Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 5:57:18 GMT -5
What a great way to wield your power
Apple’s Eddy Cue has just announced that Apple Music will change its plan and pay royalties to artists even during its three-month free trial for users, following Taylor Swift’s public complaint about the policy. She had planned to withhold her hit album ‘1989’ from the service in protest.
We’ve learned that Apple made this decision to change its policy today. It will be paying an undisclosed royalty rate on a per stream basis to artist for the whole time that users are on the free trial.
Apple had planned to offer users a three-month free trial of its upcoming streaming Apple Music service that launches June 30th. However, it had negotiated deals with the major labels to not pay rights holders royalties during these trials and instead pay a tiny bit more in royalty rates afterwards.
Now in the wake of intense negative PR stemming from Swift’s blog post that bashed the policy, including my post earlier today where I wrote “Apple is acting greedy” and should pay up, the tech giant has recanted.
The move should help it improve the public perception of Apple Music and potentially pull in some artists that were boycotting the old payout structure. Those include artists managed by Beggars Group, which put out its own letter to Apple last week denouncing the royalty-free trial.
Taylor Swift Apple Music
It’s unclear what Swift and Beggars Group will do now that their demands have been met, though Swift did just tweet her thanks for everyone who supported her conviction, saying “I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.”
Swift previously pulled ‘1989’ from Spotify citing philosophical disagreements with its “free” ad-supported tier. Spotify also offers short free trials and extremely cheap $0.99 three-month trials. But a source with knowledge of Spotify’s deal structure tells me it already pays artists royalties during all its trial periods. It’s quite possible that both will pay artists at a lower rate during free trials than during normal subscriptions.
While it might be nice to think of Swift as a champion for all musicians here, Bloomberg Businessweek did recently report that she was in talks for exclusives with Apple Music. Those seem to have never come to fruition, so it’s a little suspicious that she’s now swinging so far the other way.
This morning I argued for why Apple should invest in the future of Apple Music by being more generous with artists and paying royalties during its trials. Apparently Apple agrees on some level. Check out that article for more on why this change of heart is a smart move for Apple.
Essentially: ■Apple has a huge opportunity to own streaming music, which could be very lucrative long-term. It just needs to invest now to grow a user base ■Apple has plenty of cash to subsidize the royalties of the free trial, so there’s little reason to be stingy as long as it can avoid regulatory scrutin ■The higher royalty rate it negotiated to pay to offset the free trial period, 71.5% or 73% compared to 70% that other services pay, doesn’t actually earn rights holders more money unless users subscribe for at least three years. It was a largely hollow concession ■These royalties are a user acquisition cost as Apple competes with Spotify, Google, and other streaming services. Artists shouldn’t have to pay for those, even if they benefit long-term from more people signing up for expensive subscriptions ■Apple Music isn’t well differentiated from competitors yet (though BeatsOne Radio and Connect have potential to give artists promotion and secondary monetization streams at scale). Winning favor with artists who withhold their best music from Spotify like Taylor Swift could give Apple Music an edge in the market ■If Apple Music satisfies its customers, Apple should have no problem recouping the upfront subsidy to royalties, and it can take on this financial risk much easier than musicians can ■Again, Apple has so much money that it’s worth the better product and good PR to just pay up!
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 8:01:27 GMT -5
Just Lyrics...
I have traveled far to be sitting here with you And I will leave this place alone That's a sad and simple truth There is so little time and so much to say And I'll be none the wiser When I leave you here today Is this all there is I wanted so much more The gold in those hills The silver of the moores And now that I'm here Looking you head on To the treasure that I left behind Is all I'll ever miss Oh the blame for losing love is blind Is this all there is It always stops me cold everytime I hear your name The friends that we have shared Know I'll never love the same I still hear your voice echo through my days Yet it never breaks my stride We would always end this way Is this all there is I wanted so much more The gold in those hills The silver of the moores And now that I'm here Looking you head on To the treasure that I left behind Is all I'll ever miss Oh the blame for losing love is blind Is this all there is We were really something Just holding hands and walkin Now, no amount of talkin Could lend this love a place to go Is this all there is I wanted so much more The gold in those hills The silver of the moores Now that I'm here Looking you head on To the treasure that I left behind Is all I'll ever miss Oh the blame for losing love is blind Is this all there is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 8:02:14 GMT -5
And moores?
