Taylor Swift, who made Apple blink this week by criticizing the company for initially denying musicians royalties during the free trial period of its new streaming service, now has her gaze square on the photographer who implied her stance is hypocritical.
Swift, through a spokesperson in England, said music photographer Jason Sheldon misrepresented the contract shooters sign before her concerts, saying it does not force them to sign away the rights to their shots.
Sheldon applauded Swift for her open letter to Apple, but accused her of double standards in his blog, showing a copy of the contract with language that Sheldon and other photographers understand taking away rights to sell performance photos to clients down the road. Sheldon even questioned why the contract would allow Swift to use the signee’s pictures for future promotion without payment to the photographer.
Swift’s spokesperson said the contract is standard throughout the industry and that “clearly states that any photographer shooting The 1989 World Tour has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management’s approval. This agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer. Every artist has the right to and should protect the use of their name and likeness.”
Here are two paragraphs from the contract published on his blog Monday:
Sheldon published the Team Taylor statement on his blog, Junction10Photography, Wednesday along with a response that attempts to clear up any confusion that concert photographers are like paparazzi.
Photographers, especially freelancers like Sheldon, often get paid a flat rate for a concert assignment that often does cover expenses like travel. They depend on being able to sell photos to other clients to earn their living.
“First, of course, Taylor Swift and any other artist has the right to protect the use of their name and likeness,” Sheldon wrote. “That is not in dispute, but protect them from what? I have no interest in publishing an unflattering photo of an artist. For one thing, it would do far more harm to my career than it would theirs.”
Sheldon tells Swift there is a mutual benefit to allowing photographers like him to do their jobs. The performer gets publicity and the photographer can earn their living. Many contracts use language like “for editorial use only” as a way to protect artists.
After Swift criticized Apple on her Tumblr page Sunday, Apple’s Eddy Cue announced via Twitter that the company would reverse course and pay artists during the free trial of Apple Music.
A public relations specialist on the Swift team did not respond to emails sent by Cult of Mac.
David Pierini is a former newspaper writer and long-time photographer. Considered a luddite by most of his friends, they did not believe him when he broke the news that he would be writing for a technology website. He is fascinated by human nature and would love to cultivate stories about the people driving the tech bus. Reach out to him at [email protected].
27 responses to “Taylor Swift responds to criticism that she’s as bad as Apple”
I am no taylor swift fan however i think that with this situation she is right to stand her ground.
She is in the business to make money the same as apple are and why should she give her work away ?
Here’s the issue. When a musician/performing artist is performing, whether it’s in a studio or at a concert, when someone takes a video, photo, or audio recording of that performance, the artist/musician, etc. has automatic copyright ownership of it, unless they sign release form legally giving people legal permission to that “captured” performance. now, if Taylor Swift makes professional photographers sign a contract, we have to look at the contract and what it has both parties agree to and without looking at the contract, it’s hard to determine what the F it means.
But if Taylor Swift is performing at a concert and they don’t allow audio, video or photography by concert goers, which is common, and someone takes a picture, video, audio recording, then that’s what is called bootleg and the person that took that bootleg can’t LEGALLY sell copies of it, duplicate it, post it, etc. And if they do, they can get sued, have the content pulled if it’s been posted on the internet. Some artists don’t care since it costs a lot of money to hire people that are constantly checking places like YouTube. Some artists care and they have their content pulled.
Now, there are some exceptions with regards to TV and Radio transmissions of a concert, but they still can’t “sell” the product.
Now, I’m not an attorney, but I have read the copyright laws, I have talked to entertainment lawyers about this subject, so I’m not completely naive as to what the laws are and what they aren’t.
People need to read what the laws are with regards to performances of musicians/artists/actors/etc. and that the laws cover photographs, videography and audio recordings.
You are confusing copyright laws for privacy laws. The copyright of the photo doesn’t automatically go to the person in the photo; the person who took the photo gets the copyright unless they’ve signed an agreement that says otherwise (which this contract isn’t actually saying). HOWEVER, privacy laws state that you must have the consent of the photo’s subject in order to publish it. So as long as it isn’t in the public eye (newspaper, website, etc.), you can do whatever you want with it, like using it in a personal portfolio. Her contract says he can use the photos/video/audio, but he must simply ask FEI for permission in each new case. Maybe it’s an extra step to take, but it shouldn’t be a problem if (like he says) he isn’t going to use an unflattering photo (that’s what the paparazzi are for, anyway).
If you are in need for extra cash on the side from 50-300 dollars daily for doing work at your home for 3-4 hrs each day then this may interest you…
Photographers retain the copyright to the images they take, whether they be of people, animals, places, or things. A professional artist allowing photographers editorial photography access to photographers can create whatever contract they want that includes whatever limitations they want. It’s up to the photographer/editorial end user to agree to these limitations. The idea that a professional editorial photographer cannot lease (they never “sell” their work the editorial usage rights in a secondary market through a photo agency – such as Getty Images for example – is a usurious limitation in general. Editorial photographers are making hundreds of dollars for reproduction rights, not thousands, not tens of thousands. This is a control issue on the part of the artist and their management – one that dates back to The Rolling Stones1981 American Tour, when the first management limitations contract was forced on photographers assigned to shoot the show.
