Taylor Swift is a shrewd business woman and thought she was speaking for all the little artists when she told Apple to kiss off when it comes to featuring her album 1989 on its new music streaming service.
To not pay artists during Apple Music’s free three-month trial period is exploitive, the singer-songwriter suggested, not to mention “shocking” and “disappointing.”
So forgive music photographer Jason Sheldon if he is unable to Shake It Off and is bothered by the hypocrisy of her stance. Editorial photographers assigned to shoot her shows must sign away rights to their photos, preventing them from being paid while giving Swift unlimited use of the pictures for publicity and promotion.
It is kind of a moot point for musicians now that Apple announced Monday it would reverse its decision and pay artists during the trial period. Now that Apple has changed course, will Swift?
Sheldon, based in Birmingham, England, wrote an open letter to Swift, much like she did to Apple on Tumblr Sunday, that went viral. In it, he uses some of the same phrases she used in chiding Apple.
Here is a passage from Swift’s letter: “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 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.”
From Sheldon: “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.‘ ”
Freelance photographers, like Sheldon, get assignments and are paid a one-time fee that often doesn’t cover travel. They depend on being able to sell their photos to other clients as a way to make a living.
With the letter, which was first published on his blog Junction10, Sheldon posted a copy of the agreement photographers are forced to sign before being allowed to shoot during a performance.
Another photographer, Joel Goodman, Tweeted out an even more restrictive version of the contract, which states Swift’s people have the right to destroy your equipment if there is evidence the signed agreement is being violated.
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].
183 responses to “Apple Music wanted to rob artists like Taylor Swift robs photographers”
Whilst I agree with the sentiment Sheldon is putting forward, it’s not quite the same thing. Photographers are paid to do a job and then artists own the work (like a builder building you a house. It would be better if photograhers were afforded royalties in the same way musicians are for use of their work after the fact, but at least they were paid to begin with.
What Apple was proposing was taking work that they hadn’t paid for and giving it away to people to promote their own service. Of course there are many different ways of looking at this positively and negatively, but the point stands that there was no payment to the artists to allow Apple to do this.
Well… Sheldon does have a point.
This is from Sheldon:
P.S.: it seems the circumstances of the contract aren’t clear to some people who assume this is a work for hire contract presented for being hired and/or paid by Taylor Swift.
That is not the case. As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it. Therefore, if the newspaper has a bigger story to run and doesn’t have enough room to use my photo, I don’t get paid.
When I’m not allowed to do anything else with the photos, that means I’ve incurred expenses to work, which I can’t recover. Therefore preventing me from licensing my photos to more than one publication, or even (as later versions of this contract stipulate) preventing me from using the images for my own self promotion in a portfolio etc while they can use them without licensing the usage is highly unfair and unjustified.
Yes, but the photos are of HER or the subject. Being a photographer is much the same as being an audio recording engineer in a studio. You are simply the one that’s in charge of capturing either their performance, etc. sellable, but they STILL automatically own the rights to photos of themselves or recordings of themselves until they release them to someone else. That’s why a lot of concerts don’t allow anyone recording the concert audio, video, etc. But kids are using smartphones and they really don’t have the rights to do that unless it’s an open concert, or they specifically say it’s OK. Some artists allow it and some don’t. At least that’s my understanding of the laws that pertain to this.
Actually a record Producer gets paid every time the song is played or is otherwise “sold”. Steve Albini is a record producer who doesn’t like that model and therefore bills himself as a recording engineer to avoid that issue, but Butch Vig gets paid for every copy of Nevermind that sells. Do you think Do you think Annie Leibovitz doesn’t get paid each and every time one of her photos is reproduced? Also, while I’m not a lawyer, a celebrity has less claim to their image by a person in the public sphere, than a private person does.
I dig your Steve Albini and Butch Vig references :)
But they are producers, a photographer is much like the recording engineer which just presses buttons and turns knobs and they are just paid for their studio time and neither of them get legal rights to sell, duplicate or distribute.
Watch “Sonic Highways” episode 1. Steve Albini takes a flat rate, And you’ll see that Butch Vig does so much more than produce.
If you are in need for extra cash in the range of $50 to $300 daily for doing basic work over internet from your couch at home for few hrs every day then check this out…
But a photographer is not a producer, a producer has legal contracts to get some royalties, if that’s what their contract states. A recording engineer doesn’t. They just get paid for their time to press the record button and turn knobs, which is essentially what a photographer does. Anyone that captures a performance in video, photograph or audio recording does NOT get the copyright of the person’s performance or likeness without legal contracts releasing those rights. Seriously, go look up entertainment laws.
If the photos are taken at a concert, which is a paid private performance. out in the public, then it’s fair game, but not in a private concert. It’s much the same as being videotaped or filmed for a movie, all parties MUST sign legal contracts releasing them to be filmed before they release the film, that includes passerbys. That’s why when they film a movie, they close down the area and they only get people that have signed the release forms.
Trust me, I’ve been a musician that’s played in various bands and recordings and I’ve signed release forms which released those rights and I’ve also been in situations where I didn’t and the content was not legally released so if it was posted, I could send out a cease and desist and get it pulled, which I have. I have also talked to entertainment lawyers, have read entertainment law pertaining to this, so please stop lying about what a photographer has legal rights to do when they take photos at a concert of the performer on stage. Most concerts do NOT allow photos, videos or audio recordings allowed, some don’t mind, so it depends on the artists wishes.
Don’t confuse a record producer with a photographer, they aren’t the same. A photographer is like the recording engineer or the man behind a video camera. Capece?
Okay let’s simplify this. First my point about record producers is that if you are familiar with Steve Albini (producer who calls himself an engineer for Nirvana, The Pixies, Cheap Trick) then you’d know that the whole notion of record producers is a bad example.
Second when I shoot a concert for a client I own the copyright to my photos period. I have an agreement to sell them to my client. My client and I make the arrangements with the venue, performer and any other producers to shoot. Of course I can’t use my photos to make t-shirts with her likeness and sell them. I need her permission to sell those shirt. No question. If a publisher comes along and wants to print and sell a book of my work I need her permission in order to include images of Ms. Swift. Again that is the application of her likeness rights. Likeness rights allow her a say. NOT OWNERSHIP.
What she is doing in this contract that is theft and it is theft via coercion, is she demands a grant of rights to use any photos for promo forever without paying. That is a form of ownership. Apple wanted to use copyrighted material without paying for promotion of their business. Swift takes copyrighted material without paying for the promotion of her business. There is zero difference. Every single argument you make justifying her action applies equally to her position with Apple. The only difference is she has the power to make demands of Apple. Freelance artist do not have that same power to pressure Ms. Shift. She is a thief. She is getting labor and art for which she isn’t paying. Get it? I get the contract issue and I am agreeing with the letter writer that her contract is BS, not standard and exactly the same thing she complaining about. I wouldn’t sign that contract but others truly have no choice and she knows it, hence theft.
Don’t forget the audio recording engineer did get paid either the studio time or the hourly wage whether or not the music gets released. If the photos do not the photographer does not see a dime.
You clearly don’t understand the laws that protect photographers rights. As a photographer, we hold EXCLUSIVE rights to any photo we shoot. Typically, if I were to shoot a concert, and the artist wanted to use my images, they PAY ME. Even then, it’s still only for the purpose agreed upon that they can use it. If they buy an image from me to use on their marketing poster, or say for a poster, but then turn around and use that same image as their album cover, they have to pay me again. They are MY property, and I can do with them as I like. So, for Ms. Swift to force a photographer to sign over all rights after first use is absolutely absurd. Sorry, but that’s not the way things work.
So are you saying that being a photographer is a free pass to violate people’s right over their own image? I can just go around taking pictures of people on the streets and then say I own EXCLUSIVE rights over THEIR image? Something is weird here.
That’s correct. A photo taken of you in a PUBLIC place is the property of the photographer. You can give them a cease-and-desist from publishing the image, but he photographer still owns it.
As a private citizen, someone can own a photograph of you but they can’t use it to market something without your consent. Celebrities are actually considered public domain and their likeness can be sold without consent.
You’ve never seen Google Street View, have you?
Yes. It blocks people’s faces so it won’t use their image without authorization.
You don’t own “EXCLUSIVE rights over THEIR image”, you have the copyright of the image you took. One does not get the copyright of a photo just because they are in the photo, the person taking the photo has the copyright over that photo.
But do you own the rights to use of the images in the photo?
Imagine I created the Monalisa, but I don’t authorize anyone to take pictures of it. I own the exclusive rights to the monalisa. Even if you take a picture of it and the picture is exclusively yours, you would never be allowed to show it to anyone or you would violate the Monalisa’s copyright.
It is different in every country, but I am pretty sure you own the rights over your own image.
A person isn’t a copyrighted product, but a painting is. Taking a photo of a painting is a faithful reproduction and would be considered a derived product, while that is not the case for a photo of a person, which would be an original work. Your comparison is faulty.
As far as the US and UK are concerned, no, you don’t own the rights to every picture taken of you, no “pretty sure” about it, that is fact. I suggest you go read some copyright law and site this supposed statute stating that people own every image of themselves.
A person’s likeness, performance is automatic copyright.. So, when a performer is performing at a concert or in a studio as soon as the record button is pressed, those recordings of those performers is automatically granted to them until they sign release form releasing those copyrights to another party.
Read entertainment law as that pertains to performance artists (actors, musicians, singers, etc.)
If an individual is photographed in a public setting they have no right to the resulting image. If the image is to be used in a commercial capacity, a release must be obtained from every individual recognizable in the photo. However, if the image is for editorial or fine art no release is required.
If you take pictures at one of her concerts you would have to
get the ok from her group or she could have the rights to them
because you didn’t get cleared by her company.
