News Reviews Features Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Taylor Swift's photography contract revised following criticism

Published Jul 22, 2015 | Brittany Hillen

Swift's Tumblr post addressed to Apple kicked off a debate regarding the strict contracts music photographers are often required to sign.

Following several weeks of controversy involving pop singer Taylor Swift and a growing number of music photographers and news publications, Swift's management has revised the terms of its photo contract. Last month, singer Taylor Swift lambasted Apple following its launch of Apple Music over the company's policy to not pay musicians royalties for songs streamed during the service's free trial period. Her statement resulted in Apple reversing its decision, but also elicited response from photographers claiming her plea was hypocritical in light of a restrictive photography policy at her shows.

On the same day Swift published her Tumblr post aimed at Apple, photographer Jason Sheldon published his own post detailing a contract photographers were required to sign at a recent Swift concert. The contract, according to Sheldon, 'appears to be a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity.'

Some back-and-forth between one of Swift's UK representatives and Sheldon ensued, and a number of Canadian music photographers declined to photograph her Montreal show in protest. In light of these events, Swift's concert photography contract has been updated, and was done so in conjunction with the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). With support from the AP and other news organizations, the new photography agreement was released yesterday.

The new contract contains language that makes it clear that copyright is not transferred away from the photographer or publication. The images published by the associated publication can also be used on the photographer's website and portfolio, which was only permitted under the previous contract with management's approval. The new contract also backs off on the potential consequences for not following the terms set out in the document. The old contract stated that equipment could be subject to confiscation, where the new one states only that photographers may be asked to delete files.

While it's nice to see Swift's management taking steps in the right direction, the new contract is still quite restrictive on use of images. It's not the ideal contract that music photographers would want, but it's certainly an improvement over the previous version.

Tags: other-news, photographers

Comments

Total comments: 56

Many photographers have pointed out that the photograph of the musician becomes valuable historically. Personally, I have zero interest in TS, never heard her music, never will. But I did make a great portrait of Dizzy Gillespie not with lovers. Or one of Sun Ra bathed in blue, his piano in golden tones. Those would never have been taken under TS conditions. Marketing types seem to think that the only valuable photo is the one that sells tickets for today and tomorrow's shows. They have no interest in something that gains value over time, since they will not be around as an employee of a pop star in a few years.
It actually says in a contract that they can ask the photographer to delete digital files? What foolish thinking. The photographer is judge not some marketing ape or the nice guy on their security team. Plenty of amateurs take great shots at music events. Can you imagine the uproar if they started the same tactics on the audience?

2 upvotes

Ah, and then there was the Grateful Dead. The good old days.

2 upvotes

yup.

0 upvotes

The bottle was dusty but the liquor was clean...

1 upvote

Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills, one man gathers what another man spills.

0 upvotes

Some folks look for answers, others look for fights.

1 upvote

Oh yes indeed.

0 upvotes

I read the new contract. I find it fair; Swift's management company moved a long way from their original position, particularly concerning their usage rights, which are now limited to social media. I would have no problem signing this version, and I can see it becoming a standard.

0 upvotes

It's fairer rather than fair. It is still one sided.

0 upvotes

Apple -- and Taylor Swift. Wow, they do deserve each other, indeed.

9 upvotes

TV companies paying for rights to record and broadcast the Olympics, Baseball, cricket, etcetera, is also recent. The millions that corrupt clubs and are used to hog coverage that used to be a free for all, it is recent. You can blame modern man, but modern man is helped by the internet.

Photographers suffer more than any group, as digital files are easily stolen, and copied and resold.

Thus we now cannot post OUR work online, secure in the knowledge that it will remain a source of income for us now, or in the future.