If you search for extra money in the range of $50-$300 daily for doing easy jobs on your computer from home for 3-4 hrs daily then try this…
Yes indeed she does! She absolutely has every right and reason to stand her ground and stand ground for the thousands of other musicians that don’t have anywhere near as loud a voice publicly that she does to speak out against these giant companies trying at every turn to take advantage of artists. And what she did actually worked!
Honestly: 3 MONTHS of one company giving away the content of thousands of individual artists??? That would’ve been madness.
She gets a major thumbs up for getting that straightened out!
…and what of the thousands of photographs that don’t have anywhere near as loud a voice publicly that she does?
Fuck off you spamming idiot
Not spamming… this article is about Taylor Swift’s restricting photographers’ ability to make a living off their work while at the same time objecting Apple not paying musicians during the trial period. Both you and Ed commented in support of Taylor Swift versus Apple, but said nothing of the photographers versus Swift. I’m just pointing that out.
Seems I’ve that was sent to you by genuine mistake my friend, I know you are simply putting your point across and not spamming……sorry
Photographers are in the business to make money the same as Taylor Swift and Apple are, and why should they give their work away?
I personally don’t think anyone should give away their work
If you could use extra money of about 50 bucks to 300 bucks every day for freelancing on your computer from home for few h each day then check this out…
Stop spamming you absolute fool
SHE IS,
Imagine that Taylor hires a new bass player for her tour due to a schedule conflict with her old one. He auditions and is hired. He’s given a CD, sheet music for all of the parts and is told to learn them (which he does on his own time). Then many weeks of rehearsals. A week before the tour is to depart, he’s handed a contract that says he must also hand over his beloved guitar at the end of the tour. Because of its association with Taylor, the instrument itself might become famous.
Taylor feels that this “background” guy is just another bass player, and doesn’t want to see him auctioning it 40 years from now based on HER fame. He doesn’t like this, and he voices opposition to signing it. He’s told that every other musician on the tour has already signed theirs, and he needs to just get over himself. He’s being paid VERY well, and it should be no big deal. He resists some more (his dad gave him the guitar, and it’s the only one he feels comfortable playing). And he’s told “sign it or you can’t come”.
According to many Taylor supporters, they think that he simply has the right not to sign it. But it is his livelihood. It isn’t that simple. It’s a shakedown.
Just like a photographer who’s been sent by a media employer to shoot the Taylor Swift event. Photographers cherish the copyrights they own for their photos. You never know if they might be worth something next week or next decade. But in this case, he’s already told the editor of Tiger Beat that he’ll shoot it. To assert his rights with Taylor and come back empty-handed would likely end his relationship with that editor. And it could lead to him losing other gigs with colleagues of that editor. He’d be considered unreliable and unprofessional.
Taylor invites these media properties to shoot her events. She wants the photos published so that people will see the fun tie to be had, and (hopefully) buy a ticket for the next show. She gets free publicity out of it. FREE. The magazine gets to sell magazines and sell ads. The photographer gets paid (a little bit… maybe). And all they want it to keep the DEFAULT rights to the creative work they produce. Yes, to know how to shoot quality photographs that are of considerable quality has far more to do with the photographer’s skill and knowledge than it has to do with the camera.
Taylor, grow the hell up. Get over yourself. Back off of this. And be a leader and show the other performers that photographers deserve to keep their copyrights.
Your analogy is dumb and wrong.
Photographers still have the copyright to the photos they take (unless a signed agreement says otherwise, which hers doesn’t take away). Like the original guy, you don’t understand what the contract is saying. It is PRIVACY laws that give Taylor the right to control her image/brand. If someone takes a photo/video of you, you have every right to control the public distribution of it. This is why TV shows that do gags with random strangers (Jimmy Kimmel, etc) have you sign a waiver. You are transferring the right to your image to them for the purposes of the program. This is also why certain YouTube channels have videos with people’s faces blurred out (because they didn’t give permission to be used in the video). Taylor is well within her rights to do this, as further proven by the fact that other artists have the same thing. Please educate yourself on the applicable laws before throwing out douchebag statements like “grow the hell up”. Taylor won’t be changing anything because she is in the right.
Not at all “dumb”. She shouldn’t try to duck back under the protective umbrella of “privacy” after she had already given it up.
And OK, yeah, technically the photographer retains “copyright” here, but in name only. Stripped away were literally all of the benefits of owning said copyright (and Swift is under no obligation to give them an authorship credit in the future).