Its all a rip off, her music will be gone soon and we can get back
to real music and real singers.
You own rights to THAT image that you took. If the subject owned the rights to any picture that was taken of them all paparazzi would be out of a job
If a person owned the rights to any photo taken of them, there’d be no paparazzi. There’d also be very few photos of people in magazines and newspapers. It does not work the way you are saying.
a paparazzi takes photos of people in public places, not private concerts or in the studio, or film production lot. one is just a picture of someone in a public place and the other is when they are performing.
To clarify: in most cases and countries, if you are in a public area, and someone takes your picture, you cannot do anything if it is published with the purpose that it is not for profit. The rights of the photo still belong to the photographer.
If it’s used for commercial purposes, then it is a different story, because release forms will need to be signed, and the people that appear in the photo have a right to payment.
If the photo was taken in a private setting, for example, in a concert like we are debating, then the rights belong fully to the owner/organiser. However, the photographer has a choice not to sign off rights to their photo if they are smart and legal savvy. It really is about knowing your own business, and safeguarding your own interests.
It’s strange but you do own the right to pictures you take on the street. If people are recognizable you need their consent to publish the pictures but that doesn’t fall under copyright but privacy laws which are very different thing. Also there is a lot of cases where the consent is considered given as long as the you have been made aware, CCTV warnings being a good example.
I guess it goes back to painting a panting of someone expecting to get paid for each painting you produce since you are the one producing it while the subject might commission you to do it they don’t own the ability to produce it unless they pay you not to make any more.
Royalty would use blasphemy and slander laws to keep images of themselves in line with their wishes but they never expected to be given the works for free.
Well, actually photographing people in public locations isn’t against the law…they can ask you not to take their photos, but if they’re in an open, public location and you choose to take their photo and use it without an open creative commons license it’s perfectly legal.
I believe that in the public you can, but not when you take a photograph of a performer at a paid concert which is in a private building/setting.
Copy right is not an either/or issue. I do NOT have to take away someone else’s rights in order to have my own. No one is saying the photographer owns the likeness rights of the person in the photo. That is not the issue at all. You understand that a work can involve multiple rights holders, right?
The subject owns the rights to their likeness in commercial applications. The photographer owns the rights to the picture itself. If a newspaper or Rolling Stone sends me to a concert to take pictures I sign a contract with my client stating that I will shoot photos on their behalf for an agreed upon price and grant them a set of agreed upon and limited rights to reproduce that image. My client and I then contact the venue, the performer and any other producers/stake holders (local government in the case of a venue like Red Rocks) and make arrangements to shoot. This often includes a contract giving me permission to shoot and a grant of limited likeness rights to my client. Pretty simple, right? If the artist, performer, venue or any other party would like to use one of my photos they need my permission along with ALL the other stake holders include a grant of likeness rights from the performer.
The issue with Ms. Swifts contract is she is taking away the photographers rights so that she doesn’t have to pay for prpmotional images. AT NO POINT ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS TRYING TO TAKE ANY CLAIM TO HER RIGHTS TO CONTROL OR SELL HER LIKENESS. L
I disagree. The rights normally enjoyed by photographers are absurd and exploitative, and Swift is right to use contracts to level the playing field. I would do the exact same thing if the status quo were so heavily tilted against me.
If you don’t like it, I have a very simple suggestion. Don’t photograph her concerts. Problem solved.
Please explain how she is “leveling the playing field” by stealing copyrights by coercion woithout paying.
Signing the contract is voluntary. No photographer is coerced into signing it. Such hyperbole just makes your side look desperate and foolish.
You still failed to explain the what rights photographers have that are absurd and exploitative. Such hyperbole just makes your side look desperate and foolish.
Simply put, it’s absurd for photographers to have exclusive rights to photos of a limited-admission private concert on private property just because they pushed the button. The performer being photographed has rights too. The world is not a one-sided entitlement to the exclusive favor and benefit of photographers at the cost and expense of everyone else.
Except, wait, it actually is. Because of the photographers’ lobby.
Since the status quo is so absurdly unbalanced, Swift is absolutely correct to exercise her counter-rights.
And if you don’t like it, you’re free to walk away and not photograph her concerts. No one is being coerced.
I AM NOT SAYING THE ARTIST DOESN”T HAVE RIGHTS! THEY DO HAVE RIGHTS! THEIR RIGHTS DO NOT ENTITLE THEM TO MY RIGHTS ANYMORE THAN I AM ENTITLED TO THEIRS! The performer has rights to her likeness, not to my image. That is not the issue under debate. You are thinking that a photo only has only one set or type of rights applied to it. IT DOES NOT. I have never claimed exclusive rights to all the photos from an event I shoot. Only the image rights to the photos I have taken.
Let me be super clear:
1. I get hired to shoot a concert.
2. My client and I obtain rights to shoot and use the photos for my clients use. At this point Swift can say yes or no.
3. If anyone else would like to use my images they need my permission AND, get that? AND, as in, addition to, TAYLOR SWIFT”S PERMISSION AS WELL! My image rights do not nullify her likeness rights. She is inserting an extra clause that is only a grab for free work, FOREVER, the thing she is suppose to be against. At no point can the photographer claim the likeness rights.
So your point is 100% false.
Again, where is the one-sided nature in this arrangement?
Contract can not be sign under actual or implied duress. I know we all love TV shows where powerful business people look to outdo each other by getting leverage of each other. In the real world it is not so fun, and economic duress is not allowed. I am now wondering if someone doesn’t need to look a the racketeering angle on this?
Sorry dude, we’re never going to agree. You have no right to photograph on private property without explicit consent.
ARGH, did you read step 2?!!?!!?!
I HAVE PERMISSION!!!! I HAVE PERMISSION!!!! I HAVE PERMISSION!!!!
I ONLY SHOOT WHEN I HAVE EXPLICT CONSENT. I COULDN’T SHOOT OTHERWISE.
THE ISSUE IS SWIFT DOESN’T WANT TO PAY TO USE THE WORK.
I get we are going to agree because you keep making the point even after I not only agreed with you on the point but additionally I stated clearly that I in fact take the step.
Absent a signed contract you do not have consent.
Oh for F’s sake. Obstinate much?
I have to start over for the late joiner, huh?
As I stated much much earlier, I have shot many artists and events. I have always done so with permission and Swifts & FEI contract is a BS rights grab that is in the exact same vain as her complaint with Apple. Yes Beyonce does it too, yadda, yadda.
You are correct in that I would not shoot a Swift show because I would not sign that BS contract.
I know Swift couldn’t care less because there are plenty of other photographers who will be assigned to shoot her shows and they will have no option but sign that contract in order to keep their jobs and continue working.
So are we on the same page in regards to rights? She has rights, photogs have rights, venues have rights.
I know, I know we still disagree on coercion. That’s fine. But can we agree that Swift is “positioning” for image rights in exchange for access? You think that is fair, I do not.
I think you are the one who is confused and ill-informed. The contract on Sheldon’s page is drafted by Firefly Entertainment Inc., whom I assume is the event management company. As someone who works in marketing, the one who is undercutting you is the event management company hired by Miss Swift’s team. They are usually paid a lump sum and they will undercut you to profit more out of it.
For example, if they get quoted by a supplier, they will mark up the cost to the client. Pretty certain this is what happened here. To think someone who is worth $200M has time to oversee everything, including the hiring of concert photographers when her job states she is a songwriter/singer is ridiculous. How stretched do you expect one person to be? Yes, I know Swift is very hands on when it comes to her copyrights and even, writing personal Thank-you notes to radio DJs and so on, but do you think she is a superwoman who does not need to sleep and can work 24/7?
Yes, of course you own your rights to your photograph, but if you stupidly sign off your rights without reading the contract, of course, they don’t belong to you anymore. If you are not comfortable with the contract, don’t sign it. Why lash out at a musician instead of the company who drafted that contract?
makes sence
Your argument supports Apple’s original decision to not pay royalties during the free trial period. Frankly Apple had an even better argument than Swift because Apple was creating a new venue for the musicians to receive perpetual royalties for their works and were offering a higher royalty payment than the norm. It was perfectly reasonable to ask musicians to forgo royalties that Apple was forgoing, too, if they wanted to be on that venue. Swift’s whole shaming gambit was built on a fake analogy and, as Sheldon pointed out, enormously hypocritical.
You are not being objective. Swift was speaking up for her work, which is in demand. Apple wanted her and other musicians who are in demand to give up royalties for free when they can easily get paid elsewhere. The free trial is a marketing expense, and should come from their Apple’s budget. BTW, Apple Music is not a venue. It’s an additional distributional channel.
This is different from what Sheldon is arguing. Press photographers are different from an appointed concert photographer for the tour/festival.
The former are allowed in, only because they are photographing for a publication. The organiser considers them as media, not photographers. They are an additional expense because free press passes need to be given to leverage for publicity, provided the publication even talks about the concert/festival at all. Some publications ask for press passes because they want free tickets to an event to give to employees or business partners.
Yes, this is a marketing expense, but the difference here is that the photos by these photographers on press passes are not in demand because the organisers and the brand (musician) have already appointed an official photographer of their own, and whom is on their payroll.
The restrictive clauses are there to protect the brand because some of these photographers who claim to work for the publications are scammers and amateur photographers. If you Google for a LA Weekly article (can’t link or my comment will be marked for moderation), you can see that a photographer tried to charge a band $15,000 for photography service when he was on a press pass. You see how ridiculous some can be?
Besides, photographers should be business savvy. Why sign away their own rights to their own photo, just because they think they will offend people? If you think the terms hurt your business, negotiate. More often or not, these grab rights contract are written by lawyers, and legal terms typically sound harsh. If you talk to the organiser and voice your concern, they usually will try to accommodate if they can, and make some changes. If you can’t come to an agreement, decline politely. No one will be offended if you act professionally. Acting like Sheldon, however and releasing private contracts to the public, is distasteful, and highly unprofessional.
