Well done Taylor Swift !

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1434958408' post='2804033']
Nice to be in a position to tell Apple to f*** off.
[/quote]

Yeah? Well, f*** you in all!

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1434974092' post='2804254']


Spotify pay me 0.0004p per play. They currently owe me 40p that I can't withdraw because the amount is below the minimum withdrawal limit. That's an awful lot of plays to get 40p, how many other 40p's are they sitting on around the world ?
[/quote]

You've had 100,000 plays on Spotify?

[Marvin]

[quote name='Mickeyboro' timestamp='1435044121' post='2804817']
He is not bring commissioned though is he? He is a freelance whose trade is being restricted
[/quote]

He was being hired by a publication. If he doesn't get paid for the photos he took don't get used that's between him and the publication. Swift, clearly regards her image as she does her music and wants as much control as possible. If she wants control over where her image appears that's entirely up to her. The photographer states that taking photos at concerts barely covers costs, so don't do it. Doing certain gigs for bands isn't economical, so they don't do it.
His reasoning doesn't stack up.

[ambient]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1435048063' post='2804848']


You've had 100,000 plays on Spotify?


[/quote]

1000, that's since last year though. Coming up to 4000 on soundcloud.

[Skybone]

Taylor's double standard's as reported on the BBC News site: [url][url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33232244"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...ingham-33232244[/url][/url]

[No lust in Jazz]

I wouldn't say 'Double Standards' nor would I say 'Publicity Stunt' I would say that every step of this will have been calculated by her management.

[r16ktx]

[quote name='stingraybassman' timestamp='1434986078' post='2804431']


Absolutely agree, everyone comes out of it looking a little bit better. Smells off.

Cynical view maybe, but I'd be amazed if it was as it has been told.
[/quote]
Yeah, I get the feeling it's Swift's mouth moving but the words are not entirely her own...

[quote name='72deluxe' timestamp='1434999364' post='2804616']
...also, Apple CEO typically gets paid $1 a year, for tax purposes I think?
[/quote]
Or another example of 'exposure'? :->

[tauzero]

[quote name='Mickeyboro' timestamp='1435044121' post='2804817']
He is not bring commissioned though is he? He is a freelance whose trade is being restricted
[/quote]

Yes he is being commissioned, as a cursory read of the article shows:

"Sheldon told [i]Amateur Photographer[/i] that he was commissioned by a regional newspaper to shoot a Swift show in 2011, and that the contract issued by Firefly Entertainment Inc (which is affiliated with Swift) stipulated he had to agree to a single use of his images."

So it was all up-front and open, and he could choose whether to take up the commission, knowing that there would be no future income from it.

[chris_b]

If this is a restriction on what was previously the norm, and if this change is reducing the earnings of photographers, then I'm on the side of the photographers.

Corporate bullying from Apple, Tesco, Taylor Swift Inc or anyone else is never justified or acceptable.

[karlfer]

I've managed to live without ever buying from Apple.
It was clear to me from very early on their pricing was a rip off and frankly not something I would tolerate.
Fair price for buyer and seller? Up to both parties to consider their requirements.

Music industry for most new creative's is basically shagged, imo.

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1434974092' post='2804254']

Spotify pay me 0.0004p per play. They currently owe me 40p that I can't withdraw because the amount is below the minimum withdrawal limit.
[/quote]
[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1435052481' post='2804889']
1000, that's since last year though.
[/quote]

[i][b]Exercise 1.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply 0.0004p by 1000.

A. 0.4p

[i][b]Exercise 2.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply £0.0004 by 1000.

A. £0.4 which is also known as 40p.

[i][b]Exercise 3.[/b][/i]

Learn to distinguish between pounds and pennies, especially if you hope to earn a living from music.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1435061473' post='2804991']



[i][b]Exercise 1.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply 0.0004p by 1000.

A. 0.4p

[i][b]Exercise 2.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply £0.0004 by 1000.

