Taylor Swift at an event in Las Vegas. (Image courtesy: AFP)
Taylor Swift's very polite altercation with Apple has spawned an argument with a music photographer who wrote the singer an open letter about 'rights grab' in photo contracts. Ms Swift's rep has now issued a response that says the letter 'misrepresents' the standard contract and that she has a right to protect her likeness.
The Independent reports that Ms Swift's spokesperson in the UK said in a statement: "The standard photography agreement has been misrepresented in that it clearly states that any photographer shooting 'The 1989 World Tour' has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management's approval. Another distinct misrepresentation is the claim that the copyright of the photographs will be with anyone other than the photographer - this agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer. Every artist has the right to and should protect the use of their name and likeness."
Jason Sheldon, a British photographer who runs the agency Junction 10, posted this image of a standard contract that photographers need to sign, pointing out that it gives the publisher buying the photos rights to use them in perpetuity while having to pay for usage only once.
"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," Mr Sheldon's letter said.
He asked Ms Swift, 25, 'How are you any different to Apple?' and wrote: "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. 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."
In an addendum, Mr Sheldon clarified that a contract of this sort is most often presented by a publication which hires a photographer to cover a concert and pay only if the photos are used. His edit read: "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. This is not the case."
However, he told the BBC that he had to sign away rights to photos of a Taylor Swift concert in Birmingham to her management in 2011. The permission form that he signed granted long term rights to Ms Swift's management company while preventing Mr Sheldon from using them. "I can't use it in my portfolio, feature it on my website and even the original newspaper couldn't reuse it," Mr Sheldon told BBC.
Over the weekend, Taylor Swift wrote Apple a note on her Tumblr page calling their decision to not pay royalties during a three-month trial period of its new subscription streaming service "shocking, disappointing and completely unlike this historically progressive company." She said she would not be offering her album 1989 on the service writing, "We don't ask you for free iPhones, please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation." In less than 24 hours, Apple vice-president Eddie Cue announced that they would pay full royalties to the artistes.