DIY Photography

Your one stop shop for everything photo-video

  • News
  • Inspiration
  • Reviews
  • Tutorials
  • DIY
  • Gear
Search

Submit A Story

Jason Seldon’s Response To Taylor Swift’s Agent

Jun 28, 2015 by Jason Seldon 14 Comments

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Flipboard
  • WhatsApp

taylor-swift-response

After my public response to Taylor Swift’s open letter to Apple, I didn’t quite expect the phenomenal reaction it received. I knew it was provocative, I knew it was going to be risky and could possibly harm my chances of getting access to other concerts in future. but it needed to be said – out loud. When I thought hard about the possible consequences, and restrictions on my access to future work, I asked myself “What point is there in going to work if I can’t be paid for it – yet everyone else gets to benefit from my labour?”. The answer?

There was nothing left to lose. When you’re faced with a choice of working for free to save a millionaire having to pay a reasonable fee, or not working at all. what would you do?

So, it escalated. Very quickly, and the media have picked up on it all around the world. Her UK agent put out a counter-statement to my letter, which many publications have claimed “Taylor Swift responds”:

A UK spokesperson for Taylor Swift said: ‘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.’

My response to the statement follows:

Firstly, of course Taylor Swift, and any other artist, has the right to protect the use of their name and likeness. That is not in dispute. But protect them from what?

We’re concert photographers. not paparazzi. I have no interest in publishing an unflattering photo of an artist. For one thing, it would do far more harm to my career than it would theirs.

Artists like Taylor Swift grant press photographers access to photograph their shows, in exchange for the expectation of helping to provide as much positive coverage in the media as possible – coverage that they are expecting their paid publicists to achieve. That is a mutually beneficial “something for something” exchange. She gets coverage, photographers get to earn a living.

As a creative artist, I champion the rights of all other artists to receive an equitable “something for something” exchange, just as Taylor was claiming in her open letter to Apple. In our society, the most beneficial something to receive is hard currency, which is a concept nearly everyone can relate to; you trade your time, skill and energy in return for monetary gain – because earning money is a malleable benefit that can be shaped to the person who receives it.

However, in the creative arts, there is an increasing tendency to seek “nothing for something” exchanges – where you are expected to apply your skill, time,efforts etc. for the benefit of a third party and, in return, receive an intangible – and sometimes non-existent benefit.

Taylor Swift’s contract from 2011 included clauses that were not equitable. They leaned toward a “nothing for something” exchange, where the photographer could only license images a single time in one named publication, never use them again, and she would be allowed to use them for non commercial (i.e.:publicity) use for all eternity, without having to compensate the photographer, thus unfairly favouring the interests of Taylor Swift to the detriment of thephotographer.

The current contract being presented to photographers on her 2015 “1989” tour goes even further, preventing publications from using the image past 2015,and also threatens the destruction of photographers equipment (including but not limited to cell phones, memory cards, etc) if they breach the agreement.

This is the issue I took with Taylor Swift’s reply to Apple with regards their original intention to distribute artists’ work without payment for a three month period so as to help launch their streaming service, Apple Music.

Ms. Swift quite rightly took umbrage with such a request – because the sole beneficiary of that arrangement would be Apple. As a new service, they obviously want to entice people away from existing streaming platforms, and how better to do this than allowing potential customers to road-test Apple Music for a ninety day period?

However, such expectations would be cannibalistic to musicians – they stood to lose out on per-stream revenues they are entitled to enjoy. Ms. Swift, with her considerable leverage, has seemingly made Apple reverse that decision. Although they have agreed in principle to pay artists for streams during that ninety day period, they have yet to say how much, or when.

Regardless, Ms. Swift railed against their “nothing for something” request because it was unfair. Because it was exploitative. Because it was inequitable. I completely agree with her on that, and fully support it.

I spoke up against Ms. Swift’s photo release form for the same reason; She was intending to use our product, the photographs, to benefit her, while removing all possible compensation that we would be entitled to, even potentially going so far as delivering our products to our very own customers, who would not need to compensate us either.