A. £0.4 which is also known as 40p.

[i][b]Exercise 3.[/b][/i]

Learn to distinguish between pounds and pennies, especially if you hope to earn a living from music.


[/quote]

So a million plays would net me £4000! And all I have to do is put my song on spotify and hit play a million times. I could get someone to write a macro or something and put it on my old PC and just leave it clicking away.

These people who say there's no money in music. Talking out their arses.

Edited June 23, 2015 by skankdelvar

[ambient]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1435061473' post='2804991']
[i][b]Exercise 1.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply 0.0004p by 1000.

A. 0.4p

[i][b]Exercise 2.[/b][/i]

Q. Multiply £0.0004 by 1000.

A. £0.4 which is also known as 40p.

[i][b]Exercise 3.[/b][/i]

Learn to distinguish between pounds and pennies, especially if you hope to earn a living from music.


[/quote]


Your reply comes across as rather condescending.

But thanks for thinking my rubbish would get 100, 000 plays though

Edited June 23, 2015 by ambient

[Happy Jack]

So what was the 'p' symbol for?

[ambient]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1435072407' post='2805128']
So what was the 'p' symbol for?
[/quote]

Well the p stands for pence, the 0 before the decimal point would be pounds, pretty obvious to me, but I'm obviously a bit dim.

I wouldn't go around quoting other members posts, and leaving pedantic and condescending replies that may cause offence though.

I've opted to ignore your posts by the way

Edited June 23, 2015 by ambient

[ras52]

Ooh I do like a good bit of pedantry

£0.04 = 4p

0.04p = four hundredths of a penny

£0.04p = nonsense!

[LayDownThaFunk]

[quote name='No lust in Jazz' timestamp='1434977952' post='2804318']
Having read through the 'News' at lunchtime it wouldn't surprise if the whole episode has been fabricated to the benefit of both parties.

Swift - She has some new product out, which now has been discussed in the News.

Apple - They're right on and care.
[/quote]
1989 came out last year...

[No lust in Jazz]

[quote name='LayDownThaFunk' timestamp='1435082865' post='2805317']
1989 came out last year...
[/quote]

Thanks, I stand corrected...

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Having read through the 'News' at lunchtime it wouldn't surprise if the whole episode has been fabricated to the benefit of both parties.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Swift - She has some old toss out, which now has been discussed in the News.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Apple - They're 'right on' and care. [/font][/color]

[Mornats]

Apparently there's a lovely new clause in the photography contract. If you break the rules of the contract Taylor Swift's management are allowed to break your gear. Although having read it, it seems to refer to the memory cards and any other storage device the images are kept on rather than your camera and lenses.

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/23/taylor-swift-photo-contract-break-our-rules-and-we-can-break-your-gear/

So, is she gonna send a love-letter to Apple asking if she can smash the iPods of anyone listening to her music without following her rules?

[tauzero]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1435092072' post='2805455']
Apparently there's a lovely new clause in the photography contract. If you break the rules of the contract Taylor Swift's management are allowed to break your gear. Although having read it, it seems to refer to the memory cards and any other storage device the images are kept on rather than your camera and lenses.

[url="http://petapixel.com/2015/06/23/taylor-swift-photo-contract-break-our-rules-and-we-can-break-your-gear/"]http://petapixel.com...reak-your-gear/[/url]
[/quote]

Well, I can't see that being of relevance except to section 1, which says what the limitations are on the photography - no flash, no sneaking round backstage, etc. It would be pretty stupid to destroy a memory card after the photos had been downloaded from it and then put in the cloud.

And no-one's mentioned the bit that says "Without written consent from FEI or the artist and/or her authorised agent(s), the photographs will not be duplicated...", which to my razor-sharp mind, implies that if the photographer were to say "Can I sell the photos to The Sun?" to FEI/Taylor Swift/her agent then they might well say "Yes". The time for him to start whinging is when they say "No".

