Taylor Swift Cares About Apple Music More Than She Cares About Struggling Photographers

Corporate Conspiracy?
Many speculate that Taylor Swift's open letter to Apple Music was a PR stunt.

It’s a good day for people who want to throw money at Taylor Swift. It’s still a bad day for everyone else.

After much pretty much forcing Apple Music to revise their payment policy to musicians during their free three-month trial period, the “Bad Blood” singer has decided to finally allow her latest album, 1989, to be included on the streaming platform.

She writes on Twitter Thursday:

While this is a win for indie musicians and fans who are vying to make TayTay an even richer millionaire, those who are still struggling to earn a buck — say, the photographers at her concerts — are still well under-compensated.

Previously, photographer Jason Sheldon called Swift out for making all her concert photographers to sign an agreement which forbids them from using their photos in their own portfolios or licensing their work out to an outlet not approved by her team. He explained that the contract has terms that not only make it impossible for them to be properly compensated for their images, but also give Swift and her team the right to use their work in any promotions without paying for them. (In essence, he was calling Swift a hypocrite for championing fair compensation despite enforcing unfair payment tactics herself.)

Well, it seems there’s even more legal drama as a newly leaked contract from Swift’s 1989 World Tour not only contains the hotly debated “rights grab” clause, but that it also suggests the singer and her companies may “confiscate and/or destroy the technology or devices that contain the master files of the photographs” should they fail to comply with any part of the agreement.

“This contract is particularly egregious in that it not only contains an all out rights grab on the photographers’ work,” Joel Goodman, who posted the authorization agreement online, says, “whilst limiting their editorial control and ability to earn from that work — and does so without compensation — but because it does so under threat of criminal damage or destruction of property.”

Swift has yet to respond to her restricting photo policy.

Hmm. So who’s really sticking up for artistic rights, huh?