Well if you deny it....eh source that proves otherwise?pr stunt? eh no...source?
Well if you deny it....eh source that proves otherwise?pr stunt? eh no...source?
Taylor Swift needs to take a good look at how she deals with professional photographers that cover her concerts. She is much worse that what Apple was up to.
You think Apple has obnoxious contracts, take a look at the one she requires from the poor photographer:
http://www.diyphotography.net/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/
It's the lazy nature of debates these days, people will label others as fanboys/haters depending on the nature of the comment. I hate it when I see new members join and they get attacked for trolling cause they have an issue with a product and have criticised it. Or when reviewers get personally attacked cause they gave sub perfect scores , like in the case of the Apple watch, and in this case Taylor swift.
My advice, you will very quickly identify the people who are set in thier ways, and it's your choice to debate with them wasting your time, or ignore thier remarks. Be they pro apple or anti apple. The. Best ones are the ones in the middle.
I'm not going to buy anything Apple for 90 days.ts a timeout in the corner with the dunce cap on for that dumb move. I'm not going to buy anything Apple for 90 days.
Seriously? Do you even know what it takes to "sing" music? Let alone, write it and produce it? Thats a slam to artists from any field. Shut up.
I think Swift took a stand here against Apple because she was right and she and Big Machine suspected, correctly, that Apple would cave in. The outcry against asking all the music owners to donate their music for free for three months to every potential customer was huge. It seemed completely unfair. Especially when Apple can afford a modest payout (Apple has not said what they will pay for each stream. I suspect it will be less during the trial periods and that will strike people as a fair compromise.)
For photography, the copyrights are not so clear as for music.
For example, you take a photo of person on street.
Do you have a right to publish that photo?
Its quite ambiguous.
what are you talking about??Thank god we have you to judge us.
She lives there. So no, she is not a visitor. But that doesn't mean she should be an ambassador either. Can I move to Japan and be an ambassador in 6 months too?I guess the definition of the word "visitor" is confusing you?
This photography comparison is rubbish.. She is only doing the same thing there as she was with AM.. Protecting her brand and product and stopping others form exploiting.. It's her concert.. she is letting you in to take pictures for the publication you are working for, for which you are getting paid.. but stopping you from then making money off them for the rest of eternity.. It's like the studio engineer of one of her songs on 1989 expecting to get paid everytime the song is played on the radio..
However hard she sings them, pop songs are not arts. Arts are something that can be appreciated by centuries, not some American girls whining about their ex-boyfriends.
Except that what you're saying isn't true. We have the data. Streaming customers aren't buying music. There's been a huge acceleration in the decline of sales with the rise of streaming. Only 1 album has sold over a million copies this year: Taylor Swift and that album came out last year. Her album is not available to stream.
Taylor Swift isn't about to release a new album.
So actually pretty poor work by the PR department if you think she is.![]()
You are correct and it is not right. Some folks here commented that if the photographer does not produce, than they should not get paid. That is not the issue I was posting.That is pretty much a standard contract that the vast majority of big artists have had for years now - since long before TS broke through. I am not saying that it is right, though.
Jared, with all that I said that's all you could find a problem with.
Frankly this fall I am due to do a infrastructure upgrade. Been looking at the Factory Refurbished section and aiming my sights on a 27 inch iMac with Retina display, 16gb base memory and the 3TB Fusion Drive, also upgrading my Time Capsule to the 3TB version. Not a small purchase, I'm from that 60s Generation and my way of protesting something I think is so lame as what Apple did (with a Gee Look What We Are Giving YOU !! Look) the way I tell them not on my watch is financially. Apple's really great, but this move, they showed themselves to be really full of something I don't like... I'm also very disappointed how they pushed out Yosemite with so many bugs and instead of really fixing it all once and for all are bringing out El Capitan. I'm gonna hold onto my old gear and stay on Mavericks and just watch them from the sidelines for a while.
It's exactly like using all CAPS. I have no desire to read that.Please change your font. It surely doesn't make many of us read your posts more than other posts. It's the same as using all caps.
This kind of mentality really irritates me. In what way are you the copyright owner of your child's photos? You did not take them, so how exactly does the copyright belong to you over an art that you did not create? With how you describe it, why didn't you just take a shot with your cell phone? Then you'd be the "copyright" owner. But instead you've contracted it out to someone else ... why?
Peter,Please change your font. It surely doesn't make any of us read your posts more than other posts. It's the same as using all caps.
Ok, so not free but why are people trying to elminate spotify? That's a great service, free music with ads, everybody wins.It is if you make it.
Peter,
Sorry to burst your bubble young man but I am legally blind, the long effects of open field glaucoma. Don't have a driver's license, don't drive, don't own a car any more. I get the local Senior Bus to huff me to Walmart and Sam's stuff like that. A neighbor sometimes takes me other places if I pay for the gas. I'm not stuck on my opinion and if you notice my stuff is not in caps, just BOLD so I can SEE IT... I've had to explain myself to others in the past here so no offense taken on your comments. It is what it is. Enjoy what you have, the glaucoma crept up on me, they call it the silent thief of eyesight. You slowly lose your peripheral vision, the area your eyes see without moving them, and the actual eye sight. Glaucoma is high internal pressure in the eyeball, normal pressure is about 15-18. When they caught mine it was at 35. Drops help reduce the pressure and now I'm at about 9 but the strangling of the optical nerve and damage is irreversible. I got a lovely dog from a rescue shelter last year, a 4 year old papillon mix, ends up she had glaucoma so bad I had to have one of her eyes removed surgically, her pressure was 55 when they treated her.![]()
![]()
One of the reasons I don't like Yosemite is the fonts at the top of the computer page have been made so small and are not adjustable...
My best to you and the others here, let's get back on topic.
Taylor Swift isn't about to release a new album.
So actually pretty poor work by the PR department if you think she is.
Don't tell me - you're assuming she must have a new album coming out, because you've decided in your head that this is a PR stunt.
And you have decided it is a PR stunt, because for some as of yet unknown reason, you can't comprehend the idea that Taylor Swift might genuinely feel strongly enough about this to speak out about it.
And why might that be - is it because she is a woman?
Best gorilla marketing strategy ever.
Step 1: Create "trial" policy guaranteed to solicit reaction from Taylor Swift, media buzz, fans, etc.
Step 2: Let it simmer
Step 3: Emerge as the hero and "give in" to Swift
Step 4: Everyone knows about it and everyone thinks its good
She's a singer. Not an artist.