While this is now old news, it's nice to be reminded that moral causes do not exist in vacuum. Taylor Swift's open tumblr letter to Apple, re: Music's three-month unpaid trial, has prompted concert photographer, Jason Sheldon, to address the inconsistencies in Taylor's screed. In particular, Jason takes umbrage at the odious terms by which photographers must abide in shooting her concerts.
“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.”
Source: AN OPEN RESPONSE TO TAYLOR SWIFT’S RANT AGAINST APPLE
via: DPreview
Yesterday, Jason has published a second part in response to a letter from Taylor Swift's UK agent:
“Both of the agent’s statements divert attention away from the core issue; Taylor Swift is seeking to unfairly benefit from the work of photographers, while claiming to be championing the rights of creatives against Apple. This is clear double-standard that I called out as hypocrisy.
It may have been the case that Taylor Swift was blissfully unaware of the contracts. I doubt that is now the case, and I would like to see her personal statement (rather than that of her UK agent) on whether she is willing to follow in Apple’s footsteps and amend the inequities of her current agreement.
Lastly, if Swift does feel the need to protect her name and likeness from potential abuse, all her photo access contract need stipulate is “Editorial Use Only”.”