An open response to Taylor Swift's rant against Apple

https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/

by Hates_ • 11 years ago

91 49 11 years ago

junction10.wordpress.com

brobdingnagian2• 11 years ago

Her whole statement just smelled funny. You typically don't get rich without being good at exploiting people.

dibbsonline• 11 years ago

Typically you only make broad generalisations when you don't know what you are talking about.

brobdingnagian2• 11 years ago

I see that people here aspire to become rich and don't want to think of themselves as exploiting others when they do, and they don't want to think of themselves as exploited right now.

And yet, I wonder how much of this crowd would vote to tax the rich because it's exploitational. That's called hypocrisy.

glhaynes• 11 years ago

His point may be a good one but he does it a disservice by framing Swift's letter as a rant, which it very certainly was not.

hirsin• 11 years ago

Indeed, the way she used almost every other sentence to applaud Apple was the most telling bit. The fear that she could be slapped down for this felt quite apparent to me - I can't imagine what it's like for a new artist.

RexRollman• 11 years ago

Agreed. I read her statement and I do not feel it was a rant.

girmad2• 11 years ago

I'm not sure I follow this.. The photographer's getting paid up front, right?

ricardobeat• 11 years ago

Most photographers are self-employed and license their images for use by third parties. Even if he was an employee, the reason he gets paid is that his employer earns money from publishing rights.

etimberg• 11 years ago

If so then I don't see the problem. However, the document reads as if this is an agreement for photographers working for the media. But in that case isn't the photographer paid for the photos by the group publishing the photos?

fezz• 11 years ago

Under almost all other circumstances, photographers own the rights to their work.

vacri4• 11 years ago

Which isn't true. One of my friends recently had some portraiture done for free, with the condition that the photographer owns the rights to the photos and can use them for marketing. Recently on HN there was a similar story, where a family had reduced-cost portraiture done so the photographer could maintain rights - the story was that those photos then ended up as part of the pro-life abortion debate, which they did not agree with. Taking commercial photos in a private setting usually means you've got to get permission of the subject.

This is where this photographer's rant falls down. Apart from the fake respect (it smelled too much of "gotcha!"), the photographer is missing that the human subject matter of his photos also have rights. Music doesn't have an analogue.

URSpider94• 11 years ago

Summary of the agreement, as I read it:

-- photographer gets press access to a Taylor Swift show -- Taylor Swift grants rights to publish photos taken at the show, once, in a specific media outlet -- Once published, Taylor Swift gets a license to re-use the image for her own PR in perpetuity ( she couldn't put it on a t-shirt or album cover)

The photographer and publisher are trading free use of her image to sell papers, in return for free use of their photo to sell concert tickets. Seems like a fair deal to me...

girmad2• 11 years ago

You say in your letter to Apple that “Three months is a long time to go unpaid”. But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….

Seems like he's getting paid once, but would like royalties on top.

Shivetya• 11 years ago

Frankly if Apple refuses to sell your music because you refuse to allow them to earn off of you for their free trial then Apple is guilty of coercion and needs to be slapped down.

I would cheer to see a suit against them for this action. Free trials are supposed to be at the expense of the company peddling a service, not the people who provide the goods the service profits on.

GuiA• 11 years ago

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/19/apple-not-coercing-indie...

Dylan16807• 11 years ago

How is it different from any boring publishing contract that gives the publisher price control?

Refusing to sell someone's product is not generally considered duress.

ticviking2• 11 years ago

Frankly. If that is what the contract says it's what you agreed to. Sell elsewhere if you don't like it.

Taylor Swift is actually in a position to do something about that. Instead she whined because she didn't like a contract after it was signed.

_red2• 11 years ago

Actually, you're wrong, she's not "whining after the fact"

Taylor Swift did not agree to the contract. Hence why she is withholding her music.

Unlike many other artist, she holds the right to negotiate her streaming contracts directly.

s73v3r• 11 years ago

Why the Hell should such a contract be able to exist?

pupppet3• 11 years ago

Like this guy can point any fingers. Photographers and musical artists belong to the same group- people expecting a perpetual payoff from a comparatively absurdly small effort.

TheOtherHobbes2• 11 years ago

You have no idea how much work is involved in becoming a creative professional.

If you think it's easy, try it.

Don't forget to let us know how successful you are.

pupppet3• 11 years ago

I can both appreciate their work and not believe their profession deserves a free ride.

coldtea2• 11 years ago

comparatively absurdly small effort

Comparatively absurdly small compared to what? There are photographers risking their lives covering wars, and there are musicians practicing and working harder than any keyboard jockey...

dnautics• 11 years ago

And they're not the ones complaining, really.

byset• 11 years ago

On average, I'd say that the ratio of financial payoff to "effort" in music or photography is much, much smaller than in, say, software engineering.

pupppet3• 11 years ago

I agree, but society doesn't glamorize coding. I'd wager there are fewer people taking up software expecting to get rich than those picking up a camera or mic.

jstandard• 11 years ago

You mentioned a ratio, can you explain the basis to compare "effort" of a software engineer vs a photographer?

azinman2• 11 years ago

Most musicians are poor. A couple get rich, but not because of music sales but rather concerts and tours.

What weird stuff for people to say. Nothing in life is free... Successful people almost always have to work hard for it.

vacri4• 11 years ago

The photographer is missing that the difference is that Swift is trying to maintain control of her image. The photographer selling the image is always going to have Swift in it. And if the image is taken in a private venue, then. well, photographers do have to get their subjects' permissions, which is not new. The photographer's work in this case is not purely valuable because of the photographers skill, but also significantly because of its subject matter.

bnj2• 11 years ago

Photographers only need to secure permission from subjects if the person is not in, or viewable from, a public place. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy then there's nothing you can do about being photographed.

This is in the US and Australia, at least. There was some irregularity depending on state but AFAIK it's reasonably uniform terriotory now.

vacri4• 11 years ago

Then I wonder why concert venues have press passes, if the photographers are working from a purely public place?

jblow• 11 years ago

Any reply like this, that does not consider the differences between recorded music and photography of human subjects, is neither thoughtful nor genuine.

There is some kind of a point here, but it's ruined by the author's lack of perspective and desire just to land a gotcha.

peteretep• 11 years ago

Could you summarise the important differences as relate to the issue at hand?

slg2• 11 years ago

Not jblow, but here are the major differences from my perspective.

The photographers are paid for their work upfront. They are not doing it for free, they just need to ask for consent before using the photos for any secondary purposes outside of their immediate project. Apple is not paying anything upfront and won't pay for any streams in the first three months a customer is using their service.

Taylor Swift also does not get to use the photos without consent from the publisher. Unlike Apple, she does not get to use them to make money or as a carrot to attract future customers.

Finally the photographer's art would not exist without Taylor Swift. I don't think it is unreasonable for her to therefore claim some joint ownership of the work. Unlike Apple which only plays the part in distribution of music and not the creation.

notacoward• 11 years ago

The relationship between Apple and Taylor Swift is of distributor to artist. The relationship between Taylor Swift and a photographer is of subject to artist. That's pretty significant, even beyond the already-noted aspect of who is paying whom (and when).

MichaelCrawford• 11 years ago

The corporation is not what music is for.

I am a musician and I find apple music deeply disturbing.

An open response to Taylor Swift's rant against Apple

Related Stories