He also claims he’s not paid because the publication which offered him the job does not compensate him. That is again, entirely, his own fault. If he negotiated a better deal with the publication, then he wouldn’t be making a fruitless trip down. If Sheldon insists on being paid, don’t accept press passes for concert photography in the future, but try to get booked as the official appointed photographer. If he is not good enough to be hired as one, I suggest he works on projects where he knows he will definitely be paid for. Don’t cry foul after. Blame himself for not being business savvy or not being good enough to be paid for.
Argument doesn’t hold up at all. If Swift or FEI want to use the images for promotion then thebages are in demand and the approperiate image licensing fees should be paid. Contracts signed under implied threat are BS.
Speak English. What in the world is thebages (sic) or approperiate (sic)? In any case, already told you. Photographers shooting in a private venue have limited rights.
They are acting as her agent and on her behalf. She is responsible for their actions. If I buy a watch from a guy on the street and it turns out to be stolen I am still guilty of buying an possessing stolen goods.
Next, the “if you don’t like it don’t sign it” is frankly stupid. Sorry to be rude but this issue isn’t that difficult. Look up coercion. Ms. Swift is using the difficult position contract photographers are in to force th to sign. Sure we could choose not to sign and our client is likely not to use us in the future because we didn’t get the shots they needed (think newspaers). Plus your same argument applies equally to her. If she didn’t like Apples contract she could have just not signed it and kept silent. But she wrote an open letter because she was “fighting for the rights of artists” to be paid fairly for their work. That is what we are doing to Ms. Swift. She isn’t a defender of artists or she would demand that photographers get paid. No confusion here. I am totally clear on the issue an Ms. Swift is a thief even if by proxy. She traffics in stolen goods (at contract signed under coercion is not valid).
Err, Swift did not sign the contract then when she spoke up for other musicians. I don’t know why people keep bringing up that argument, but research first before talking? She is NOT being a thief. It is understood that if you are shooting at a privately owned venue, you have limited rights unless you have permission or you have booked the venue. Concert photographers on press pass are assumed to be paid SUFFICIENTLY by the publication that sent them there to document an event.
They will be documenting a copyrighted event, paid for by the artist. Unless the photographer is willing to pay the artist, production, dancers, stage set up and all the misc costs involved, then the photographer has limited rights. It really is not hard to comprehend. The photographer will be the one being a thief by not paying for anything and assuming he/she has exclusive rights to the production.
This is not the same as Swift telling Apple to pay for copyrighted original music by songwriters and musicians. It will be different if the photographer paid for models, rent a studio, lighting and hire assistants for a photoshoot fully paid for by the photographer. Even in the case of an advert, the advertiser pays the photographer ONE TIME for exclusive rights for photography services rendered. The advertiser pays for all the costs involved in the shoot. In this case, the concert photographer is paid, like I said, by the publication, to cover a copyrighted and private event. It is Jason Sheldon’s own fault he did not negotiate with the publication to pay him for photography services. It is ridiculous photographers think they are “artists” when they don’t even understand the law.
I am going to reply to each of your points inline, one by one because we need to apply some order here. Your original comments followed by my replies are directly below each point. Okay, here we go:
Err, Swift did not sign the contract then when she spoke up for other musicians.
Err, I didn’t sign the contract and I am speaking up for other creative professionals.
I don’t know why people keep bringing up that argument, but research first before talking?
Right back at you.
She is NOT being a thief.
Yes she is, and is using EFI as her muscle. The implication that she wants rights to the work of others without paying is a form theft.
It is understood that if you are shooting at a privately owned venue, you have limited rights unless you have permission or you have booked the venue.
We have limited right EVEN WITH PERMISSION. I always have permission to shoot. Again not the issue being addressed to Swift. The requirement for permission is knowledge and NOT being debated. Completely moot point. Her paying to use the works of others is the only issue in dispute.
Concert photographers on press pass are assumed to be paid SUFFICIENTLY by the publication that sent them there to document an event.
You know what they say about assumptions, right? What I get paid by my client is irrelevant to the issue of image rights. Swift gets paid a ton from sales on iTunes and that has nothing to do with Apple’s responsibility to pay her for streaming. Apple should pay artist for the streaming they are giving away for promotion. Likewise, Swift should pay for any creative work she would like to use. If your argument invalidates my point, then it also invalidates Swift’s point to Apple Music. Luckily for Swift and me, your argument doesn’t invalidate the point and Swift and I are correct in that people should be paid for their work.
They will be documenting a copyrighted event, paid for by the artist. Unless the photographer is willing to pay the artist, production, dancers, stage set up and all the misc costs involved, then the photographer has limited rights. It really is not hard to comprehend.
The cost of the event is irrelevant to the image rights of the photographer. Yet again, likeness rights or the limits of the photographers ability to sell their work is not in question. What is in question is Swift wants free promotional material just as Apple did. It is the same issue.
The photographer will be the one being a thief by not paying for anything and assuming he/she has exclusive rights to the production.
The photographer IS NOT CLAIMING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCTION!!!!!!!! NOR ARE THEY CLAIMING ANY OF THE LIKENESS RIGHTS! This seems to be the sticking point. If I take a photo of Swift at Red Rocks in Colorado, I own the image rights. Swift owns her likeness rights and the governmental body that manages Red Rocks on behalf of the residents of Colorado own likeness rights to the historic venue. See? Three parties have a say in the use of the image to protect their interests and rights. This is not a question of someone owning the whole thing. By saying the photographer owns the image rights DOES NOT nullify Swifts likeness rights. This is NOT an all or nothing situation. This is a question of everyone maintaining the rights to the part they rightfully own. In other words, if I sell my image for commercial purposes that outlet still needs to pay Swift for her likeness. She actually gets paid when I sell her image to commercial outlets. She also retains the right to say no and deny the use of her image, because she has, wait for it, likeness rights. Yay! In turn if she would like to use an image I took, she should pay me for, here it comes, image rights! Wee that was fun! That is it. Plain as I can make it.
This is not the same as Swift telling Apple to pay for copyrighted original music by songwriters and musicians. It will be different if the photographer paid for models, rent a studio, lighting and hire assistants for a photoshoot fully paid for by the photographer.
In the eyes of the law that is absolutely incorrect. You are trying to put an artifice of logic that there is a dollar amount/investment threshold on copyright. It might sound reasonable but it does not exist. If I film a plane crash, I own that footage. I didn’t pay for lights, of models or the plane itself. None of that matters. I took the image, I composed it, it is my original creation. To state this a fourth time, Swift still maintains her likeness rights which are different and a separate set of rights that apply to any photos taken of her. Not in question, not being debated. The amount of money spent on the creation of a work has ZERO bearing on the ownership of the creation.
Even in the case of an advert, the advertiser pays the photographer ONE TIME for exclusive rights for photography services rendered.
You are confusing work for hire, which is a totally different realm within copyright law. If this contract was a work for hire gig between the photographer and Swift/EFI directly, sure transfer of image rights is likely. This is not the case here, and it is off topic. Additionally, if someone else wanted to use that photo they would need the image rights and likeness rights from the right holder. Swift is getting it for free just as Apple was.
The advertiser pays for all the costs involved in the shoot. In this case, the concert photographer is paid, like I said, by the publication, to cover a copyrighted and private event.
And Again and again, the publication paid for the use of the images. Any additional uses must be paid for. Swift and EFI is not paying for use. Their production cost are irrelevant.
It is Jason Sheldon’s own fault he did not negotiate with the publication to pay him for photography services. It is ridiculous photographers think they are “artists” when they don’t even understand the law.
I think I’ve have clearly demonstrated that your points have either no basis in law, are a misapplication of law or are about points that are not being debated.
Additionally, one does not need to have their JD to be an artist. How does understanding the law equate to being an artist? False correlation. Totally illogic statement. Do you not think Annie Leibovitz is not an artist? What about Ken Burns? I get the people who really want Swift to be innocent of the hypocrisy charge, but I contend that as long as she uses her position to profit of the work of others without paying, then she is just as guilty as Apple was, and Apple was 100% guilty, let me be clear on that. I have yet seen a justification that holds up and will continue to speak up when and where I can.
You introduced more confusion than order without even making it clear which of the comments were mine and which were yours. Try using inverted commas in the future when you’re quoting people.
1. In my first comment to TJ, I said Jason Sheldon signed off his rights, then released it for the internet to see. I never said YOU did. I said Sheldon should not have signed on it when he did not agree to it. Swift on the other hand, did not sign the contract with Apple until it was negotiated to the terms she deem favourable. Sheldon should have done the same.
Please don’t quote me out of context just because you cannot read. I don’t even know who you are. Why would I research if you signed off a photo release form? Exercise some logic please.
2. Google photo rights and private property. You are not allowed to shoot on private property without permission, and therefore have no rights by default. Even if permission is granted in Swift’s case, like I said, you have limited rights because you are shooting something that is copyrighted and not paid for by you.
If you don’t know the law, No one can help you. You can try suing her if you think she has infringed your rights, provided you did not sign off your rights. I honestly don’t think the law will side you.
I did not confuse work for hire for anything else. You, indeed, are hired by the publication here, and it is your own duty to negotiate the contract terms till you are satisfied.
3. It’s Firefly Entertainment Inc or FEI. I don’t know what the heck is EFI.
4. You must not know about the music industry. Singers do not get their bulk of money from selling records. Most of the cut goes to the record label. Swift gets more because she happens to be the songwriter and producer for her own music. Most singers get their money from touring.
