Is Taylor Swift Really Trying To Rob Photographers?
In recent news, Taylor Swift criticized Apple for initially not paying artists during the trial period for Apple Music, their latest music streaming service. The battle went on for one quick day as Apple shortly retreated, granting victory to Swift's team and stamping the rare power she continues to have on music business.
Meanwhile, at the stem of this rebuttal, freelance photographer Jason Sheldon published an open letter on his blog where he argued Swift's recent image-licensing policy, suggesting the hypocrisy to her complaints towards Apple. In her policy, Editorial photographers assigned to shoot her shows must sign away rights to their photos, preventing them from being paid while giving Swift unlimited use of the pictures for publicity and promotion. It gets worse...
One section of the policy that Sheldon doesn't mention is the right to her management company to destroy a photographer's equipment if they break the terms of the contact, one they are obligated to sign before shooing her show. It reads the following:
If you fail to fully comply with this Authorization, authorized agents of FEI, the Artist or the Related Entities may confiscate and/or destroy the technology or devices that contain the master files of the Photographs and other images, including, but not limited to, cell phones and memory cards, and the Photographs and any other images.
Just today, a UK representative for Taylor Swift quickly countered and told Business Insider via email that the standard photography agreement to which Sheldon referred was "misrepresented." To me, this all sounds like "Bad Blood" more than anything.
At this point, we know that Apple changed their course of action but will Taylor Swift? As a photographer, I feel this is indeed quite hypocritical. Especially because it's photos from concert photographers that tend to promote ticket sales, creating a huge monetary benefit for promoters, venues and the Swift team alike. Needless to say, I'll refrain from shooting any Taylor Swift shows any time in the near future. What do you think?
Apple Music Will Pay Artists During Trial Periods Thanks to Taylor Swift
When Apple Music was unveiled earlier this month, many saw it as Spotify's starkest competition. After all, when a behemoth as large as Apple enters new territory, it will always be seen as one of the top dogs. However, the biggest complaint facing Apple Music's revelation was Apple's policy on not paying royalties to artists during trial periods. It's absurd to think a company as large as Apple would implement a terrible, anti-artist policy.
Yesterday, pop megastar Taylor Swift wrote an open letter to Apple detailing her reasoning behind not releasing her 1989 album on the service, stating:
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.
This is not about me [...] This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs [...]
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.
Thankfully, Apple listened. Eddy Cue, Apple's Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, responded to Swift's letter on Twitter by announcing the policy will be reversed, allowing all artists to be paid for their music:
#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
When an artist of Taylor Swift's magnitude comes out denouncing your service, you listen. Cynics might point at the potential loss of revenue from artists like Swift as their main reasoning for reversing their policy. However, no matter what Apple's intentions may be, the fact that all artists of varying sizes will be compensated for their music is a much larger win for everybody.
Thanks, Taylor Swift.
[via USA Today]
Apple Won't Pay Royalties During Apple Music Trial Periods
It's been a few days since Apple officially entered the streaming service game with their announcement of Apple Music. Personally, I felt the announcement (and the service) was underwhelming - why would you want to pay for a service for the same selections of songs you can currently get for free on Spotify? Hell, I don't even really stream music that often, only opting to do so when my RAM acts up and essentially makes iTunes worthless. Nevertheless, Apple is doing what they can to not only pull ahead of Spotify, but to also ensure the value of their service doesn't go undetected by the common listener.
But what about the artists? In leaked contract documents, it's revealed that Apple is only paying independent musicians 58% of their revenue streams, which is a considerably lower rate than Spotify's purported rate of 70% across the board. However, this percentage has been put into question. More damning than the revenue rate is a pseudo-dark period in which Apple will not pay artists any royalties during free periods.
Since Apple is offering a free three-month trial period when Apple Music officially launches on June 30th, any albums released between June 30 and September 30 will not generate any revenue for artists through Apple Music. This basically handicaps many artists and their release plans - do they delay their albums to maximize their profits across the board, or do they hope their popularity on Apple Music will translate into revenue from other avenues?
You can read the leaked contract documents below.
[via Digital Music News]
Apple Debuts New Streaming Service, Apple Music
It was just a year ago when we were all surprised and excited by Apple's purchase of Beats by Dre. As I speculated back then, the purchase wasn't exclusively for Beats by Dre's hardware, but the software within their streaming service, Beats Music. After a year of wondering, the curtain has finally been pulled back at this year's Worldwide Developer's Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco.
Simply known as Apple Music, Apple's streaming service is scheduled for a June 30th release on Apple devices in more than 100 countries with an Android release scheduled sometime in the fall. Price plans for the service come in $9.99/month and $14.99/month for six-person family plan. A three-month subscription is also offered for free for new subscribers. While Apple Music boasts more than 30 million songs on the service, much of this library can be found on Spotify on other services.
Apple is banking on exclusive releases (similar to Tidal's offerings) to justify the price tag. Other features Apple Music has over Spotify is full functionality with Siri, "Connect," a social network aspect of the service that allows artists to directly release songs and interact with fans, and Beats 1, a 24/7 radio station broadcast from London, New York, and Los Angeles that will be curated by various artists.
It'll be hard to justify a subscription price when Spotify has a free version. Or, you know, we can go back to the days of actually playing music from our iTunes libraries. Nevertheless, shots have been fired as Apple does everything in their power to monopolize every nook and cranny of the entertainment industry. Are you on board with Apple Music, or will your blood forever bleed Spotify green?