"A 'photographer's' Open Response to Taylor Swift’s Rant Against Apple"

<p>http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/</p>

 

<p>Thanks I enjoyed it.</p>

<p>Interesting opinion, but off the point of Taylor Swift's complaint, which after numerous complaints Apple has rescinded the policy and agrees to pay during the free promotional period. If the photographer has arguments against her about photography contracts, then make the point separate from the music issue.</p>

<p>Having been through this ordeal and having been through a very unsatisfactory confrontation with a Sony employee in which he was nearly force-fed a D2h, I can agree with the statement that this is a rights grab and is not limited to the music business although to my mind they are the worst of a bad lot. All the pro sports franchises do the same thing and the NCAA is hot on their heels. Individual universities are doing the same thing. They want all rights and all the money and of course all the control. And they want it for free. I'm unwilling to go along with it personally and at this point in life don't really care if I ever photograph another ball game or concert in a major venue. Been there, done that. There are so many hungry up and comers though that it doesn't matter, someone will always be giving it away and if it's crap, so what?</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>As I've said before, this is why I only shoot things that don't move or talk back... ;-)</p>

<p>While I think the concert photography agreements are odious and have only signed one, which was never enforced anyway, they are different than the streaming issue. The concert agreements are given in response to a request for access from the photographer. That's a very different situation - musicians were not requesting to be played for free, they weren't requesting anything. It was the inverse situation. If photographers don't request to be up front with a camera at the show, nothing happens.</p>

<p>Also, the concert photography agreements are usually originated by PR people or venues and the performers themselves can be totally unaware.</p>

<p>In general, streaming services have been terrible for performers, Apple's happened to have been the worst until they decided to change it rather than get slammed across social media.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I've said before, this is why I only shoot things that don't move or talk back... ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems pretty extreme. I typically shoot one to two concerts a week and have only been asked to sign an agreement once. Why would anyone restrict what they shoot over a fairly rare agreement - if you're not shooting professionally, it's unlikely you would ever be asked to sign something?</p>

<p>Ah, Jeff, that was just intended as a snarky, tongue-in-cheek remark, but it does describe my preference for quiet and solitude after 30 years of the exact opposite. That's why I shoot mainly landscapes and old rural buildings, and write poetry. Not much money there, but a lot of peace of mind...</p>

 

<p align="center">Poetography</p>

<p align="center">Two arts, one drive to capture</p>

<p align="center">Both light and shadow</p>

<p>I agree, Jeff, that the scenarios are not analogous. There might be some room to include other creative artists within her sphere of influence as to the broader principle of protecting the interests of 'artists'. I don't know who could exert that kind of pressure from within the photo/video realms. What influence, if any, do you think Taylor Swift, as a music icon, can have in those areas within her sphere or in the industry in general?</p>

<p>Not sure but she might write and sing a song badmouthing Apple. If her songs about ex-boyfriends are any predictor, anyways.</p>

<p>Taylor loves Taylor.</p>

<p>The start, the middle, the end.</p>

<p>That simple to understand.</p>

<p>Taylor also loves the coin.....hello, how simple is that to undestand.</p>

<p>The End.</p>