5. The event organiser usually have a disclaimer on tickets that the likeness of the audience will be recorded and used in promotional or tour videos/photography. Once you purchase tickets, it is an auto-release form. If a photographer or videographer takes a picture of the audience, they are allowed to do so because the event organiser has taken care of this. You really need to learn the law and industry standards.
6. Did I say all photographers are not artists? Annie Leibovitz is an artist simply because she has vision and photography is her craft. She art directs her subjects. All Jason Sheldon does is shoot live from a scene pre-directed by others. Sure, photography is his craft, but can you call him a true artist if he is just paid to click? Have you seen Jason Sheldon’s work? To compare him to Annie Leibovitz and Ken Burns is like comparing Justin Bieber to Queen and Rolling Stones; Richard Prince to Vincent Van Gogh and Rembrandt. You get the gist.
Partly true, but not quite. Without a signed model release, you can’t do whatever you like with the photographs. You can’t publish or sell them without a release. If you really were a photographer, you would know that.
Not entirely true. Releases are not necessarily needed for public venues and/or public figures.
You don’t understand. Celebrities own the copyright to images of themselves taken at private venues, period.
You can’t just post, distribute those photos of other people at a concert performing unless you get them to sign a release form. Their likeness is THEIR copyright that is automatic as soon as you press the button. That’s why they typically say at concerts an on the tickets, NO photograph, videotape or audio recording devices permitted.
That is not the claim. We are so far off topic here. The artist ALWAYS maintains their likeness rights for everything (expect on the sidewalk leaving Whole Foods).
The issue is those likeness rights do not entitle the artists to the image rights of and originally created piece of work like my photo. BOTH rights apply to the sale and use of my images.
It doesn’t matter who the subject is, the person that takes the photo owns the rights, unless they sign them over
You simply have no clue what you are talking about. The copyright always stays with the photographer unless the photographer signs it over to some one else for a fee or for free. The photographer would usually license the use of a photograph but still retain the copyright. It makes no difference who is in the photograph or who took the photograph, even the kids with their smartphones own the rights to the photograph they took. Please don’t spout about things you have no clue about you are just creating more ill informed internet warriors. You might want to go away an learn about copyright law instead of just making it up as you go along.
The PHOTOGRAPHER automatically owns the rights to ANY image they create. That’s the law unless it is superseded by another legally binding contract. To suggest that a photographer (or audio engineer) is “simply” capturing a performance fails to take into consideration the extensive talent and skill required to capture a live performance, much less the real costs of equipment and travel. Swift, and other performers, are getting into a habit of expecting photographic services for free because of their celebrity but if a photographer isn’t being paid to shoot the gig and then isn’t allowed to monetize the resulting work in some way then they are being asked to give away their work.
Photographers in the United States own the copyright to any image they capture; be that a photo of you, your family, the New York skyline, or Taylor Swift/Kanye West. The only thing that automatically happens is the copyright vests with the photographer–unless, of course, you’re a recording artist who forces photographers to sign away their legal rights for the privilege of access.
Photographers, in general, are nothing like audio recording engineers (again, unless. Your analogy is inapposite. Your “understanding of the laws” is not a thing.
Taylor rips people off and Oh thats ok if its for Taylor.
Whoever presses the shutter button owns the copyright. The contract is asking the photographer to give up that right for free. Then the photograph may be used however the new owner sees fit to generate income without continuing to pay the photographer. In music on the other hand, the writer owns the copyright. They keep it and get royalties whenever the song is used. Typically a photographer will keep a copyright and lease it for use or sell it at a higher price. See now how it’s hypocritical to expect to be paid continuously for one piece of art while demanding another piece of art for free?
In your example it’s the photographer who expects to be paid for something he/she’s getting for free, right?
I mean, do photographers pay the performer in order to take photos of the performance?
What is he getting for free? The contract won’t even let him use the photos in his own portfolio.
But what is his contribution to the performer whose work he captures to make money for himself?
Well, since she’s forcing photographers to hand over the rights to their photographs she’s gaining potential promotional material. Does a millionaire really need free promotional material?
I really can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to a photographer getting paid for their work. It’s kind of blowing my mind tbh.
And if he kept the rights, she would still receive publicity when the publication that hired him to be there ran the photos.
Because what’s to stop a photographer from just capturing upskirt pics and/or silly/unflattering pics and deciding enquiring minds will pay more than a legitimate publication? Other than to do what Taylor has done by taking possession of all photos taken of her. And judging by the press she received just a few years back I’d say it was more than a smart move but a necessary one.
Upskirts are something the law if struggling with. As it stands, there’s nothing to stop them in most places, but states are passing laws against them. That’s a whole different issue than copyright. Copyright law is clear, the photographer owns the rights to a photo, not the subject of the photo.
These contracts only hassle legitimate press photographers who would get fired if they were taking up skirt photos.
My ability to do the next job, that’s what. Why would I want to get ‘upskirt’ shots?? I’m a concert photographer, not a Readers Housewives contributor.
The act of taking that photo would be illegal, regardless. No need for the contract. She could sue for privacy violation. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (provided by her clothing), any violation of that is illegal.
She isn’t forcing them to sign the contract. They could just as easily walk away. Maybe demand your employer actually pay you for your travel and time like they should before you try to lay blame on a popular artist? The old-timers would say you should walk off the job to get what you want, not bow to their demands. Taylor has the right to control her image how she feels necessary.
“She isn’t forcing them to sign the contract.”
No one’s forcing artists to joing Apple Music. See how that logic turns against itself?
That was the whole point of her open letter, that she was not going to be a part of their platform along with the reasons why.
???
Right, only she chose to write an indignant letter about it, and people are saying the same indignation is unnecessary when applied to herself.
And generally artists and photographers don’t have the luxury of saying no to making money, the way that Miss Swift does.
As “fart” pointed out, that was the point of her letter. She explained her reasoning, just like when she pulled 1989 off Spotify and everyone flipped. Apple simply chose to agree with her, and now we’ll get 1989 on Apple Music, making it exclusive to Apple’s streaming service. Taylor has also pointed out that her contract is an industry standard, and has been misinterpreted. Nothing wrong with what she’s doing.
No one is saying photographers should not be paid.
If the organiser (event management) or the owner of the brand (Taylor Swift, musician or the owner of a festival), offers you a pass to shoot at a concert/festival, which is a private event, then yes, they can dictate the terms. You are then in charge of documenting a copyrighted production, and you will be one of many.
No one is not forcing anyone to sign. Those photographers don’t have to sign the terms if they don’t want to. No one pointed a gun at their head to sign their name in blood. It is called a choice. If you don’t like the terms, walk away from it. Why whine about it, and release a personal contract to the public? To me, that’s distasteful and unclassy.
As a photographer, you should always know your own rights and learn how to safeguard it. Don’t be uninformed, and unaware of your own legal rights, and call people out after. It’s just childish and unprofessional.
Sorry, but she’s not “offering” them free pass to her concert. If she doesn’t want press at her concerts she doesn’t have to have them there. But the publicity is part of her PR machine. The photographers aren’t there to see her concert for free. They are there to do their job for which they were hired by a publishing entity who covers her event. If she doesn’t want press photographers there she can hire her own photographers and release those photos. But she would actually have to pay for those.There is nothing wrong with her wanting to control how and where the images from these events are released. However, she’s not entitled to free use of the photographer’s images without pay afterwards. That’s where the hypocrisy comes from.
You should probably go back and read the article again. She didn’t ask the photographer to show up, and she didn’t ask the publication to send someone. The photographer came to her people and asked to be allowed in to enter the concert and to take pictures for commercial purposes. The contract under discussion was the conditions under which they would allow him in.
Again, she doesn’t have to have the press there if she doesn’t want to. She can hire her own photographers and PAY them. The photographers in question are just doing their job for a third party which helps to create publicity for the event. They are hired, paid and have contracts with said third party. Yet when they show up to do their job they are asked to sign another contract by TS who demands the use of their product outside of the scope of what they were hired for (not even by TS) – for free.
She’s doing better than just saying no. She’s giving them another option. If the photographer don’t like the option, they can say no, which would get them to the same point as if she said no in the first place.
And you shouldn’t worry about her springing this on the photographer at the last second. Apparently, its a fairly standard contract, so its likely that the photographer and seen it before.
Not all performers have contracts like this. Also some of the photographers mentioned that they don’t see these contracts until they show up at the venue. Either way, she also has an option to not sign into Apple’s terms so why cry about it, right?
That would be post publicity, honey. How would that sell more concerts at that specific city until the next tour? Be logical. Those rights grabs concert contracts are an industry standard. Google Guster and how they were asked to pay $15k by a rogue photog on a press pass because they claimed it was photo services rendered. Who does that? And also, like I have said so many times, if you think the contract is unfavourable, don’t sign on it. Walk away.
Still a publicity, honey…She also can walk away from Apple – “if you think the contract is unfavourable, don’t sign on it. Walk away”. Hypocritical much?
Still publicity*
Publicity isn’t singular. She did walk away from Apple. As of now, her music catalogue will still not be available on Apple Music. How is that hypocritical? Research? I find it interesting you replied to this comment, but ignored the one when I said she hires her own photographers. Who is the hypocrite? :)
Her open letter to Apple is hypocritical in light of how she treats the concert photographers. Why to whine about it, just be quiet and don’t sign. Everyone has the choice.