I’m not at all trying to say her photo contracts are invalid or illegal. I’m pointing out that they are unreasonable (and somewhat thuggish).
Jimmy Kimmel is under no legal obligation to secure releases from those folks who end up in the shot. But ABC legal doesn’t want to deal with frivolous lawsuits (valid or invalid). It’s easier to blur the face than to respond to frivolity.
Again, she made it clear that this is an industry standard practice. She’s not hiding behind anything. Jimmy Kimmel ABSOLUTELY has to get those releases. This is why privacy laws exist, to protect the individuals. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it isn’t right.
It’s NOT an industry standard practice. It’s becoming more common, but Eric Clapton, Elton John, Justin Bieber don’t produce contracts for press photographers before shows.. George Michael goes one step further and actually produces a sheet telling photographers what white balance the follow spotlight is, so that he knows any photo of him is going to have a better chance of looking fantastic.
This isn’t a case of people sneaking in and taking unauthorised photographs. It’s a case or working professionals doing their job, as they have done for years, and being asked to give up all rights to their ability to earn from it. If this was industry standard practice, the magazines and newspapers would be boring columns of text.
Nothing you’ve said is true. Nothing in her contract, like most others, takes away all your rights. You continue to look like a whiney 4 year old who doesn’t get to play with his favorite toy. Whine all you want cause Taylor isn’t changing a thing. She has the industry on her side.
And no, there isn’t going to be other articles about it being a standard because it would only prove my point. Your focus should be on getting your ACTUAL EMPLOYER to pay you something manageable for your work. I don’t expect a newspaper to write an article about how crappy they pay their photographers. Get off Taylor’s ass and get better rates from your employer, moron.
Oh, and trolling these articles about your whiney blog shows how much of an asshat you really are.
All of you make good points.
I see it as simple as this:
On principle alone…Not Law…Principle.
Taylor Swift and other artists like her are the product, everything about them is the product. The media, including music and visuals they portray in a work (not public) setting is their Product.
The photographer in question who is complaining about her policy is just another “Apple” trying to leverage her product for free to nothing. His business is based on her talent, image and popularity, not his own. Like iTunes without music, his photos without the artist’s images is worthless to the people he takes pictures for.
So before we even get into the legal mumbo jumbo, let’s remember who the real product is, it’s the party who’s shaking there butt on stage and in the studio for our entertainment. It’s defiantly not the party peddling the media of the artist. I’m an iTunes user because I can get the media from the artist I like to listen to, watch and read about, not because I like watching Apple commercials and reading about Apple products. Exactly like how I read (once in a while ) about artist I’m interested in in a new article or pictorial, I’m not reading it because the writer or the photographer is the focal point of my interest.
So I say to the photographer in question, understand what Apple did was a valiant deed for the artist they are leveraging to give their product value. (No artist on board, no music and their product is worthless.) Just like your photo product, no artist shaking their ass for your camera, and your product is worthless. Understand that YOU are the “Apple”, not Taylor Swift.
She is in bed with Apple for some time now.
I couldn’t stand her before and I certainly can’t stand her now. I wish Apple would not have backed down and just let go play her games. She already lost the Spotify flaming contest. If Apple fans fall for her spoiled little child routine it’ll be one more reason to disinherit them. Apple seriously needs to show both Google, Taylor and Spotify they aren’t the bad guys in the first place. This is all about the Music Industry trying to change the game rules just when it’s about to get interesting. I say Apple needs to do like Google did. Challenge Taylor and the music industry to stop them from setting up their own Free Music Streaming Service. Let’s see what Taylor does then? haha…. I dare her to pull all her music from both of them too!!! :D …….
She’s not even that good. I don’t know what she thinks of herself? Jimi Hendrix? Beatles? She’s just that ratchet looking for attention fame and gobs of money.
I agree with you in the context of a legal business transaction that both sides are benefiting and respect should be given to both parties.
But as I stated in the beginning of my post, “On principle alone…Not Law…Principle.”
If your child created a beautiful painting that would draw an audience if displayed at an appropriate venue, and then my child took a picture of it and displayed it on the internet for the world thus taking potential profits away from any art exhibit your child might be in. Is that ok on “principle”? Legally, yes, if your child displays her image in a public area and it wasn’t the focus of my child’s photograph, it becomes intellectual property and none is the wiser. But I’m asserting principle.
I have casually spoke with 3 of the attorneys the company I own retains about this matter, just for shits and giggles. And they all said the same thing, it comes down to contractual agreements and power position of the parties involved. But I’m talking principle, which might not be a big thing these days since law takes precedence. And with the ethics of SOME “photographers”, who by definition are also “artist”, they must feel they are helping the other artist on stage, even if it is an embarrassing wardrobe malfunction (real or edited) or compromising position which could be misconstrued as overtly provocative and deformative to the subjects in their photos; “what the heck” we photographers should have an open license to this great “art”. But if law is the only issue, then OJ was totally justified. Right?