4 ms·

Some professional photographer is calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy. http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/ http://

Some professional photographer is calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy. http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/ http://nextshark.com/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-...

mfoy_ 11y ago
Isn't that apples to oranges? I would think it goes like this: I want to have pictures taken of me during a performance. But I cannot take pictures of myself while performing. So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. They are my pictures. I don't care that you took them, I don't care WHO took them. They are mine because I paid you to take them for me. Just like when an app developer makes an app on their own, they get to reap the rewards. If someone pays you to create an app for them, don't complain when it takes off and you don't get paid royalties on top of that. You also don't get to sell that app again on the side.
- goatforce5 11y ago
  > So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. She isn't paying them. This is for press photographers who want to go to her concert and take pictures of her performing.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I won't pretend to understand the exact business model, but it sounds like this is an entirely different can of worms. Unless there is a lot more clarification, I don't see why this is an issue, though. The few people I know who have photographed a concert in some professional capacity have done so for someone else on a paid contract. Usually the performer or the venue... it's kind of like a wedding photographer in that sense (in my mind, at least) and I'd be appalled if a wedding photographer started making a fuss because he doesn't own the rights to the pictures. Of course, if Swift (or the venue) is not paying the photographers (and she isn't), then clearly there must be some financial motivation for them to go do this anyways, at which point you gotta weigh the pros and cons of taking pictures you won't own the rights to...
    - LnxPrgr3 11y ago
      I'd be surprised—I'm pretty sure the photographer does own the rights to photos they took, unless he/she explicitly signs them away, so there's nothing to fuss about. That said, I'd expect to be thrown out more often than not if I started showing up to random weddings as an uninvited photographer. No one has to let me take pictures in their private space, but they might do so with terms attached.
CPLX 11y ago
That rant is absurd. If you are a photographer and you want to take photos of a famous musician on a very expensive and well produced stage you have to do it by her rules. You can take photos of a model you pick on a stage you create and then you get to write the rules. Or you can even take a photo of Taylor Swift in a public place like a street or airport without any permission or rights issues. You just can't take photos inside her private, for profit, and expensive to produce stage show unless you agree to her terms. You also can't walk on to a movie set with your own video camera and have the rights to that footage either. On what planet is this surprising or problematic?
Navarr 11y ago
This was posted as an HN article and was subsequently deemed irrelevant due to the incredibly different nature of their jobs. Mostly that, no, photographers shouldn't be able to do whatever they want with photographs of Taylor Swift without her permission. That's how you ruin your brand image.
- hoopd 11y ago
  Isn't that missing the point? The entire argument was that they were demanding rights to use the photographer's work in the future for free. There was a non-commercial clause but its wording was a bit strange (is publicity for a brand like Taylor Swift ever non-commerical?)

mfoy_ 11y ago

Isn't that apples to oranges? I would think it goes like this: I want to have pictures taken of me during a performance. But I cannot take pictures of myself while performing. So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. They are my pictures. I don't care that you took them, I don't care WHO took them. They are mine because I paid you to take them for me. Just like when an app developer makes an app on their own, they get to reap the rewards. If someone pays you to create an app for them, don't complain when it takes off and you don't get paid royalties on top of that. You also don't get to sell that app again on the side.

goatforce5 11y ago
> So I pay a photographer to take those pictures for me. She isn't paying them. This is for press photographers who want to go to her concert and take pictures of her performing.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  I won't pretend to understand the exact business model, but it sounds like this is an entirely different can of worms. Unless there is a lot more clarification, I don't see why this is an issue, though. The few people I know who have photographed a concert in some professional capacity have done so for someone else on a paid contract. Usually the performer or the venue... it's kind of like a wedding photographer in that sense (in my mind, at least) and I'd be appalled if a wedding photographer started making a fuss because he doesn't own the rights to the pictures. Of course, if Swift (or the venue) is not paying the photographers (and she isn't), then clearly there must be some financial motivation for them to go do this anyways, at which point you gotta weigh the pros and cons of taking pictures you won't own the rights to...
  - LnxPrgr3 11y ago
    I'd be surprised—I'm pretty sure the photographer does own the rights to photos they took, unless he/she explicitly signs them away, so there's nothing to fuss about. That said, I'd expect to be thrown out more often than not if I started showing up to random weddings as an uninvited photographer. No one has to let me take pictures in their private space, but they might do so with terms attached.

CPLX 11y ago

That rant is absurd. If you are a photographer and you want to take photos of a famous musician on a very expensive and well produced stage you have to do it by her rules. You can take photos of a model you pick on a stage you create and then you get to write the rules. Or you can even take a photo of Taylor Swift in a public place like a street or airport without any permission or rights issues. You just can't take photos inside her private, for profit, and expensive to produce stage show unless you agree to her terms. You also can't walk on to a movie set with your own video camera and have the rights to that footage either. On what planet is this surprising or problematic?

Navarr 11y ago

This was posted as an HN article and was subsequently deemed irrelevant due to the incredibly different nature of their jobs. Mostly that, no, photographers shouldn't be able to do whatever they want with photographs of Taylor Swift without her permission. That's how you ruin your brand image.

hoopd 11y ago
Isn't that missing the point? The entire argument was that they were demanding rights to use the photographer's work in the future for free. There was a non-commercial clause but its wording was a bit strange (is publicity for a brand like Taylor Swift ever non-commerical?)