She does hire her own photographers. And I bet she pays them well which is great. But it doesn’t change the fact that she is also trying to get photos she doesn’t pay for for use on her social media etc. She doesn’t have to allow concert photographers to her gigs. You said it yourself, it’s a private venue. She can only use her own hired photographers. But then, she’d actually have to pay to them for ALL the photos that would be released to the media, on her Facebook, Instagram…
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with her trying to control where her concert images appear and I personally don’t have a problem with that part of the contract. But it’s an extremely asshole move to demand the rights to the future use of the photos for her own use without further compensation. The freelance photographer owns the images, not TS. If she wants the photographer to transfer photo rights to her, she needs to compensate him/her accordingly…
I personally wouldn’t sign contract like that. Anyway, I’m very happy this issue came up and is being discussed. It seems to me that generally there is a lot of general misunderstanding about copyright in photography. Also, it might give some of the photographers “courage” not to sign contracts like this. If people aren’t willing to work under these terms, performers like TS will have to change their tune.
This is not about the big guy photographer. Thankfully he’s well established in the industry and can say no. This is about the new guy who’s just getting his foot in the door, who’s worried that he’ll have hard time finding work if he says no to a gig like TS…
“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. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt…”
Did she use those photos taken by press photogs for commercial purposes? I don’t see how it is an douchey move if people are dumb enough to sign on the contract. They will not be losing out on anything. They would have no payment before the job offer, and no payment if they reject the job offer. If you are not good, then the problem lies with you being mediocre.
I don’t know how young you are. This issue has been going on for years since cameras became digital and more affordable. The kid on the street with a DSLR and a diva attitude thinks he is a professional photographer these days. Gone are the days where concert photogs were allowed to go in and roam and take pics as they please backstage. It’s down to 3-songs these days. It is a tough industry, but it is not a NEW phenomenon. If you are a new photographer starting out, and you need photos for your portfolio, then yes, you need to understand you need to lose some to gain some. If you cannot say no to a gig like Swift, and you want the publicity, knowing you will not get paid, that is your own problem. You need to credentials to get in any business, honey.
Did you think Taylor Swift had the same luxury when she first started out as a performer as well? I did some research and she was an open act for other country musicians when she first started out because she was so new then, no one knew who the heck she was. She performed for FREE.
She still performs for free. She was a guest performer for Kenny Chesney earlier this year to return the favour for when he was a guest at one of her shows. Chesney is no where as popular or in-demand as Swift.
She actually does use the images on her social media as some of the photographers pointed out. She is a brand and social media is part of promoting that brand. The argument that something’s been going on for a long time and thus that makes it right is quite flawed. I’m not going to waste my breath on trying to explain why it’s not ok to ask for photo rights without compensation even if your face is on the photos since you don’t seem to comprehend that issue.
Again, the argument is about the hypocrisy of her calling out Apple on something she does herself to other creatives. If you think that photographers don’t have the right to complain than she doesn’t have that right either. Just don’t sign/participate and be quiet. But that’s just silly. Nothing would ever improve for anyone. And thanks to TS Apple backed down so she did good for her industry.
It really boggles my mind that one creative person (or people working in the industry) would think it’s ok to screw another one, while both fields – music and photography are having intellectual property stolen left and right in the beautiful age of internet.
I understand the complexity, but you don’t seem to understand this from a legal and business standpoint. You need to be well-versed in business law to see this objectively. Taylor Swift owns the legal rights to her production. She pays for the lighting, the production set and employees for her concert tours. All these are unfortunately, also copyrighted.
The photographers on a press pass are assumed to be paid sufficiently by the publication that sent them to cover the event.
They do not have a right to the images, because they did not organise a photoshoot and hire the model, hire lighting equipment and the studio. They are documenting a copyrighted event, and have limited rights. This is different if they paid for the production, model/talents/lighting and so on.
If I am a client, and I pay for the shoot, I will pay the photographer exclusive rights to the photo never to be used again. This is understood. If she did use the photos on her social media, which is deemed as promoting her, then the photographers can take legal action if they want to. Provided they did not sign off rights. Again, I am not sure if she really did, because I know she does hire her own photographers.
Oh yeah and thanks for the English grammar tip. As a foreign speaker I appreciate free lessons :)))).
Sure, glad to help.
Nope. It’s a private event where a venue was booked and many others are hired to design a set and perform in it. They are given free passes to document a copyrighted event someone has invested money in. She has hired her own photographers, such as Ian Gavan previously. If she uses the images for commercial purposes without paying photographers, then yes, I can see why someone is calling her out. But if she has not, and these photographers are on a free media pass, sent in by publications who refuse to pay them, then I think these photographers need to learn how to do business.
So the art of taking a great photograph has no value? The value is totally dependent on the value of the subject?
If a professional photographer took some great photos of the Grand Canyon, would you expect the rights of those photos to be taken by the National Park service, and no money to go to the photographer?
By your line of thought, nobody would be a professional photographer period, because it would be completely impossible to make a living (or even a dime).
actually some of the National parks are making it harder to photograph in their parks…they want to be paid as well to allow you to photograph…your own country…i am not sure if any of the laws have been passed…but I think they are asking 1500 dollars for a one day photography permit
That’s true. It’s another photo “controversy”. I don’t think NPS will ask for photo rights though. Or are they :)?
You clearly don’t understand the artistry in capturing good photographs. That is the contribution to the photo. It’s not kids running around with cellphone cameras.
Publicity & spread of fame at no extra cost to the performer.
Performers that make photogs sign away their rights deserve to be blackballed by the press/photogs.
No, you should understand how the business works. You should take this up with her event management company who manages the hiring of photographers. When Swift was talking, she was talking about what she knows, as a songwriter and singer, which is her job. She is not a event management director trained to oversee suppliers and manage the live show. She is the client who pays people to do that. Why would you expect her to know about a photographer rights when she does not deal with that part of the business? Her business includes making music and safeguarding her music copyright. Be logical.
It’s exactly the same thing. Just read the contract. The photographer is not getting paid to show up and do the job. He’s expected to work for free and hope that the publication might use a photo so he gets paid.
And if Taylor Swift’s somehow likes a photo, she can use it for promotion and stuff without compensation.
On top of that, if you don’t comply, they might take away the film and smash it. No matter what else is on it.
Apple isn’t just promoting their own service with a free trial. It’s also a service where labels would collect the larger part of the revenue.
That’s not Taylor’s problem. She and her production company don’t have to let him photograph her concert at all; she could shut ALL photographers out except for ones she hired.
Yeah, so downloading music illegally so the artist doesn’t get paid is not the downloader’s problem. Music isn’t a physical product, it costs nothing to reproduce it, and copying it does not alter the original.
See, I can use all sorts of arguments and logic to “prove” that musicians shouldn’t get paid.
But guess what, the laws aren’t like that. We live in the real world, not what-if-land.
What Apple did was to give people a chance to try out the service before paying. This benefits everyone because more people are likely to give it a try if it’s free.
What Swift and other musicians are doing is to steal photographers’ work completely for their own gain. The photographers don’t benefit at all, unlike musicians who will benefit when more people pay to access their music after trying Apple Music for free first.
No artist today signed by a major label and published by a major publisher OWNS….. even the ink they used to write the song. They all sign away their rights in order to get published. The real rights holders are Music Industry Suits….. who go on and on about how many artists they made out of nothing, while carpetbagging their tiny fraction of sales proceeds…. streaming, downloaded or on disc purchases.
The Music Industry at large has now replaced the film industry as being the most crooked in the Entertainment field. It’s still filled with leeches and scumbags drawing money from artists they never earn. When a publisher’s copyright ownership can out last the artist’s lifetime…. something’s desperately wrong in that business. Easily as bad or worse than Pimps ripping off their prostitutes!
If you only knew what these artists actually make off any Paid streaming music service or iTunes downloads, etc….. you’d be discussed as the majority of the artists are. Who aren’t from wealthy families like Taylor Swift and weren’t born with solid gold spoons in their mouths!
But….. I personally can’t blame the artists themselves. Except that they are the ones who wanted to be famous in the first place. The Music Industry Pimps…. I mean Suits….. got to be some of society’s worst slimeballs megalomaniacs on the planet! …….reality will be hitting home soon for Miss Swift she’s now got Google hot under the collar and they are Giant looking for Jacks and Jills to step on for the fun of it.
No doubt it’s not Apple that’s going to come out of this stinking the most. If she just hadn’t set this whole debacle in motion by pulling all her music from Spotify in a public spectacle, she would have herself in such a rock and hard place right now. What is she going to do about Google now putting out a Free Streaming Music Service? What is Apple going to do to answer that? If she doesn’t pull all her music from both YouTube, Play Music and this new FREE streaming music service…… she looks like the biggest hypocrite in history!
If she does pull it….. then she better be ready to pull from Apple when they inevitably are pushed to also offer a Free Music Streaming Service. She simply can not win and in all reality makes most of her income off live appearances and tours anyway. And…. like I said the publishers owns the rights….. not the artist anymore!
So in all reality…… this Photographer is indeed giving her back some of the same medicine the Music Industry Suits are feeding her. In Copious Amounts of BS and pocket picking. Reality is this; Taylor had been getting paid more by Spotify than by the top 3 other music streaming services combined. That on shear volume alone and Ad money for the last 8yrs on Spotify is more than 4 times what she got from the labels in residuals. Because if you take away the curtain of FUD and Misinformation they and their fans are fed, you’ll find that the Ad revenue all goes directly to the artist!!! …..vs only getting a minute portion of proceeds from a song play or purchase. AND…. that’s exactly why the MUSIC Industry Suits want to kill Free Streaming Music. It’s them….. that ain’t making any money off of it!!! ;-P
What Taylor does now will make or break her future. She can be blackballed from the industry in a heartbeat if this goes to court and she won’t have any friends then! …..you can step on Spotify, but let’s see you try that same thing with us? Apple won’t stand for much more either!!!
This is totally a different situation.
She’s not asking him to come to her concert, he’s asking her to come and take pictures at her concert. She’s saying he can, but these are the conditions. Its her concert, why can’t she set the conditions?
Apple wants to use her work, and not pay her for it. This photographer wants to use her face, and now have her put any conditions on what he does with it.