[Mornats]

In one of the photography articles, there's a comment by an events photographer (which I can't find right now) who explains the situation that's getting the photographers riled up. So, a publication will commission the photographer to do the shoot at a gig. Later on, the publication says nah, we don't want those photos so under the terms of our contract we won't pay you. I believe this is fairly normal. So what the photographer then does is to go out and sell the photos to other publications to make back their costs and earn some part of a living. It's this last part that Taylor Swift's management company are preventing the photographer from doing. Seems a bit unfair to the artist (the artist being the photographer) and this whole shebang came about by Taylor standing up for stuff that was unfair to artists. I truly believe she's right in doing what she did with Apple - she's standing up for the rights of artists to be paid. But it does seem that she's only applying it to the type of artists that she herself is part of, and not other artists. These other artists, well her management company is cutting off a revenue route for them quite on purpose. Now I *think*, but can't honestly recall if this is 100% accurate or not, that the management company rarely, if ever, gives out permission to resell the photos elsewhere. Can't remember completely, sorry!

The destruction of the memory cards clause seemed harsh to me. Enforcing the removal of the images is one thing, but some photographers buy very high-end memory cards and record images to two separate cards inside the camera. You could be talking a few hundred quid just for those cards. I know the photographer here would have broken the contract but it still seems rather heavy-handed.

Also, Apple were all upfront and honest about the three month free trial of Apple Music but that didn't stop Taylor Swift. She could have just said to all the indie artists, well you know the rules, you know there'll be no income for the first three months and if you don't like it, don't put your music there.

I'm quite hopeful that Taylor will try to make the photography contracts fairer to the photographers once she's looked at the ins and outs of the contract.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Mornats

[tauzero]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1435095174' post='2805505']
The destruction of the memory cards clause seemed harsh to me. Enforcing the removal of the images is one thing, but some photographers buy very high-end memory cards and record images to two separate cards inside the camera. You could be talking a few hundred quid just for those cards. I know the photographer here would have broken the contract but it still seems rather heavy-handed.
[/quote]

I agree it seems rather OTT, but also it's hardly going to be used unless the photographer has breached the bit about where he can go and what he can photograph. After all, if he subsequently sells the images on without permission, they're not going to still be on those memory cards, so that clause is irrelevant.

I'm not saying that it isn't a poor agreement. I think it is poor. What I was saying is that it isn't anything like an exact parallel to the Apple situation.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='plumbob' timestamp='1434957275' post='2804024']
Whether you like her or not I think this young lady has bigger gonads than a lot of established stars .
Definietily has her head switched on , and not the first time she has made a stand , if we had more people like this perhaps the music industry business model for artists wouldn't be the shambles that it currently is !

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33220189"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-33220189[/url]
[/quote]

Alright, I'm going to pin my colours up right now. I'm an Apple fan. I like their computers, laptops, and phones. I think they're easy to use and they integrate very well with my lifestyle. I like them so much that I've recently received an order worth £3,000 of new Apple gear.

But I'm also a music fan, and have been for many years. I've been working in the music industry for a while now, and been a keen observer for much longer. I'm a hobby musician myself. But along with that, I'm a businessman. I study business. I'm involved in business. To me, music and business are 2 things that can co-exist harmoniously (but sometimes don't, I admit). And I want music and business to exist together, because I love them both. They both give me a sense of fulfilment.

Given my knowledge and experience on all 3 aspects of this particular situation (Apple, Music industry, business practices), what really winds me up the complete f***ing wrong way is when spotty little idiots who haven't had to deal with the pressures of business, or know anything about the music industry, try to tell me that Taylor Swift is wrong to demand royalty payments for the free trials.

