Yesterday was the day that the tables finally turned in favour of independent musicians in their battle against Apple Music, the tech giant’s new streaming service. Indie coalitions had been warring with Apple over royalties for the past few weeks, but they had an unlikely ally – Taylor Swift.
Independent label coalitions, including Australia’s own Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR), expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that Apple would not be paying out any royalties during the service’s initial three-month free trial period.
The labels argued that this would especially affect independent labels and musicians, as they traditionally rely on new releases rather than deep back catalogs for revenue. Taylor Swift apparently agreed and penned a critical open letter to the tech company.
Swift’s letter, which argued in favour of compensating musicians fairly, particularly those who can’t rely on lucrative stadium tours to make a living, went viral and was apparently the death knell to Apple’s royalty-free trial period. The company announced via Twitter it would now be paying artists during the trial.
However, concert photographer Jason Sheldon thinks Swift may have written her open letter from within the confines of a glass house. According to Sheldon’s own open letter, Swift has something of a hypocritical stance when it comes to paying fellow artists.
Sheldon cites particular disappointment in the photo waivers given to photographers shooting the pop singer’s concerts. According to Sheldon, who shares a copy of such a waiver, they stipulate a photographer can use the images from the show only once and only within the published report on that performance.
This means the photographer cannot sell the images to other editorial outlets, nor can they sell prints of the images in any way. As Consequence of Sound notes, while photographers do often depend on such secondary sales for extra income, this is not a terribly uncommon limitation.
[include_post id=”451804″]
However, what’s unique about Swift’s contracts is not the rights taken away from photogs, but the rights they grant Swift and her team. Sheldon claims the contract stipulates that Swift and Firefly Entertainment have the ability to use any concert photographer’s images themselves for any publicity or “non-commercial purpose” in perpetuity.
In layman’s terms, this means Taylor Swift and her marketing team, for example, can use a photographer’s work in their own material and campaigns and not pay out a single penny. In some cases, this may even cost the photographer money, as they only get paid if the photos are used by newspapers and magazines.
“You say in your letter to Apple that ‘Three months is a long time to go unpaid,’” Sheldon writes. “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.”
“How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great… make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?” he later adds.
While waivers are commonplace throughout the music industry, particularly when it comes to concert images, they rarely involve the kind of “rights grab” written into Swift’s contract. Readers can check out Sheldon’s letter in full and a copy of the waiver below.
Jason Sheldon’s Letter To Taylor Swift
Dear Taylor Swift,
I have read your open letter to Apple where you give your reasons for refusing to allow your album ‘1989′ to be included on their forthcoming Apple Music streaming service.
(For reference: http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor)
I applaud it. It’s great to have someone with a huge following standing up for the rights of creative people and making a stand against the corporate behemoths who have so much power they can make or break someone’s career.
For instance, you say:
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company
It is shocking, like you say, that any company should expect to exploit artists. It’s not on at all.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows
Ah.. but this is the thing Taylor, you say it’s not about you – but clearly it is. Why else would you make such a public statement about how you’re standing up for the rights of new artists and bands? Are you really supportive of other artists?
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
And this is the echoed sentiment of every professional photographer. Some are afraid to speak up for fear of being blacklisted by management and PR companies who seek to control the public perception of their talent.. For every artist that is in a secure enough financial and influential position to stand up against the likes of Apple without having to worry that Apple will publicly block your ability to earn a living from their iTunes market place, there are hundreds of professional concert photographers who don’t enjoy that security.. they don’t have the voice you do, and they don’t have the public favour that you have when it comes to demanding fair rights for their work, and they have a much higher risk of being prevented from working in future, not just at your shows, but any show which is connected by the same promoter, venue, PR, or management company.
Which brings me to the point of this open response to you. I admire your message, I really do. I just think it loses the gravitas it rightly deserves, because of this:
Now.. forgive me if I’m wrong, but if you take points 2 and 3 in that contract (which is provided to Photographers who need to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets), it appears to be a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity. 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….
How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great.. make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?
Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation
With all due respect to you too Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy. Photographers don’t ask for your music for free. Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.
Time to stop being ‘Mean’.
Sincerely,
Jason Sheldon
Edit: it seems the circumstances of the contract aren’t clear to some readers, who assume this is a work for hire contract presented for being hired and/or paid by Taylor Swift.
That is not the case.. As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it. Therefore, if the newspaper has a bigger story to run and doesn’t have enough room to use my photo, I don’t get paid.
When I’m not allowed to do anything else with the photos, that means I’ve incurred expenses to work, which I can’t recover. Therefore preventing me from licensing my photos to more than one publication, or even (as later versions of this contract stipulate) preventing me from using the images for my own self promotion in a portfolio etc while they can use them without licensing the usage is highly unfair and unjustified.
It’s not the same as being paid a buyout for the job. Newspapers don’t pay big sums for concert photos.. Barely enough to cover expenses. That is why we rely on future sales to other publications.