It seems to me that he is much closer to Apple in this than she is. They both want to use her product without any restrictions from her.
The photographer wants something from Taylor, and she is saying that before she gives it these are her conditions. If the photographer didn’t need Taylor, he could just take pictures of an empty stage, and he wouldn’t need to sign a contract. The thing that makes his pictures valuable, is her face and her image. He wants access to those things with no restrictions, and she doesn’t want to give it.
That sounds a lot like apple wanting access to her music with no restrictions.
Well… Sheldon says “As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it.” If this is true, than she is guilty of doing exactly what she is criticizing.
It sounds to me like Sheldon’s real issue is with the publications hiring him, not with Firefly Ent. The contract for him to get paid or not is between him and the Publication, the contract that was posted is between Firefly Ent. and the “the Publication”. So Taylor Swift is not guilty of creating the deal between Sheldon and the Publication that ” I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it”. She is merely the “the show”. And she has the right to protect her brand. Otherwise publications could use her likeness to promote whatever they felt like without permission. Also, does the contract between Sheldon and the publication even allow him to resell the photos if the publish them? Or is it a buy out on their end?
As I understand it, no other musician or band puts these restrictions on photographers. Photographers and the publications writing stories about her shows are giving her free publicity.
Let me reframe this a bit… a newspaper or magazine sends a *writer* to a Taylor Swift concert to write a story about the show. Should Taylor Swift own the article written about her show? Of course not. The photos in question are no different.
You do not understand correctly.
This is fairly common for well known artists. In college (2003-2004ish) I had to sign a similar contract when taking photos for the bigger acts that came by the school. I had permission to use the photos for school work and could sell them to a select number of local papers once, but I would need written permission to use it anywhere else.
I’m sure some artists are more or less restrictive, but I would be surprised if this wasn’t pretty close to standard.
I stand corrected.
It’s one thing to say you can only sell your photos to specific papers, it’s another thing for act to take the copyrights for your photos away from you.
That’s silly. That’s like saying that the camera companies should give him free cameras, because he doesn’t make money from cameras, he makes money for selling pictures.
She is criticizing Apple for giving her music away without her permission. This guy is criticizing her for not allowing him to give away her image without her permission. Taylor Swift is an integral part of the process of “selling pictures of Taylor Swift performing in a private arena”. She is entitled to set restrictions on the pictures of her that are taken in a private venue. Just because some publication has asked him to take pictures, it doesn’t mean that she has to allow it.
“She is criticizing Apple for giving her music away without her permission.”
Apple negotiated this deal with her label (and all the other labels). If she has a problem with that, she should take it up with her label.
Clearly that isn’t the case, or she would not have been able to say that they can’t use her music.
Great, let’s make all sorts of theoretical arguments. Like music not being a physical item and costing nothing to copy, while a copy doesn’t change or remove the original. So feel free to pirate music!
You’re using those kinds of arguments to defent Swift’s similar actions against photographers.
This is not true. She “hires” this guy and uses his product in use for her promotional materials. The photographer get’s a small payment for the shoot itself IF the pics are used but not for each time they are used or what they are used for – stipulated by the contract. Essentially this is exactly like the Apple situation with the exception that Apple DID get permission to use her music – from the labels not her. Her dispute was with the deal the parent label negotiated – not Apple.
Taylor want’s to use this guys work for free for whatever she wishes – regardless of how many times she uses it or the purpose. However Taylor didn’t want Apple to offer a trial to customers since the artist didn’t get paid during the trial period even though Apple also didn’t get paid during the trial period.
In essence she’s Apple (or how she perceives Apple) in this situation. She wants to use someone else’s work for her own wishes (what she claimed Apple wanted to do).
Two things.
1) You should reread the article. The guy writes “Photographers who need to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets”. It sounds like he has been hired by (or he is freelancing for) some third party and is trying to get her permission to shoot photos at her show. She isn’t hiring him. She is allowing him to show up in return for something later.
2) Even if she was hiring him, I’m not sure what your point is. Apple didn’t hire her to make music, Apple wants to use the stuff she managed to create without Apple’s help. The analogous situation here would be if she found his photos somewhere and said she wanted to use them for free in order to get people to buy her records. If that was the case, than he would definitely be in the right, and I would definitely agree with him. But this case is nothing like that. He needs her in order to do his job. That doesn’t obligate her to give him everything, or anything he wants.
You’re right, she’s not hiring him, but she’s taking the rights to his work away from him anyways.
She already gets something in return for his photos… free publicity.
She’s not taking away his right to work. She’s not giving him the right to take pictures of her while performing. He’s still allowed to work anywhere else he wants to where it doesn’t involve her. He has no god-given right to be allowed into her concerts to take pictures.
As far as the free publicity thing goes, I have read a bunch of articles from photographers whose work has been stolen and used in other places, and in every case, the photographer was supposed to suck it up, because it was free publicity. I find it ironic, that a photographer would use the “free publicity” card as an excuse for trying to get something for nothing.
And she’s allowed to take her music to any streaming service she wants. Apple aren’t forcing her to put her music on Apple Music… My argument is that she’s doing exactly what she’s criticising Apple of – exploiting the rights of others – using our work for her benefit without payment, just as Apple wanted to use her work for their benefit. I don’t care if she blocks photographers from her shows – that’s her right.
The key difference is that she wasn’t sticking up for herself like you are. She is fighting a noble cause by sticking up for those less fortunate artists. You are whining because your employer isn’t properly compensating you for your time, period. Direct your criticism in the right direction: at the publication that hired you. If you don’t like her terms and they don’t like your refusal to shoot her shows, go find other work. This is the freedom/price of being freelance. Taylor is not being a hypocrite and you’re just trying to steal her spotlight for a few minutes. Go back to finding work if money is so important to you.
You have no idea what the photographic industry is like now. The letter writer is sticking up for just as many people as Taylor Swift was. Companies are laying off their entire photo staff in favor of crowd sourcing and freelancers. EVERYONE wants photographers to work for free. This letter writer is calling attention to the fact that photographers deserve a paycheck for their work which they unfortunately won’t always get. They are sticking up for me, and all my classmates, and all the alumni from the program I’m in, and so many more. People who had steady jobs for years in the industry have had that taken. They have families and mortgages and car payments etc. And for the record, editorial photographers aren’t making the big bucks. t swift can throw the poor photographers a bone and it won’t mean so much as one less filet mignon to her.
You horribly misguided fool. Direct your anger toward their employers who should be paying them more instead. They are the real criminals here. Taylor’s policy is an industry standard and not as bad as you guys have said. She has clarified that position and the contract won’t be changing. But we will have 1989 on Apple Music!
I didn’t say “right to work”, I said “rights to his work”. She’s claiming copyright to his photos.
It is exactly the same: She wants free art to promote her business.
She certainly can set the conditions, but she is knowingly using coercion to get free photos. She knows these photogs are being sent by outlets. She knows that if the photog says no to her demands that the photog is endangering their relationship with their clients.
If she was saying the photos can only be used for the outlet that assigned the photog, that would be different. If she asked for a royalty from the photog for future uses, that would fit your claim. If she offered to pay the photog standard rates, that would make you correct.
You are not correct.
SHE IS DEMANDING THAT SHE CAN USE THE PHOTOS WITHOUT PAYING ANYONE IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HER BUSINESS.
A newspaper runs her picture, that is free publicity. If Rolling Stone runs it, more free publicity for her. The two party profit from the transaction. The newspaper and Rolling Stone pay their photogs, because they value their reputations. Swift turns around and use the photo on a poster, she pockets money and the photog who’s art is being sold gets nothing. Get it? I promise you that Annie Leibovitz gets paid for every reproduction/impression of her photos.
You are correct, she is asking for something in return for the value (access to her and permission to take professional photographs) she is providing to the photographer. The photographer is asking for money in return for taking the pictures, the publication is asking for money from advertisers and perhaps from consumers. Everyone is voluntarily providing a service or a product for a fee. Is there some reason that everyone in this chain is allowed to get what they can for their contribution other than Taylor? Does she have to provide her face and permission for free?
This is not hypothetical future value that Apple is promising. She is a direct part of the chain that starts with her fame and ends up with pictures of her in some publication. Why shouldn’t she get what she can? Does she really have to settle for just your view that the publicity is good for her? That’s the argument that Apple used. Let us use your music for free, because it will good for you in the long run. You are just saying let us use your face and fame for free. It will be good in the long run.
To answer that shouting part of your comment, what she is paying in is access to her. If that wasn’t important and valuable, the photographer could just show up the day after she left and photograph the empty stage. He wouldn’t have to sign anything for that.
He can take her photo on the street and there’s no restrictions on it other than he can’t use it for commercial purposes, which generally means to support a product or service. He can still sell it to newspapers and magazines and anything else that is an artistic expression. That’s why there’s “official” and “unofficial” merchandise out there.
So when she locks down her “arena” and closes out the professionals, she’s still being photographed by thousands of amateurs with their cell phones and those people have more rights to make a buck than the pro.
>>Why shouldn’t she get what she can?<< Because as the laws are currently written, the copyright ownership of the photos rests with with the photographer, unless he/she enters into an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to both parties. Until the laws are changed, they remain with the photographer. As a staff photographer for a major wire service, we encountered the stipulations that bands/performers tried to foist upon us. We got paid either way, so if one of them insisted we sign, we said, sorry, not going to happen and turn for the door. Many times, the PR people would chase us down to tell us it was ok, we didn't have to sign (For fear of not getting coverage that night). As a freelancer in today's perilous journalistic marketplace, they don't have the luxury of just walking. If they do, they don't get paid by their publication. So in many cases they suck it up and sign under duress. I wonder if writing the phrase "signed under duress" on the photo permission form (BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CONTRACT) would help the photographer's case in a court.