Rock stars have to pay vast number of people (pace Vlad) for the noise they make. Their companies want to video record for DVD and profit, and unfortunately freelances are subjected to restrictions designed to prevent competitors filming-as since the 5D MkII nobody can tell the difference !!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The thing to do is simply boycott concerts by anyone saying you cannot take pictures there, or binding you contractually if you do.
All this nonsense is very recent. I never once ever signed any contract, either with an agency or any magazine or newspaper who commissioned work. Reason. We abided by existing laws that made such contracts unecessary.
Had it been otherwise the vast majority of historically important documentation of musical events, and sport etc would simply not have been done! No pics of the Stones, Stooges, Beatles, Talking Heads, Springsteen, Ravi Shankar, Stockhausen, etcetera would have been taken.
And for Vlad: no sunshine! God made it all and we use LIGHT to make our photographs . Something ,( Sunshine!) that NOBODY can copyright, including electric light, as, of course, it is derived from the Sun. It pains me to read stuff by such as you, who, of course, living only by the Moon's reflected light, probably is unaware, or even afraid, of The Living Daylights!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

Let's get back to the real meat of the matter: The Monkees vs. The McPeople ;-)

0 upvotes

Not too swift.

2 upvotes

Bad management. The music industry has been in free fall for years. My guess is too many people wanting a cut of anything the artist does. In many instances your local band cannot cover that popular song in the local pub without paying ASCAP. BMI has made it almost impossible to share your favorite new band's song with a friend. And, now performance photos. This is intriguing in an industry that spend billions on artist exposure. What's next, an anesthetic that makes you forget everything when you leave the concert so you can't tell anyone about it? Taylor who?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

18 upvotes

Right on, brother!

0 upvotes

She is just an object.:)

... and product.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

And with a fast approaching expiration date.

7 upvotes

How do I delete this inadvertent post??

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

You can't :)

0 upvotes

Your comment is now owned by dpreview.

3 upvotes

It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

3 upvotes

The same is effectively true for most photographs - someone owns something in the frame; the photographer usually didn't create everything in the frame. If I take a picture at a national park, should the government own the picture? If I take a street photo, should it be collectively owned by everyone in the frame?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

25 upvotes

such nonsense

12 upvotes

@Greg Lovern: no it is not the same for most photographers. In the studio the photographer creates the scene by selecting and organizing the objects or subjects – on a show stage the photographer has no control over the presentation. In a park the photographer is in charge of the creative process, because the photographer chooses the lighting conditions, the composition, and such. In a theatrical presentations all of that is created by the production company.

0 upvotes

What would happen if nobody took pictures of her show?

23 upvotes

That's simply irrelevant, to the extent the previous contract effectively created a situation where photographers might have to work for free. Vlad, would you be happy with that in your job?

5 upvotes

Vlad S ikea owns the lamp you used for that studio shoot with a model, so you have to get theyre permission, they own the image :p

6 upvotes

@sgoldswo: the contract in question is not for work commissioned by Taylor Swift, it's for photographers commissioned by other publications, and it is those publications that must compensate the photographer. Those publications draw income from Taylor Swift's talent and investments, and I don't see why it would be unfair of her to set the minimum compensation that she requires for the use of her sets and her talent.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Vlad S, so you would be happy to work for free. Thanks for clarifying that...

6 upvotes

@ThatCamFan: these kind of issues are decided by the copyright laws. Typically there has to be a sufficiently transformative use. If your sole subject is the lamp, without any sort of transformative input, then most likely Ikea will be able to claim some proceeds from the profits that the image generates, although they may choose not to. If you simply use it as a prop for a model shoot, then your image is about the model, and so there is sufficiently transformative use – then Ikea can't claim any stake in your image.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@sgoldswo: It is dishonest of you to assign me something I never wrote.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Oh please, you think all those people you mention aren't getting their slice already? As for riding on Swift's coattails, that's just plain wrong. These artists rely on constant media coverage to continue earning the large sums of money they do.

4 upvotes

" the contract in question is not for work commissioned by Taylor Swift, it's for photographers commissioned by other publications,"
Yes. Vlad has a point.
"As for riding on Swift's coattails, that's just plain wrong. These artists rely on constant media coverage to continue earning the large sums of money they do."
So the cart pulls the horse? Without the artists, event media has nothing.
Obviously compromise is the only way to handle this.

4 upvotes

Vlad S, the problem many had with the original contract is that it paid by use of the photo, but effectively removed all IP rights from the photographer and gave a right for Taylor Swift's management to dictate further use of the images. Photographers were expected to turn up, take photos and afterwards learn if they were getting paid according to a discretion out of their control.

So, in effect, if you think the original contract is fair and the complaints were unfair, you must think it is fair for people to work for free. You don't need to write that if you've endorsed the principle.

