They are photographers who were paid to do a job. They were paid to give the photographs to their clients to use as the clients chose to use them. They were paid to be contractually bound to give up the photographs they were paid to take. They were paid. They were paid. They were paid.
What part of "freelance, they're PAID when someone BUYS their photographs" didn't you get? Swift is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and develop computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the software applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.
This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.
Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.
I wonder what you think about this quote from the photographer in question:
Quote:
it seems the circumstances of the contract aren’t clear to some readers, who assume this is a work for hire contract presented for being hired and/or paid by Taylor Swift.
That is not the case.. As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it. Therefore, if the newspaper has a bigger story to run and doesn’t have enough room to use my photo, I don’t get paid.
Sounds to me like he wasn't "work for hire" as many seem to imply.
This is from a lawyer who deals with rights related to photographers and their works.
Quote:
In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.
The photographer in question has posted up his actual contract. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in that contract it states he was paid as a "work for hire" or that he received money for actual being at the concert and shooting the photos.
The photographers are freelance. They're not on a salary.
Swift cares for the little guy when her bottom line stands to be affected. Not any other time.
Freelance doesn't rule out being hired. Copyright in photography and video is complex but if hired to do a job it can mean all rights are the clients' if you are working as a camera for hire. If a freelance takes some footage / shots on his own time then sells them then the rights can be retained or sold but it gets murky if he/ she was on a hire job at the time. I had many a run in over this when dealing with pick-up cameramen and photographers on ESPN shoots. The answer is make sure everything is clearly spelled out in a contact at the start.
The article was updated to clarify that the photog wasn't working for TS but attended the concert on his own accord and with his own money to photograph her in hopes that he can sell his photos to a publication.
Look out as apple gains the support of the heavy weights in the industry, if the other streaming subscription services weren't fazed before, they're probably trembling now.
You have to figure apple new they'd have to pay the artists royalties from the beginning, it was a stepping point they explored. I can't wait for the service to start!
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and </span>
develop<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the </span>
software<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.</span>
read his post next time -- the freelance photographer doesnt get paid for taking the pictures. he only gets paid if the publication uses one of the pictures they sent him there for. if someone bombs the world trade center and they dont run the Swift photo, the only way he can recoup his lost time & expenses is by selling the photos he took. Swift is blocking that.
They are photographers who were paid to do a job. They were paid to give the photographs to their clients to use as the clients chose to use them. They were paid to be contractually bound to give up the photographs they were paid to take. They were paid. They were paid. They were paid. :wow:
wrong, wrong, wrong.
do yourself a favor and read the fucking article you're criticizing.
do yourself a favor and read the fucking article you're criticizing.
You and others who have been vocal about my criticism of the photographer are either naive or purposely choosing to be blind.
The photographer KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY signed a contract to do a job. The contract stipulated the photographs the photographer shot would be perpetually owned by the artist. Instead of walking away from the restrictive contract, the photographer chose to accept it.
He signed his name on the "dotted line." He was not forced to sign the restrictive contract. He freely chose to sign the restrictive contract.
The photographer chose to focus on Taylor Swift NOT on any other client who has a very similar contract that he has KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY signed. Why? Because Taylor Swift is the hot property of the moment and he can get free publicity attacking her and morons like you will gleefully side with him.
I have reached out to the photographer on Twitter and ASKED one very simple question... Is the restrictive Taylor Swift contract the only one you have signed? As expected, I have yet to receive a response from the photographer.
You and others want to take his word at face value that he is a victim. He is not a victim. He is using this opportunity to land more jobs that have similar contracts.
If he really has an issue with about not being allowed to sell photographs he is contractually bound to not sell, he could just choose to show his disillusionment by not signing another restrictive contract for any client from this day forward.
Taylor Swift womened-up and removed her music from streaming services because she felt the music should be paid for. I sincerely doubt this photographer will man-up to do something similar.
The photographer could just walk away. But he does not. He keeps going back for more and more and more.
This photographer is not a victim. He is seeking attention. You are giving it to him.