Well it’s Apple’s service, why can’t they set the conditions?
They can. And if Taylor doesn’t like them, she can choose not to participate. And if the photographer doesn’t like the conditions, he can choose not to participate.
Exactly – hence her hypocrisy. She said Apple was wrong for doing something she routinely does herself.
Is it clear now?
How is he asking her to take photos of her concert? She’s the one who wants the press at her concerts. If not, just don’t have them there. It’s her event.
“Apple Music wanted to rob artists like Taylor Swift robs photographers”
She’s popular, to be sure. But a “shrewd businesswoman?”
Maybe she can sing, and maybe she sells a lot of music, but despite her tough stance, she’s not “all that.” Apparently, Taylor is all •that• swift.
So what this guy is saying is that he does, in fact, get paid – ie, he does not work for free, he just doesn’t get paid what he WANTS to get paid. Stupidest position I’ve heard yet on this issue.
I hate to say it, but Taylor Swift is right. Apple Music is an Apple service. If Apple wants to give it away for a trial, Apple should absorb the costs. It is pretty simple and I don’t understand what all the hubbub is about this. She’s right.
It’s incredibly sad to see the general population trivialize photography as a career. I’m sure they don’t want to do their job for free either… Just think about it for a second. Really… Imagine after investing your time and money into developing your career you are expected to work for free. Would you like it?
Even sadder to trivialize photography as an art. The instant the picture is taken, the composition, the lighting all that is that art of photography. If there was no value to that, why doesn’t Taylor Swift just have any Joe take her photos?
These are two completely different things, the comparison is unfair to Swift.
Of course she wants to own all content and materials produced during her live performance including images of her self. I don’t see anything wrong with this.
Then she should take selfies and nothing else.
Whether she wants to own all photographs of her or not, the law is that she doesn’t, unless she took the photo.
The way I understand this is this:
Say a photographer is commissioned by a magazine to take some photos from a live performance to accompany a review. A photo is used in the magazine with the review. What the performers don’t want (because Swift isn’t alone in this one, I know Morrissey has the same policy and others must too) is for the photographer to then use these photos he/she took later to, say, publish a Taylor Swift calendar and earn more money at her expense…
Editorial use and Commercial use are entirely different things. Commercial is tied to sponsoring or endorsing products, not “making money”.
It’s not that I don’t think you get it, it’s that I know you don’t get it. Swift as an artist uses her vocal muscles and ears to create art. Sheldon as an artist uses his hand muscles and his eyes to create art. When it’s said and done, she owns a song and he owns a photograph. A photograph might be worth a 1,000 words, but it terms of dollars, it’s worth 1/1,000th of a song, if that. Unless the photographer gets lucky.
You say it yourself, unwittingly, in your own post: “She wants to own all content and materials produced during her live performance.”
Someone else produced it and she owns it. I suppose she wants to own all of the literary works that she inspired in the brains of her listeners. All of the new songs that were inspired.
On to the law: A person in a public space has no expectation of privacy. If I snap your photo with an iPhone or a professional rig, it’s my photo and I can sell it as I own the copyright (USA). From ArtLawJournal:
A photographer’s artistic expression fall under the first amendment right to freedom of speech. We put such emphasis on the right to personal expression that we do not require a subject’s permission to create art. Whether those photos are taken in the studio or on a public street, artistic expression almost always wins. However, we must still adhere to a person’s right to privacy in their private spaces. Photographers cannot be Peeping Toms for the sake of art. However, shooting in a public space is almost always legal. As such, any people in those public spaces, or those that can be seen from a public space are fair game. That includes pictures of children or someone standing in a private home window. A person’s right to privacy does not extend to public places. Those artistic expressions can be displayed and made available for sale at a gallery, online, or in a photo book, without the need for permission from the people in the photos. The artist’s freedom of speech largely outweighs the subjects privacy rights.
Let’s try a different example. You’re a painter and you’ve produced a painting which hangs in a gallery. I take a photo of your painting and use it to print on postcards, posters and t-shirts and make lots of money from selling those. Would you be happy? Would you not feel cheated?
You’re using it for commercial purposes. Say you’re a photographer and you take a picture of my painting to put in a newspaper editorial about my exhibit being at the museum. I’d be thrilled.
So what would this photographer want to do with all these concert pics?
Probably sell them to publications for editorial use or if he gets an amazing shot, sell the art. Which is his right as the copyright holder. What he can’t do is use it to promote a product or service unless Taylor signs a “Model Release”. Does that answer your question?
Oh boo hoo. As if photographers are the artists that shoot live shows. They are just there for their jobs or apparently to make a quick buck. If you don’t like it then piss off. That is exactly what Miss Swift is saying. She didn’t like the situation so didn’t support it. Please grow a pair.
“As if photographers are the artists that shoot live shows.” Seriously. Read your sentence again: “As if photographers are the artists that shoot live shows.”
I can’t help but have the voice of Alicia Silverstone’s “Cher” from Clueless read that sentence. Let me give you another alternative and it will help if you channel “Cher” as well:
“As if singers and dancers are the artists that perform live shows.”
Doesn’t seem like the same thing. Apple was trying to profit off their new service while withholding profits from the artists whose music Apple offered. The photographer already profited off of their photos by being paid by whatever editorial they work for. I think these are two completely different things.
You didn’t read it closely enough then.
Oh, okay – thanks for taking the time to explain my misunderstanding.
It’s already been explained to other people in this very comment thread. I really didn’t see the need to do it yet again when the explanation you seek is right in front of you.
Most* of the Apple Fan Boys on this site are blind or they just born retarded, O David Pierini is retard for sure for posting this article
I sell envelopes, his use of an open letter deprives me of income.
Honestly Cult of Mac has hit a new low. Bashing an artist for an opinion? Really? She has a valid point. Other music streaming services offer trial periods and they still pay the artists. Apple was wrong to not pay the artist during the trial period. If other streaming providers offer the same thing but pay the bill, why shouldn’t Apple? Plus Apple has all the money in the world and this is a jerk move towards artists.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but you left out the part where Apple pays *more* than others streaming services once the trial period was over. If they didn’t, the music studios would not have accepted this in the first place.
I didn’t know that bit, but it’s still wrong that they don’t pay artists during the trial period. And this is supposed to “fix” the industry? Think of how many people will create new accounts just so that they can get the trial again.
I am not challenging you.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but the studios all agreed to this deal. Perhaps the studios should have asked their artists what they thought about it before signing on.
Apple music accounts are tied to .mac email accounts, iPhone security, find my iPhone, etc. NOT really going to be that easy to switch accounts avery three months just to get new music.
Seems like you have missed the point of the article. Which is if Taylor Swift believes that musicians shouldn’t work for free, then she shouldn’t be trying to rip off photographers.
What a weird thread. Didn’t realize that, in many people’s minds, the phrase “artists should be be paid for their work” only applies to musicians.
Character assassination to defend its beloved “Apple” brand by “cult of mac . com”
having read most comments below, I can see some merit in both sides – BUT from my point of view if you have read and understand the contract its your choice to sign it or not.
If the terms are too restrictive, or you are not properly compensated for your work, please don’t sign it…..
Boo Hoo. Taylor Swift throws her toys out of the pram (again). If I thought that she actually had some involvement in writing this, I might be interested. In fact, it is another missive from the same lawyers from her record company who brought us the Spotify rant.
You see the problem is, these same record companies are the ones who are responsible for the massive outbreak of illegal downloading which killed off record sales. CD and legal download prices to consumers stayed the same or actually increased over the old cost of vinyl, despite manufacturing and distributing costs being hugely reduced, whilst they kept artist royalties at the same rate (or reduced them). The market responded with (the original) Napster and other free downloading sites and the genie was out of the bottle. Spotify and other streaming sites are therefore actually the antidote to the problem, not the cause. Many millions of customers, who previously downloaded materially illegally are now paid customers. As their customer base increases, streaming royalties to artists will increase. Smart bands will negotiate new contracts with their record companies, cutting their income stream significantly. This is the real reason why ‘artists’ like Taylor Swift are moaning about streaming services and it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘looking out for new and struggling artists’.
“Photo: Wikipedia”. Full circle of hypocrisy. :D :D :D
At the end of the day, this was only Taylor Swift’s excuse for not putting her music on AppleMusic… Keep in mind, it’s not on Spotify or any other music streaming service either… Apple knows this… Apple has much deeper pockets than spotify or any of the streaming services, they can afford to essentially “call her out” by removing her objection, essentially, tossing the ball back in her court, putting the onus back on her to now deliver her music to a streaming platform. So… Does Taylor Swift put up? Or does she shut up? My guess is that she didn’t really think all of this through and winds up “shutting up”…
Way too much apple flavored kool aid here.
You have that right. She has a double standard. She is a JOKE.
Sheldon may get his wish: Swift may quit asking him and other freelancers to do it for free. She could easily hire her own photogs and ban freelancers.
So is it fair to Taylor Swift that a photographer can take a bunch of photos at her shows, package them together as a coffee table book and sell it for $50? That is patently absurd. While there is obviously tremendous artistry in creating photographs, 90%+ of purchasers of this would be buying b/c it’s Taylor Swift. Yet she is not entitled to a dime? I’d love to see some sort of compulsory 50/50 copyright created for these situations. That way photographers could be compensated for the image and the subject would be compensated for the value they clearly add to the photograph. If a photographer takes a picture of Robert Plant, blows it up to poster size and sells it for $200…it makes zero sense that Robert Plant would be excluded from the commercial benefit.
Such photographers have a skill but aren’t creating art. A picture of Taylor Swift, taken by anybody, is a picture of Taylor Swift. If the photographer would like to be treated like an artist, go the Ansel Adams route and leave assignments alone.
