| |
Celeb News: Taylor explains Apple Music decision
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
|
Wow, that truly was one huge failure at a clapback. According to him, she should ask him for rights of her own image and stage set-up. She isn't even hiring him, but allowing him to take photos for other publications, etc.
"But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again"
Does he really want to be paid more than once for taking a photo of her on her own show, when she didnt even hire him in the first place? He truly tried it
Then again, it says that the company will have worldwide right to use the photos FOR ANY NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, meaning they wont be re-selling their photos, but allowing their use for free. Apple's purpose is definitely commercial, even if they are not charging for a given time-period. A true, laughable failure indeed!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 8,704
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alestevens
Wow, that truly was one huge failure at a clapback. According to him, she should ask him for rights of her own image and stage set-up. She isn't even hiring him, but allowing him to take photos for other publications, etc.
"But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again"
Does he really want to be paid more than once for taking a photo of her on her own show, when she didnt even hire him in the first place? He truly tried it
Then again, it says that the company will have worldwide right to use the photos FOR ANY NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, meaning they wont be re-selling their photos, but allowing their use for free. Apple's purpose is definitely commercial, even if they are not charging for a given time-period. A true, laughable failure indeed!
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 8,704
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
Rachel Planten? Borns?
 |
DOLLAS SIS 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Toxicity.
ugh she already is. The biggest seller in music going up against Apple like this. woo this is already so iconic. This is like her vs Spotify but even bigger.
And the media is mostly agreeing with her and dragging Apple
 |
But people & the media will still most likely use Apple Music
While on their Apple products
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
|
Because Label see what the positives of the deals are, you have to take risks inorder to be successful, as long as Major Labels are supporting it then it'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/9/2010
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GotSkill
If this was genuine it would have been a fantastic letter
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
|
oop the expose
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 19,418
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GotSkill
If this was genuine it would have been a fantastic letter
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/21/2011
Posts: 1,785
|
My main problem with her statement(as an owner of four Taylor albums and a fan who's attended two of her concerts) is how richly ironic it is coming from someone whose team has had 95% of YouTube videos of her tour removed, harassed fans online, filed petty lawsuits, trademarked/copyrighted every possible thing for profit, and had her Rock in Rio live stream taken down at the last minute with no explanation(after which Taylor passive aggressively shaded fans online for having the audacity to call her out on the BS). Taylor is in charge of her team and there's no reason they would do those things other than greed and money being prioritized over fans. She's been so self-righteous and focused on money this era that it's incredibly hard to take her seriously when she says it isn't about her and she's hardly ever talked about any of these struggling artists in the past so for her to suddenly care so much about them now that she can be grouped in with them just seems so fake. Also, it's not a coincidence at all that she's only removing 1989 and hasn't said anything about her other albums.
Quote:
Originally posted by cloudinthesky
That's entirely dependent on the artist and the type of deal they have. Independent artists don't have a label to go through, so they get paid directly from Apple/Spotify/whatever streaming service, and the pay is still abysmal. There have been leagues of indie artists who have spoken about how low their payouts have been even without the label as a middle-man. We're talking fractions of cents here.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
*tweets*
|
These are vaild points that I won't argue with(Antonoff is extremely well off and hardly an underground artist though), thank you for discussing them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
"Taylor's so greedy she just wants even more money she doesn't even care, she's speaking about this yet she's a multi millionaire? lmao so transparent"
she's speaking about this and and taking her music off because her statement actually means something to people, no ones gonna care or even know if the actual artists most affected by this do or say anything she is representing those people who don't have the power to speak for themselves and be heard. Also,REGARDLESS if she actually cares or not this is helping out those people this is getting people talking and at the very least validating these artists frustrations. |
This doesn't absolve her greediness though, and your point about helping out these artists is valid but it does matter if she cares because if she doesn't then she's being phony and hypocritical, and doesn't deserve heaps of praise. Also, I get that artists have to make a living but music is first and foremost a medium of expression, not another spoke in the wheel of capitalism. If an artist is more passionate about the money than they are about their music being heard(which streaming helps to achieve) then I have to question why they're a musician in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/25/2012
Posts: 41,860
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Caesar
oop the expose
|
This is not a very well thought out argument.
For starters, you ARE being paid for the product you are selling the artist. You take a picture. You sell it to Taylor. Transaction complete. It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.
If I’m a roofer, I don’t charge you every time it rains. I build your roof, you pay me. Done.
A streaming service is a different beast. A tangible good or a digital file is not directly being purchased. The only way for the artist to receive payment is for a royalty to be paid every time a song is streamed to the consumer. Alternatively, you could purchase Taylor’s album on iTunes, download it, and forever have the digital files. You don’t continue to pay Taylor in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 8,569
|
She is being dumb but oh well. The three month trial is simply an introduction to entice the consumer. It is to help launch the service lol. Really not a difficult concept.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
My main problem with her statement(as an owner of four Taylor albums and a fan who's attended two of her concerts) is how richly ironic it is coming from someone whose team has had 95% of YouTube videos of her tour removed, harassed fans online, filed petty lawsuits, trademarked/copyrighted every possible thing for profit, and had her Rock in Rio live stream taken down at the last minute with no explanation(after which Taylor passive aggressively shaded fans online for having the audacity to call her out on the BS). Taylor is in charge of her team and there's no reason they would do those things other than greed and money being prioritized over fans. She's been so self-righteous and focused on money this era that it's incredibly hard to take her seriously when she says it isn't about her and she's hardly ever talked about any of these struggling artists in the past so for her to suddenly care so much about them now that she can be grouped in with them just seems so fake. Also, it's not a coincidence at all that she's only removing 1989 and hasn't said anything about her other albums.
|
This is the best thing I've read in 24 pages. 