Did I just read "Metallica" and "early opponents of the digital music revolution" and "this is about getting the music out to the fans" in the same article?
Doesn't anyone remember ol' Lars from "NAPSTER BAD, METALLICA GOOD"?
Not that they shouldn't be compensated for their work. However, they were a huge speed-hump at the dawn of digital music.
Comments
They are photographers who were paid to do a job. They were paid to give the photographs to their clients to use as the clients chose to use them. They were paid to be contractually bound to give up the photographs they were paid to take. They were paid. They were paid. They were paid.
What part of "freelance, they're PAID when someone BUYS their photographs" didn't you get? Swift is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Metallica just got themselves a new fan. ????????
http://radio.com/2015/03/20/metallica-financial-trouble-biographers/
As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and develop computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the software applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.
This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.
Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.
I wonder what you think about this quote from the photographer in question:
it seems the circumstances of the contract aren’t clear to some readers, who assume this is a work for hire contract presented for being hired and/or paid by Taylor Swift.
That is not the case.. As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it. Therefore, if the newspaper has a bigger story to run and doesn’t have enough room to use my photo, I don’t get paid.
Sounds to me like he wasn't "work for hire" as many seem to imply.
This is from a lawyer who deals with rights related to photographers and their works.
The photographer in question has posted up his actual contract. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in that contract it states he was paid as a "work for hire" or that he received money for actual being at the concert and shooting the photos.
The article was updated to clarify that the photog wasn't working for TS but attended the concert on his own accord and with his own money to photograph her in hopes that he can sell his photos to a publication.
Ahh, Metallica. Takes me back to the days of "Money good, Napster bad!"
You have to figure apple new they'd have to pay the artists royalties from the beginning, it was a stepping point they explored. I can't wait for the service to start!
"Well-connected analyst in the Far East says Apple preparing purported iPhone 6S as Samsung Galaxy Edge S6 looms"
read his post next time -- the freelance photographer doesnt get paid for taking the pictures. he only gets paid if the publication uses one of the pictures they sent him there for. if someone bombs the world trade center and they dont run the Swift photo, the only way he can recoup his lost time & expenses is by selling the photos he took. Swift is blocking that.
so your work-for-hire analogy fails.
wrong, wrong, wrong.
do yourself a favor and read the fucking article you're criticizing.
wrong, wrong, wrong.
do yourself a favor and read the fucking article you're criticizing.
You and others who have been vocal about my criticism of the photographer are either naive or purposely choosing to be blind.
The photographer KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY signed a contract to do a job. The contract stipulated the photographs the photographer shot would be perpetually owned by the artist. Instead of walking away from the restrictive contract, the photographer chose to accept it.
He signed his name on the "dotted line." He was not forced to sign the restrictive contract. He freely chose to sign the restrictive contract.
The photographer chose to focus on Taylor Swift NOT on any other client who has a very similar contract that he has KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY signed. Why? Because Taylor Swift is the hot property of the moment and he can get free publicity attacking her and morons like you will gleefully side with him.
I have reached out to the photographer on Twitter and ASKED one very simple question... Is the restrictive Taylor Swift contract the only one you have signed? As expected, I have yet to receive a response from the photographer.
You and others want to take his word at face value that he is a victim. He is not a victim. He is using this opportunity to land more jobs that have similar contracts.
If he really has an issue with about not being allowed to sell photographs he is contractually bound to not sell, he could just choose to show his disillusionment by not signing another restrictive contract for any client from this day forward.
Taylor Swift womened-up and removed her music from streaming services because she felt the music should be paid for. I sincerely doubt this photographer will man-up to do something similar.
The photographer could just walk away. But he does not. He keeps going back for more and more and more.
This photographer is not a victim. He is seeking attention. You are giving it to him.
Doesn't anyone remember ol' Lars from "NAPSTER BAD, METALLICA GOOD"?
Not that they shouldn't be compensated for their work. However, they were a huge speed-hump at the dawn of digital music.