I haven't even got into the point others have made here about the fact there is as much art in a great photo as there is in the performance of a song, which makes it curious why Taylor Swift (and/or her management) thinks it OK for one rule to apply to performance artists and another to photographers. They've realised the contradiction makes her look like a hypocrite, hence the change in contract.

3 upvotes

Vlad: "these kind of issues are decided by the copyright laws."
As a scientist I'm sure you have some basic understanding of IP law.

I'm a lawyer. The terms of this contract are extremely one sided and stink as the basis of what is effectively an employment relationship. Is that succinct enough for you?

"on a show stage the photographer has no control over the presentation. In a park the photographer is in charge of the creative process"

You realise that the former actually makes it harder for the photographer?

2 upvotes

Quick -- all of us stop taking pix of the Eiffel Tower -- unless we can prove first hand that we have created it. Right, Vlad?

1 upvote

@Francis Carver: It's not as easy as you probably think. Permission and rights must be obtained from the "Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" (the Operating Company, or SETE) for the publication of photos of the illuminated Eiffel Tower.

0 upvotes

I checked up on Vlad -- yeap, he's the head of the Taylor Swift legal defense team.

1 upvote

@sgoldswo:
1. I am not discussing the original contract, I am discussing the present one. If you want to discuss the previous contract you should create your own thread.
2. This is not close to employment relationship. This is a permission from Taylor Swift's show to third party publications to take professional images for their own commercial use. She does not rely on these images, and does not commission them. She simply asks to be able to use them too, along with the entity that actually hired the photog, and is paying for the job.

"You are requesting to attend and photograph portions of The 1989 World Tour for ___________ (name of
publication)."

Note: The photographer is requesting for some other publication, not FEI is requesting.

0 upvotes

These musicians can all go to h*## !!!
1. The "photogrsaph and video portion" of a concert - is usually only the very first sond the artis plays. Good thing the photogeaphers are not charged $250 ticket prices t ettend one song.

2. Reporting in the lcoal paper the concent of a name celebrity is hardly "comemrcial explitation." Next thing I know, the artists and their money-hyenas would want to be making mone of a local paper pubished a 3l9jne text aboaut a concert being held, not even rnning any pictures?

3. Some overpaid no talent wannabe standing on a stage and trying to impress everyone, no matter how desperately, is hardly the Second Coming of the Creator type of an event, as you seem to present it.

1 upvote

Nonsense. If it weren't for photo coverage, people would not see their concerts done professionally. Just Twitterpics and Facebook posts.

Photographers should be willing to share the photos with the concert organizers/artists, for a limited time for promotion. But photographers contribute to their success as well as most others.

You might as well say the artist wouldn't exist without the artist as the other way around. If it weren't for news coverage of events, many fewer people would be aware that the concert had happened. Look at the amazing photos from the 60s and 70s before marketing drones ruined concert photography.

0 upvotes

Well, it is a step in the right direction, but still not enough. Question: does Swift pay the photographers to shoot her concerts?

2 upvotes

i am sure she has her own tour photographer....she isnt hiring these other photographers.

2 upvotes

The profession of photography is under serious attack. There are good amateurs willing to give away their work just for the right to brag that they were published. And these pop musicians today are not artists so much as products themselves ... packaged and sold by a tightly controlled and monitored team ... the paying public are mostly suckers buying the same thing over and over again, convinced by marketing that it's "newer and edgier" than last years "newest and edgiest" recycled thing.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

26 upvotes

Steven,
That sums it up quite nicely.

Sad but rather true

4 upvotes

Much of what you say is true, but she does write her own music and the show is definitely entertaining. So people who go are hardly "suckers" ... a less bitter way of looking at it is that management companies are stomping over anyone they can to make more money, which is true of anyone involved in the corporate hegemony. So there really is nothing new here ...

5 upvotes

Much of your criticism of pop musicians today--which in many cases I think is fair--could be made with equal merit about many of the top-charting musical acts from a half-century or more ago. If you don't like it, or don't find it a reasonable value, don't go.