Her UK based agent has said

“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”

In the version of her contract for her 2011 tour, that’s true, to an extent… but such a clause no longer exists in the 2015 contract.

There is no contact information on either contract to enable the photographer to seek management approval, and whenever photographers have managed to connect with management of other artists previously, their requests are frequently ignored or denied, although in the balance of fairness, occasionally do result in approval – but why should a photographer have to seek approval for something that is an automatic legal right – to receive benefit from their own work?

The agents other statement was:

“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”

Again, partly true, but disingenuous. I didn’t claim anywhere in my open letter that copyright is surrendered to Swift – this may have been misreported elsewhere. Still, both the 2011 and 2015 contracts demand an assignment of rights to Swift and Co. that are the near equivalent to handing over ones full copyrights, and the photographer is left with zero rights to use their work, not even as part of their own portfolio.

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”.

About The Author

Jason Seldon is a professional music photographer based in Birmingham, England. He runs Junction10 and photographed many of the leading voices in the music industry, including Neil Diamond, George Michael, Bruce Springsteen, The Police, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel and Elton John and others. You can see more of his work over at Junction10, and follow his twitter here. This article was published here and shared with permission. [photo by Gene Han]

FIND THIS INTERESTING? SHARE IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Flipboard
  • WhatsApp

Related posts:

An Open Response To Taylor Swift’s Rant Against Apple Major Irish Newspaper Didn’t Photograph Taylor Swift’s Dublin Concert Due to “Exceedingly Restrictive” Contract Taylor Swift Responds to Photographer’s Open Letter Taylor Swift Does Right By Photographers, Amends Heavily Restrictive Photo Contract

Filed Under: news Tagged With: apple, concert photography, g, Jason Seldon, Rant, streaming music, Taylor Swift, working for free

Guest Author: from diyphotography.net

About Guest Author

This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.

« Photography Business Brilliantly Responds To An Anti LGBT Cancellation
Epic Star Wars Pre Wedding Shoot Done With Action Figures »

Submit A Story

Get our FREE Lighting Book

DIYP lighting book cover

* download requires newsletter signup
DIYPhotography

Recent Comments

Free Resources

Advanced lighting book

Recent Posts

  • Comparing iPhone 13 vs iPhone 14 for astrophotography
  • Don’t buy a Z8 directly from Nikon, customers say
  • YouTube is killing off “Stories” to focus on Shorts and Live
  • Four ways to shoot epic stop motion hyperlapse with a smartphone gimbal
  • Canon reported to be working on a “zoomable” teleconverter

Udi Tirosh: from diyphotography.netUdi Tirosh is an entrepreneur, photography inventor, journalist, educator, and writer based in Israel. With over 25 years of experience in the photo-video industry, Udi has built and sold several photography-related brands. Udi has a double degree in mass media communications and computer science.

Alex Baker: from diyphotography.netAlex Baker is a portrait and lifestyle driven photographer based in Valencia, Spain. She works on a range of projects from commercial to fine art and has had work featured in publications such as The Daily Mail, Conde Nast Traveller and El Mundo, and has exhibited work across Europe

David Williams: from diyphotography.netDave Williams is an accomplished travel photographer, writer, and best-selling author from the UK. He is also a photography educator and published Aurora expert. Dave has traveled extensively in recent years, capturing stunning images from around the world in a modified van. His work has been featured in various publications and he has worked with notable brands such as Skoda, EE, Boeing, Huawei, Microsoft, BMW, Conde Nast, Electronic Arts, Discovery, BBC, The Guardian, ESPN, NBC, and many others.

John Aldred: from diyphotography.netJohn Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter - and occasional beta tester - of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Dunja Djudjic: from diyphotography.netDunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Copyright © DIYPhotography 2006 - 2023 | About | Contact | Advertise | Write for DIYP | Full Disclosure | Privacy Policy