
An open response to Taylor Swift's rant against Apple - Hates_
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/
======
glhaynes
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
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
Agreed. I read her statement and I do not feel it was a rant.

------
vacri
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.

~~~
bnj
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.

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

~~~
seanflyon
Are concert venues public places?

~~~
jasode
No, they are not. (Unless the concert venue is on city-owned land such as a
public park.)

Grocery stores, shopping malls, and hotel lobbies & conference rooms are not
public places either.

The confusion about "public" stems from casual usage vs legal usage.

casual: _" I can't be seen in public without my makeup and bra."_ In this
case, "public" just means the opposite of "not at home."

legal: The boat dock is public property but the restaurant at the shore is
private property. You can shoot photographs at the dock but if at the
restaurant, if management asks you to leave because you're snapping photos,
you are required to comply.

------
Shivetya
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.

~~~
ticviking
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.

~~~
_red
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.

~~~
ticviking
I know it's been days, do you have a source on that? It radically changes the
situation and my opinion.

~~~
_red
Well its sorta self apparent.

I mean, if she had signed away control of her streaming rights, how would she
ever been able to "pull her songs" off of iTunes (or Spotify as she did the
previous year).

She would've been in violation of a contract otherwise, and would've need to
seek remedy via the courts.

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

~~~
slg
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.

~~~
sitharus
As seen in the recent update to the article, he is not paid upfront. Payment
only occurs if and when that single contracted use is made.

Given there's no guarantee of publication and no up-front payment this is
quite a different dynamic.

~~~
slg
You are right, that does change the dynamic. However, I think that is more a
dispute between the photographer and the publisher than the photographer and
the musician. It isn't Taylor Swift's fault that the photographer agreed to do
commission work without any guarantee of being paid.

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

~~~
URSpider94
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...

~~~
girmad
> 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.

~~~
rdsnsca
Read it again... he only gets paid if the photo is used by the media outlet
specified in the contract.

------
MichaelCrawford
The corporation is not what music is for.

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

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

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

~~~
brobdingnagian
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.

------
pupppet
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.

~~~
byset
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.

~~~
azinman2
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.

