3 ms·

Any reply like this, that does not consider the differences between recorded music and photography of human subjects, is neither thoughtful nor genuine. There

by jblow 11y ago

Any reply like this, that does not consider the differences between recorded music and photography of human subjects, is neither thoughtful nor genuine. There is some kind of a point here, but it's ruined by the author's lack of perspective and desire just to land a gotcha.

peteretep 11y ago
Could you summarise the important differences as relate to the issue at hand?
- slg 11y ago
  Not jblow, but here are the major differences from my perspective. The photographers are paid for their work upfront. They are not doing it for free, they just need to ask for consent before using the photos for any secondary purposes outside of their immediate project. Apple is not paying anything upfront and won't pay for any streams in the first three months a customer is using their service. Taylor Swift also does not get to use the photos without consent from the publisher. Unlike Apple, she does not get to use them to make money or as a carrot to attract future customers. Finally the photographer's art would not exist without Taylor Swift. I don't think it is unreasonable for her to therefore claim some joint ownership of the work. Unlike Apple which only plays the part in distribution of music and not the creation.
  - sitharus 11y ago
    As seen in the recent update to the article, he is not paid upfront. Payment only occurs if and when that single contracted use is made. Given there's no guarantee of publication and no up-front payment this is quite a different dynamic.
    - slg 11y ago
      You are right, that does change the dynamic. However, I think that is more a dispute between the photographer and the publisher than the photographer and the musician. It isn't Taylor Swift's fault that the photographer agreed to do commission work without any guarantee of being paid.
- notacoward 11y ago
  The relationship between Apple and Taylor Swift is of distributor to artist. The relationship between Taylor Swift and a photographer is of subject to artist. That's pretty significant, even beyond the already-noted aspect of who is paying whom (and when).

by jblow 11y ago

peteretep 11y ago

Could you summarise the important differences as relate to the issue at hand?

slg 11y ago
Not jblow, but here are the major differences from my perspective. The photographers are paid for their work upfront. They are not doing it for free, they just need to ask for consent before using the photos for any secondary purposes outside of their immediate project. Apple is not paying anything upfront and won't pay for any streams in the first three months a customer is using their service. Taylor Swift also does not get to use the photos without consent from the publisher. Unlike Apple, she does not get to use them to make money or as a carrot to attract future customers. Finally the photographer's art would not exist without Taylor Swift. I don't think it is unreasonable for her to therefore claim some joint ownership of the work. Unlike Apple which only plays the part in distribution of music and not the creation.
- sitharus 11y ago
  As seen in the recent update to the article, he is not paid upfront. Payment only occurs if and when that single contracted use is made. Given there's no guarantee of publication and no up-front payment this is quite a different dynamic.
  - slg 11y ago
    You are right, that does change the dynamic. However, I think that is more a dispute between the photographer and the publisher than the photographer and the musician. It isn't Taylor Swift's fault that the photographer agreed to do commission work without any guarantee of being paid.
notacoward 11y ago
The relationship between Apple and Taylor Swift is of distributor to artist. The relationship between Taylor Swift and a photographer is of subject to artist. That's pretty significant, even beyond the already-noted aspect of who is paying whom (and when).