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.
The photographer generally has rights to their own work except under "work for hire" arrangements (which doesn't just mean "got paid"). (That varies by jurisdiction, of course; until recently, copyright law in Canada held that the commisioner of a work of photography or a portrait held copyright. That section of the Copyright Act was repealed, and the law is now more-or-less consistent with US law.) What the photographer does not automatically hold is the rights to use a person's image for commercial purposes (advertising and the like). That requires a model release, and a model release, like any contract, requires consideration. Like, say, a discount or prints/files.
To be clear, photographers own the rights to the work they create. The reason deals like those you've mentioned exist is because photographers who want to use images to profit commercially often need the people pictured to sign a photo release.
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.
The reason deals like those you've mentioned exist is because photographers who want to use images to profit commercially often need the people pictured to sign a photo release.
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.