Reading your links, Taylor Swift’s case sounds somewhat different. Other artists are restricting to whom the photographer can sell their photos. Swift is doing that and is actually taking the copyrights and using the photos for her own purposes, without paying the photographer (artist). If she wants photos for her own use, she should hire a photographer, not steal from freelancers sent by newspapers that may or may not be paid by the newspaper.
As to your comment and Sheldon taking it up with his publication, I agree, but that still doesn’t stop Swift from using his work for free.
If you have read those articles, you should be aware of rogue photogs that try to charge artists photo services fees when they are on a press pass, like they paid for the production. You should not be requesting photo service fees when a band havs not commissioned you to take a photo of them, and you are on a media pass. If the legal papers written in legal terms are extreme, negotiate. No one forced Sheldon to sign on it. It’s bad business choice on his end.
I am not aware that she has used a concert photographer’s work for commercial purposes without payment. If she has used their photos for commercial purposes, then yes, they deserved to be paid. But I do know that she has hired Ian Gaven to document her performances.
A few bad apples shouldn’t spoil things for legit photographers. If a photog demands some silly fees, ban him/her from future shows (and let other acts know that so-and-so is shady). Or just put a clause in the agreement saying they can’t charge the artist these fees. Problem solved. No need to put the draconian restrictions on legit photogs.
It says right in her photo authorization form, clause #3:
“Subject to the written consent of the Publication as to any specific future use, FEI (Swift’s company) shall have the perpetual, worldwide right to use (and to authorize others to use) any and all photographs for any non-commercial purpose (in all media and formats), including but not limited to publicity and promotion.”
It says “non-commercial”, but explicitly includes “publicity and promotion”, which can certainly be of commercial benefit to her. If she’s is using someone’s photos to promote herself, she should be paying that person for the usage.
One could also take issue with the indemnity clauses in this. FEI is indemnified against any harm (financial or physical) it causes the photographer, but is entitled to relief from any harm (financial or physical) the photographer causes to FEI. Any *fair* contract goes both ways, either indemnify both, or both entitled to relief.
I agree with you, if I were a professional photographer, there’s no way in hell I’d agree to this. Photographers should just stop doing her shows until she changes this. According to one of the links in your earlier post, a few acts have already changed their ways due to photographer boycotts.
Of course the clause will protect the event management company. It is a contract drafted by their lawyers! Doing business goes both ways. If you don’t agree like I said, negotiate for a change with the event company!
That clause just seems to be another clause to safeguard the musician, because usage on social media such as Instagram or FB can be argued as “promotional” by some photogs as well. The area is grey. If you think your rights are infringed, don’t sign the contract.
How would you know if someone is a “legit” photographer? They don’t have a certain look or face. The problem of having to deal with them and hire lawyers, which are expensive to hire per hour, is still there. Who is going to pay for those legal fees later if a lawsuit is involved?
She has paid photogs like Ian Gavan to take pics of her performances. Unless you have a specific example of her not paying a photog for using her work for commercial purposes, then I don’t why people are still angry at her, but simply jumping on the bandwagon to attack her.
If a press photog is working with a publication to cover a band via a press pass, it is his or her job to negotiate his payment method with the publication. Todd Awyoung, another music photog, have said you can always contact the editor to tell them of the situation with the organiser if the clauses are not negotiable.
Okay, I think we both agree, don’t sign bad contracts.
Let’s bring it back around to the topic at hand… do you think it’s hypocritical of Swift to complain about musicians not being paid by Apple during the free trial period, while at the same time restricting photographers as to how and to whom they can sell their work, and claiming she can use their photos for free to promote herself?
I would say yes. She believes musicians should always be paid when their music is played (and that Spotify isn’t paying enough) and that they should continue being paid for as long as anybody is listening. But for photographers shooting her shows, it’s get paid once (or not at all) and that’s it, and “don’t even try to put those photos in your portfolio” to help you get more work. If musicians are entitled to a never-ending stream of payments for their music, it would seem photographers ought to have equivalent opportunities. She says “three months is a long time to go unpaid, and its unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing,” yet she asks photographers to work for nothing and be paid one time or never. She goes on to say, “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation,” but demands photographers provide her with their work for no compensation for non-commercial and promotional (which is pretty much always “commercial” for someone whose success is directly tied to their fame and popularity) purposes. If she meant what she says, she’d let photographers sell their work to whoever will buy it for as long as there is interest (just as a musician gets paid as long as people are listening), and she’d always pay photographers when she wants to use their photo for promoting herself (just as she expects Apple to pay during a free trial, which they do to *promote* their service).
Nope, it is not hypocritical because she never did sign on the Apple Music contract, then got bitter after thinking she was shortchanged, then released the contract details for all to see.
That is what Jason Sheldon did. It is childish and a bad way to do business.
The problem here was Jason Sheldon should have simply said no and learn to walk away from the job, but he wanted the money badly enough to do it. If you educate more photogs not to sign on the terms and leave, then things might improve.
Till then, you really are just pissing more people off and not getting things down. There will always be rookie photogs who are willing to sign the terms. It also doesn’t help that legally, the event organiser and the artist are the ones who own the legal rights to the production. If the photog did not pay for production, music set, lighting and employees, then you really don’t have much right to say you own the right to sell these photos anyway you want it.
You are assumed to be paid SUFFICIENTLY by the publication company that pays you. If Sheldon is not happy, don’t do live music photography. Stick with portraits or stock images where you will be paid multiple times.
So it’s not hypocritical to object to musician not be payed during Apple’s trial while at the same time trying to make photogs sign away most of their rights to get paid?
If she’d care about artists as she claims to, she shouldn’t be trying to push such a contract on photogs. Or does she think musicians deserve different rules then other art forms?
It’s to be paid*, the past tense of pay is paid, not payed (sic).
No. You have limited rights to document and reproduce another art form that is copyrighted. As a photographer, that is your disadvantage. It is different from creating something from scratch like the musicians have. If they sample a song though, they need to pay royalties too. This is not different from say if you as a photographer, you hire a studio, hire models, pay for the lighting and props, then yes, you own every exclusive right to the photos. But on the other hand, if the client is shooting an ad and pays for this, they will pay you exclusive rights to the photos as photography service rendered so you cannot sell it to another person to hurt the brand.
Also, you have limited rights taking photos at a privately owned venue, without prior written approval. The owner has a right to stop you from taking pictures because you are on privately owned land. In this case, the artist and event organiser rented the venue and are considered, the owner in this situation. They have a right to dictate the terms based on two legal standpoint.
Yes because a 3 month free trial event where apple music users can listen to anything and the artists doesn’t get paid anything during the trial is totally the same thing as a photographer harassing and stalking celebrities to get a photo. Ya totally the same thing. moron.
Dear photographer sheldon,
I think many photographers are bullies. Are you one?
When a world renown architect designs a building, would you propose that he/she insist on a contract that he/she gets further paid by per occupant who uses the building?
Would you insist that the building contractor be further paid by the hotel owner, by percentage of the revenue per hotel guest ?
Should the lawn care contractor ask for further payment from the country club, as a percentage of the golf tournament? Especially when images of the lawn are broadcast all over multimedia, should the lawn care contractor ask to be further paid too ?
Why? Is your being an artist greater than that of the meticulous expertise of the lawn care consultant and contractor?
The consultant and contractor do get paid on a continuous basis, because they are on the job continually modify the treatment.
If I hired you for my wedding, once you have taken the photos, are you continually on the job for the next 50 years, maintaining my images and my public profile?
Do the people who set up the sound system, the concert staging and paraphernalia, the ticketing people inside the ticketing booths, the software writers, do they get to be paid for every song that Taylor sells?
Why am I a software engineer less distinguished than you ? Why I do get paid continually as long as you use my software, because I continually maintain and is answerable to the software I license to you.
When I paid you to take photos of my wedding, did I license you the rights to use my images, of guests, of my lawn, of my pets?
Especially if I were a famous person, who have by my sweat and blood (and invested financially in the help from publicity agents) built up the value of my images.
Furthermore, would those agents demand to be paid for every shot I appear on screen, if I were an actress ?
Then who do you think you are? Why do you think you are more distinguished than the roofer who skillfully and artfully roofed my house but would never dream of asking for further payment for each drop of rain, or each flake of snow that would fall on the roof in the future.
If I hire you for my wedding,
I WILL make you sign a contract that says you cannot make money off the photos. My photos. My wedding. But if you give me 10% off, I might consider allowing you to include a few in your portfolio, with privacy concerns attached.
I WILL make you sign a contract that allows me to sell and market the photos you took, without further paying you.
I WILL have a contract to pay you per hour, or per event, or per number of successful shots taken. I WILL have the freedom to share them anywhere and anyhow I see fit.
How is it possible that you think you are more exceptional than the painter who skillfully painted my house? Should he/she ask to be paid for per rain drop, per snow flake, per mph per hour of wind that beats on the house?
Dear photographer sheldon, are you willing to compensate for Taylor’s amount of past, present and future investments and creativity that make her images valuable, so that you could then benefit financially on per use of the photos you took of her?
What investment did you make, that contributed to the value of her images?
Your whining seems so reasonable, trying to pull on the heartstrings of people, to get a hand-out from property and rights that do not belong to you.
Yeah. Wanting to be paid for your music and a photographer making money off of taking a picture of someone else with or without their permission. Exactly the same. Shame on you Taylor. You’re supposed to be happy that someone is taking a picture of you and making thousands of dollars off of it. Oh you think that’s foul? Deal with it.
Unbelievably stupid comparison. A songwriter CREATES FROM SCRATCH an original work. A photographer takes pictures of others. They aren’t creating those images.
i have no away