Everyone needs to know - Taylor Swift was not wrong. She may not need the money. She may be wrong on a lot of other things, but here, she has hit the nail on the head. We're all aware of the pressures that musicians face with so many shysters asking to use music/play gigs for free under the guise of "free publicity", we all know that streaming services offer woeful remuneration to the artists themselves (although make major bucks for the labels). This is probably one of the toughest times to be a fully committed artist if you aren't on a major label. And I don't think there's enough recognition that recording your first album [i]is not the start of your music career[/i]. Up until any recording artists releases their first album, they'll have had to deal with years of practice, years of playing in pubs, and trying to make a name for themselves. Years of dedicated musicianship and a massive personal investment in personal growth, and in equipment.

Then they'll have had to deal with actually trying to be a legit musician. Trying to make a living from that. Seeing every little step as a success in itself. You made £250 from Spotify last year? Good on you, chap! It's not a lot, but it's a step in the right direction!

It's tough. Some on here know that. Earning enough from people listening to your music for you to support yourself and your career... that doesn't happen overnight. And regardless of who the artist is or whether I like their music, well done to them, because that's commitment. That's a level of risk that I wouldn't take.

And there's just not enough respect for that. That some companies would approach those people and say "Can we use this? We won't pay you, but you'll get free publicity!", as if 1) publicity will turn into payment and 2) these companies couldn't already afford to pay for the music, that's simply disrespectful and downright underhand.

Now let me give you some facts about Apple.

Apple comes under fire for making everything out of aluminium, rather than plastic. Does anybody know why that is? Aluminium is hard-wearing, durable, and above all, highly recyclable. When my computer is done, it can be melted down and the aluminium can be reused. They'll get >98% of the aluminium back out of it, and save a great deal of energy by recycling it.

Apple also excludes many harmful chemicals from its production, making nearly the entire computer recyclable and non-harmful at the end of its life.

Apple also supports many humanitarian causes, and puts pressure on their suppliers in China to raise the working conditions like no other company can.

I'm not saying Apple are perfect, but they clearly do have ethics. And I see it as a great insult to the people who make music their life's work, and to me as a consumer of music, to not fairly remunerate these musicians for the playbacks of their music. Apple will lose money for this, but let's remember that they are one of the largest companies in the world, and have billions in cash reserves. At this point, Apple could literally buy any company that it wants, and that is not hyperbole.

Let's also remember that Apple must bear the burden of investment in their new service. They're the ones who created it. They're the ones who stand to make most from it. Not the musicians. Anyone who attacks a musician because they want the royalties during the free trial is a moron. It's Apple's business - the investment is theirs. The musician already invested so much in their musical abilities.

Also - who gives a 3 month free trial anyway? Honestly, I've never seen that before. Most offer 1 month free, and that's enough to get people hooked.

Honestly, I feel so let down by 1) Apple, who have a reputation of supporting creative types, 2) Apple fans who moronically nod and say "Seems fair to me", and 3) people who have no knowledge of the music industry or business feeling that they're appropriately equipped to give a well-rounded opinion on the subject (i.e. those still saying Swift is wrong, and Apple are wrong to now pay royalties during the free trial).

In closing, I have no doubt that Apple's music streaming service will be a big success. Apple just draws a crowd on whatever it does. I also have no doubt that the remuneration for artists will be better. But do not give me this bullshit about it being too expensive for Apple to pay royalties during the free trial. If a company wants to give away something for free, that's fine, but don't try to make other people foot the bill for it. Apple can well afford it, and shame on them for trying to get out of paying artists, and shame on anyone who says Taylor Swift shouldn't have made the case.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1435435971' post='2808842']
Alright, I'm going to pin my colours up ... [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]spotty little idiots ... [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]many harmful chemicals ... moron ... aluminium ... [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]bullshit ... shame on them[/font][/color]
[/quote]

Outstanding post and one with which no reasonable man could disagree.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1435441152' post='2808883']
Outstanding post and one with which no reasonable man could disagree.
[/quote]

Thank you. Although I do recognise that your abridged version of my post puts the point across in a much more succinct way.

I've just read my post out on Periscope, just to make people aware, and I've also prattled on for an hour about the importance of valuing your time and labour in whatever you're doing.