolution with Z number of hard copies; photographers still own their shots. It was even a supreme court ruling. Our work product is ours, not the clients. We are free to use it how we please, but more often then not we come to agreements on use. But the agreements are for THEM. Not me. It is my product, not the clients. I can use it however I wish. 

 

Swifts hypocrisy, if true, is amazing. She has zero right to claim copyright ownership of another photographers work, not how it works. Most of those agreements are in fact in violation of supreme court precedent in Canada and the US, but photographers are terrified that if they stand up, they will get blacklisted (and it does happen). So as big a bully Apple was towards artists, Swift allegedly is no better to another group of artists. 

[.spider.]

Spotify is paying the artist always but she has withdrawn all of her songs from the Spotify catalogue too.

More Money! I want more!