There's a light out on the freeway, says it's time to go I'm wasting my time counting stains on a barroom floor Thinking 'bout my hometown and the friends I'll leave behind Mostly 'bout the man who writes his songs with smiling rhymes And I'm holding on to a smokey view of his dreams in the midnight light
Michael counts his songs in the years of wasted miles I used to think he was really part of that fantasy in rhyme But looking back on all his tunes of butterflies and sunshine, There was only one about the man he kept inside About the time he crossed the line and let a tear come to his eye.
I used to hide out in his pretty smile, And hope it would shine me through the morrow. Until I learned the way it feels to be the man Who sings the world a smile without a soul to share his sorrow.
The light here at the freeway, well, it's turning green to gold, The stains on that barroom floor ten miles back down the road. Thinking 'bout how that old bar brought Michael back to mind, And how I can sing his blues and be smiling here inside... I guess a weary soul will always sing Michael's smiling rhymes.
I used to hide out in his pretty smile, And hope it would shine me through the morrow. Until I learned the way it feels to be the man Who sings the world a smile without a soul to share his sorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 8:05:42 GMT -5
And finally 'tis...
(Stephen Collins Foster)
Let us pause in life's pleasures and count it's many tears While we all sup sorrow with the poor There's a song that will linger forever in our ears; Oh, hard times come again no more
Chorus 'Tis the song, the sigh of the weary Hard times, hard times come again no more Many days you have lingered Around my cabin door Oh hard times come again no more
While we seek mirth and beauty and music light and gray There are frail forms fainting at the door Though their voices are silent, their pleading looks will say; Oh, hard times come again no more
Chorus
There's a pale sorrowed maiden who toils her life away With a worn heart whose better days are o'er Though her voice would be merry, 'tis sighing all the day Oh, hard times come again no more
Chorus
'Tis a sigh that is wafted across the troubled wave 'Tis a wail that is heard upon the shore 'Tis a dirge that is murmured around the lowly grave Oh, hard times come again no more
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 10:19:11 GMT -5
Taylor is such a sweetheart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 13:22:08 GMT -5
Taylor is such a sweetheart.
Well... so are you Jo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 13:24:17 GMT -5
Let the Apples be thrown...I get to get my car from the collision center...yeahhh!
I'll leave you with the latest...
Right here on the TSC!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 13:26:45 GMT -5
Taylor Swift's Camp Responds to Photographer's Hypocrisy Claim
Taylor Swift doesn't like being called a hypocrite. Fresh on the heels of her rapid win against Apple over payments for artists during the free trial of the company's upcoming Apple Music, a British rock photographer accused the superstar of not practicing what she preaches. And just like Apple, she has already responded.
Apple Changes Course After Taylor Swift Open Letter
In an open letter published Monday, James Sheldon said that in order to photograph Swift in 2011 he had to sign away the rights to some of his images, giving Swift's management long-term rights to reuse them but handcuffing his own use beyond initial publication. "I can't use it in my portfolio, feature it on my website and even the original newspaper couldn't reuse it," he said.
You say in your letter to Apple that "Three months is a long time to go unpaid." But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity.
How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great -- make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?
Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.
Just like a multibillion-dollar corporation responding to a Tumblr post, Swift's U.K. team has already hit back at Sheldon's grievances -- though they appear to have mixed up tours. A U.K. spokesperson for Swift told Business Insider the "standard" photo agreement has been "misrepresented in that it clearly states that any photographer shooting The 1989 World Tour has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management's approval."
Sheldon's complaints pertained to a 2011 concert photo authorization form via Swift's Firefly Entertainment, and not for this year's tour.
Team Taylor went on to say "another distinct misrepresentation is the claim that the copyright of the photographs will be with anyone other than the photographer -- this agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer. Every artist has the right to and should protect the use of their name and likeness."
Sheldon responded to Swift's rebuttal on Twitter, but said she has missed the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 13:30:18 GMT -5
I believe that the photographer might be right...
Here's his link...I need to read it later!
twitter.com/Junction10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 15:31:04 GMT -5
An open response from the photographer to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple
Dear Taylor Swift,
I have read your open letter to Apple where you give your reasons for refusing to allow your album ‘1989′ to be included on their forthcoming Apple Music streaming service.
I applaud it. It’s great to have someone with a huge following standing up for the rights of creative people and making a stand against the corporate behemoths who have so much power they can make or break someone’s career.
