Zac Hall, writing for 9to5mac:
Taylor Swift has answered one of the last remaining questions about Apple Music before it launches: her popular album 1989 will be available on Apple Music when it launches on Tuesday. The development follows Swift’s high profile letter to Apple over how artists would be paid during the streaming service’s 3-month free trial. Apple later reversed its decision announcing it would pay artists during the trial.
While the pop star says it isn’t an Apple Music exclusive (like Pharrell’s upcoming release), the album is notably not available on Spotify as Swift removed her catalog last year due to the service’s free tier.
Take a look at the sequence of tweets in the linked post. This all feels so very pat. It’d be cynical of me to think this was all cooked up in a back room, planned in advance, right?
Now Tayor Swift has to stop being a massive hypocrite by forcing photographers (not Paparazzi scum) to sign away rights to their photos when they photograph the concert. Sure, require them to only use the photos in the context of that news story. No resales to anyone. No competing with her market efforts. But stop stealing legitimate copyrights of photographers, who are creatives just like musicians. They have retirements to plan, and children to feed, and equipment to maintain.
Not cynical at all, Dave.
Maybe a little cynical, considering you were the one that posted the snippets about PIAS Entertainment Group having worked for three weeks to try and secure a number of changes to the agreements so that they could come on board, including pushing for royalties during the trial period. But, maybe Apple decided to use Swift to make that change a public one for the publicity. I’d like to think that all this info will one day be clear when employees write their memoirs.
You can’t “steal” someone’s copyright.
You can say “you can’t come to my show on private property, with a camera, without an agreement”.
See the difference?
She didn’t like Apple’s terms, and refused to give them rights to her product.
Photographers want to create a work involving her, and she doesn’t want to be part of it without her terms.
Those are … not the same thing?
While this sounds like a feasible theory, I would think that Apple has learned something from the iBooks débâcle… staging something like that without leaving “traces” is nearly impossible and could look terrible in any lawsuit or investigation.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”… or so 🙂
Though that from the get go- good for Swift, good for Apple, good for music… but nobody listens to nobody…
Photography is very different. What makes a photograph is the sum of the photographer’s art and the subject’s likeness. OTOH, Apple and Spotify have no role in the creative process.
Photographers somehow expect the subject to have no entitlement to copyright, even when it is a paying client.
If wedding photographers believe that their contracts are fair (some are as restrictive as what bands make photogs sign), then they have no right to complain if they are forced to sign binding contracts by musicians.
If Eddy Cue staged it, he should be fired. If Johnny Iovine arranged for this (not unlikely given his history), he should be fired. Apple should be changing the rules in music industry, and not be playing along.
Sorry as a pro phtographer I can say that you are completely off base. The subject has no claim on copyright, unless the photographer signs an agreement to convey the copyright to the other party. That is the law.
Wedding photographers can be jerks too. Doesn’t make it right. If they choose to give away their future income, then they will charge more money to cover the loss of future income. If they are smart.
Photographers are creatives, and their work pays the bills, and provides a retirement, and sends their kids to college, just like writing songs and playing music for musicians. Taylor Swift should know that.