This is in the US and Australia, at least. There was some irregularity depending on state but AFAIK it's reasonably uniform terriotory now.
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.
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.
Refusing to sell someone's product is not generally considered duress.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Given there's no guarantee of publication and no up-front payment this is quite a different dynamic.
-- 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...
Seems like he's getting paid once, but would like royalties on top.
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.
Generally speaking, the "human subject matter" in the images don't have an abundance of rights, especially if the photographs are taken in public. Some places have "rights to publicity", which apply to people like Taylor Swift, who can expect to profit from photos of herself and so has a financial interest in controlling those images. This principle doesn't apply to the general public.
The photographer in this argument is comparing the behavior of apple, who seeks to make artists bear the cost of their free trial, with Taylor, who's licensing agreement prohibits photographers from selling licenses to their work in the manner that they usually do. There are a lot of valid perspectives on whether each of these beahviors is above board, but both are very much about a big entity acting to control and profit from the works of smaller artists.
This is different to the linked article... how? The author wants to profit commercially from the person in the (theoretical) photo.
both are very much about a big entity acting to control and profit from the works of smaller artists.
A fundamental difference is that Swift's music is independent of Apple. A photo of Swift could not exist without Swift herself. Apple can't resell Swift's music without her permission, why should a photographer, usually given preferential access with these agreements, not have similar restrictions if not in a public place? If photographing Swift is that much more profitable than photographing the local no-name band, then part of that is due to Swift's own work; the photographer is working from the success of the subject matter; in literature this would be akin to a derivative work.
I do agree that there are a lot of different perspectives, but I just didn't like the 'smell' of the linked article. It gave a pretty one-eyed view.
I am a musician and I find apple music deeply disturbing.
And yet, I wonder how much of this crowd would vote to tax the rich because it's exploitational. That's called hypocrisy.
If you think it's easy, try it.
Don't forget to let us know how successful you are.
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...
What weird stuff for people to say. Nothing in life is free... Successful people almost always have to work hard for it.