And if you and the performer and venue can't agree on photographing it, don't. Market forces, the old supply and demand, are not an attack. If professionals can't deliver something substantially more valuable than what amateurs will do for free, well, maybe they need to find a new line of work. I'm probably not Encyclopedia Britannica editor material, but I contribute to Wikipedia, get paid nothing for it, and all the world has what's arguably a better resource for free, compared to the older, for-pay resource.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

NAwlins ... to a point I agree with you. But in the 60's and 70's a great many artists made it famous because they were great artists. Then came Milli Vanilli ... the first completely fabricated group, conceived and created by a marketing team. It was a scandal when people learned that they couldn't sing their own tunes. But they set the mold for the "artist" product that we almost exclusively see today: completely lip-synced, auto-tuned and choreographed. They don't really write their own tunes, even when they put their names to it. It is not an artist providing a commentary on society or anything else. It is a marketing team that studies what is most likely to sell, and then punches some buttons to make and sell the McSong back to the McPeople. The McPeople get what they think they want, not the nutrition they need. And our culture gets further impoverished by every pathetic McNote.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

This is not quite correct. The Monkees (from the 60s) were also a fabricated group and were sometimes known as the "Pre-Fab Four" (in reference to The Beatles who were the Fab Four). The difference between The Monkees and Milli Vanilli is that The Monkees were actually talented ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting

8 upvotes

Musicians, fwiw, are in the same boat. "There are good amateurs willing to give away their work just for the right to brag that they played gigs."

Any profession where there are low barriers to entry deals with this. You become great (a pop star), you find a niche where your combination of talents adds value, or you find another career.

1 upvote

Swift has the right of admission to her concerts. She can exclude or dictate conditions to photographers and journalists. She can ask for an admission fee, may censor the content or may claim the rights. But which pro would work under these conditions? If she wants control over the content, she has to pay for it. If she wants coverage for free, she has to let the pros do, and allow them to earn money with it.

0 upvotes

No the Monkees were not talented. In 1968 after 4 number one albums and one number 3 album decided they were talented and didn't need their songwriters, musicians and producers help. So they recorded Head all by themselves and it bombed. it was the beginning of the end for the Monkees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees_discography

2 upvotes

@ TSeiler...I mean that The Monkees could sing and play their own instruments whereas Milli Vanilli lipsinced (lipsynced??? whatever) other peoples vocals :)

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I don't call that talent. Yes they could sing but they could barely play their instruments. They were hired on the strength of their acting ability.

0 upvotes

As related to the subject as replies about the talents of the Monkees. I've been to horse shows where one photographer has sole rights to photograph all events. The show got some kind of rights to the photos and the photographer got sole rights to sell photos to the participants. At some shows more than one event was going on at the same time and the photographer could not cover them all. At one of the bigger horse shows I was stopped several times a day by security who would pretend to have an interest in photography to start the discussion but they would finally ask what kind of photos I was taking and what I was going to do with them. They ask because my camera was a big DSLR with a good lens. I wasn't interested in selling photos but it griped me to be stopped and questioned so often. Afterward you could go online and view photos taken of each contestant.The quality was often not that great.Many were of the "If I take 500 photos the rider is bound to like some of them" variety.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 56

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2015 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


PIX 2015: Brian Ach and getting the right shot Oct 29, 2015	PhotoShelter releases free professional food photography guide Oct 21, 2015	FAA reportedly developing mandatory drone registration system Oct 19, 2015	Vantage Robotics' new Snap 4K camera quadcopter is up for preorder Sep 23, 2015

150	Why do you want shallow DoF anyway?
134	PART 3 This Week Through your m4/3 2015.10.31
90	What should I do with my less-than-perfect photos?
63	My choice of camera is nearly always the Panasonic GM5
41	My dilemma: G7 X or G9 X?
40	Whats your main shooting mode 7D/7DII users?
38	Aspiring actor head shot! Comments and Critiques welcome.
37	Low light frustrations
37	Rule of Thirds, Why?
36	Tired of 200-500 BIF photos?
35	M10 price reduction, Canon getting serious?
33	You guys ever get intimidated?
32	Autumn in my neighbourhood
31	Image card corrupted after using Sigma Photo Pro 6.3 ????
30	Steve Huff and the LX100
30	I've been testing for shutter shock; interesting results
29	I just did something CRAZY
28	E-M1 getting an electronic shutter in firmware update?
27	Great expectations: Sony A7R II A7S II everyday carry lens?
27	Faulty 70D? Takes most of photos in good light condition at High ISO!