I'm glad there are still Taylor fans on here that do not bow down to everything she says and writes, regardless of whether they really agree with it or not.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
My main problem with her statement(as an owner of four Taylor albums and a fan who's attended two of her concerts) is how richly ironic it is coming from someone whose team has had 95% of YouTube videos of her tour removed, harassed fans online, filed petty lawsuits, *a: trademarked/copyrighted every possible thing for profit, and *b: had her Rock in Rio live stream taken down at the last minute with no explanation(after which Taylor passive aggressively shaded fans online for having the audacity to call her out on the BS). Taylor is in charge of her team and there's no reason they would do those things other than greed and money being prioritized over fans. She's been so self-righteous and focused on money this era that it's incredibly hard to take her seriously when she says it isn't about her and she's hardly ever talked about any of these struggling artists in the past so for her to suddenly care so much about them now that she can be grouped in with them just seems so fake. Also, it's not a coincidence at all that she's only removing 1989 and hasn't said anything about her other albums.
|
a: She copyrighted phrases and lyrics that she was going to use afterwards, just so she wasnt going to get sued for their use. It is just legal protection, she and her team sure have learned a lot about this and dont want this to happen again: http://www.lucky13.com/blog/taylorswiftlawsuit/
b: Bruno Mars only streamed the first 3 songs off his set at Rock In Rio the day after that, and it was announced a few hours before the show happened (just like Taylor), and no explanation was given (just like Taylor). But no one was caught complaining about that (unlike with Taylor)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
This is not a very well thought out argument.
For starters, you ARE being paid for the product you are selling the artist. You take a picture. You sell it to Taylor. Transaction complete. It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.
If I’m a roofer, I don’t charge you every time it rains. I build your roof, you pay me. Done.
A streaming service is a different beast. A tangible good or a digital file is not directly being purchased. The only way for the artist to receive payment is for a royalty to be paid every time a song is streamed to the consumer. Alternatively, you could purchase Taylor’s album on iTunes, download it, and forever have the digital files. You don’t continue to pay Taylor in that scenario.
|
Hmm, sis, I don't think you quite understand his argument, or how photography rights & licensing work. I suggest you take a careful read over the article again, and maybe spend some time on Google learning more about this complex thing.
Here is a cute link to get you started: http://photography.about.com/od/copy...hotorights.htm
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by beautiful player
Hmm, sis, I don't think you quite understand his argument, or how photography rights & licensing work. I suggest you take a careful read over the article again, and maybe spend some time on Google learning more about this complex thing.
Here is a cute link to get you started: http://photography.about.com/od/copy...hotorights.htm
|
Dont blame him, he just copy-pasted a comment from the link.
By the way, that photographer is actually allowed to sell the image 1 time to a certain magazine/publication or whatever, after that, the rights of the image go to that company in the contract and they are allowed to use it as they please for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes
By the way, here is a little more insight on the matter:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity
"Right of Publicity: an overview
The right of publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion."
As the contract clearly says, that company allows him to use Taylor's "likeness" for commercial purposes 1 single time. After that, they can do as they please with the photo AS LONG AS THEY DONT SELL IT, because it is HER IMAGE and she holds exclusive rights to that, just like i hold exclusive rights to my image and you hold exclusive rights to yours. Either way, it is still a very complex matter so we could argue for the rest of eternity with no one being right at all.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/21/2011
Posts: 1,785
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alestevens
a: She copyrighted phrases and lyrics that she was going to use afterwards, just so she wasnt going to get sued for their use. It is just legal protection, she and her team sure have learned a lot about this and dont want this to happen again: http://www.lucky13.com/blog/taylorswiftlawsuit/
b: Bruno Mars only streamed the first 3 songs off his set at Rock In Rio the day after that, and it was announced a few hours before the show happened (just like Taylor), and no explanation was given (just like Taylor). But no one was caught complaining about that (unlike with Taylor) |
a. It sounds like that could have been avoided("I had contacted her representatives before I filed this lawsuit in hopes of working things out....") but fair enough
b. One situation doesn't invalidate anger over the other, and Bruno has a considerably smaller fanbase. Maybe Bruno fans were upset over it like they had the right to be, just like Taylor fans had the right to be upset when fans who were anticipating it and fans who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to see her in concert were denied the chance to see her perform.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 55,626
|
my goodness
Taylor really has this thread at 24 pages. Some interesting arguments on both sides though
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,683
|
taylor doesn't care about "struggling artists" or "fairness." she cares about making the most money possible, bottom line. everyone who is praising and agreeing with her better not have been in the threads dragging tidal because this is the exact same issue.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
a. It sounds like that could have been avoided("I had contacted her representatives before I filed this lawsuit in hopes of working things out....") but fair enough
b. One situation doesn't invalidate anger over the other, and Bruno has a considerably smaller fanbase. Maybe Bruno fans were upset over it like they had the right to be, just like Taylor fans had the right to be upset when fans who were anticipating it and fans who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to see her in concert were denied the chance to see her perform.
|
Yeah, his fans were indeed upset, but the media didnt blow it out of proportion as it truly wasnt a big deal, and ATRL just conveniently pretended it didnt happen despite ruthlessly dragging Taylor for the same issue less than 24hs before. Sure, it was a confusing situation, but as i said before, livestreaming the 3rd show of your tour is lowkey stupid, and rarely anyone does that. First, because everyone would have seen your tour in HQ quality before even attending, and second, because you wouldnt be able to sell the exclusive rights of your show to any TV broadcaster like most Pop concerts these days do. I was mad at her for that at first, but it took nothing but a moment and an ounce of common sense for me to understand the decision.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/20/2011
Posts: 3,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