For instance, you say:
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company
It is shocking, like you say, that any company should expect to exploit artists. It’s not on at all.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows
Ah.. but this is the thing Taylor, you say it’s not about you – but clearly it is. Why else would you make such a public statement about how you’re standing up for the rights of new artists and bands? Are you really supportive of other artists?
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
And this is the echoed sentiment of every professional photographer. Some are afraid to speak up for fear of being blacklisted by management and PR companies who seek to control the public perception of their talent.. For every artist that is in a secure enough financial and influential position to stand up against the likes of Apple without having to worry that Apple will publicly block your ability to earn a living from their iTunes market place, there are hundreds of professional concert photographers who don’t enjoy that security.. they don’t have the voice you do, and they don’t have the public favour that you have when it comes to demanding fair rights for their work, and they have a much higher risk of being prevented from working in future, not just at your shows, but any show which is connected by the same promoter, venue, PR, or management company.
Which brings me to the point of this open response to you. I admire your message, I really do. I just think it loses the gravitas it rightly deserves, because of this:
2011 Concert Photo Authorization Form Firefly rev 1 26 1100055994 2
Now.. forgive me if I’m wrong, but if you take points 2 and 3 in that contract (which is provided to Photographers who need to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets), it appears to be a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity. You say in your letter to Apple that “Three months is a long time to go unpaid”. But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….
How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great.. make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?
Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation
With all due respect to you too Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy. Photographers don’t ask for your music for free. Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.
Time to stop being ‘Mean’.
Sincerely,
Jason Sheldon
Edit: 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.
When I’m not allowed to do anything else with the photos, that means I’ve incurred expenses to work, which I can’t recover. Therefore preventing me from licensing my photos to more than one publication, or even (as later versions of this contract stipulate) preventing me from using the images for my own self promotion in a portfolio etc while they can use them without licensing the usage is highly unfair and unjustified.
It’s not the same as being paid a buyout for the job. Newspapers don’t pay big sums for concert photos.. Barely enough to cover expenses. That is why we rely on future sales to other publications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 9:31:49 GMT -5
I see that the photographer has now added in more information in his edit at the end of his letter. Which changes my reply because I also thought he was speaking as a contract employee.
No offense to this photographer, but how is this any different that the photographers who take school pictures each year? They go into a school, take pictures of individual people in the hopes that when they send out proofs, parents will decide to buy the packages they've already invested in taking, developing, printing and providing proofs for?
It also works the same way for the contractor's who sign up with colleges to provide individual graduation pictures. After graduation, you get the proof in the mail with a price list if you choose to buy it.
There's no real resale value on any of those pictures of everyday people.
Or....there are a million examples of businesses and business people who do work, give out samples in the hopes that you'll make a bigger purchase.
Which brings me to the Apple deal with Taylor again. I've heard now that the deal was that Apple wasn't going to pay the artists for the introductory three month period but in exchange for that they would pay them a higher rate after the introductory period.
Now Taylor, and any artist who so chooses can negotiate any contract to their own satisfaction and I fully support that. Be in charge of your own destiny and make smart business choices. Do the whole I'll give you this if you give me that negotiation. That's business. Music is a business.
I do want to add in an example here of how it can backfire though. The Dixie Chicks sued their label and had spent over a million dollars in lawyer fees. They finally settled with Sony and "Home" was released. Their settlement agreement with Sony was for them to pay promotional costs and in exchange they received a higher cut of the profits. I don't have the numbers handy now but I did the math along the way from the news coverage. As long as they sold about 6 million albums, they had a really good deal. So they likely broke even on "Home" because it was certified 6 million before the controversy.
For the next album, they decided to use the controversy itself for publicity so they did get a lot of free promotion from interested people who saw them as a cause. That was good for an album and it sure won them some grammy's. If they do another album as a group, they likely won't have the big media publicity machine in their corner pulling for them and they will still have the same gotta pay for promotional costs up front before any profits deal they fought to get.
There's a reason that artist contracts are loaded for the labels and music corporations. For every artist that makes a label money, there are a bunch of artists they lose money on promoting. Artists are there and gone so very often. I don't even remotely believe Taylor Swift will be...she's here to stay. But what is a good deal for Taylor might not necessarily be a good deal for lesser known artists. In the mix of the big names are always the people who are barely making it who want to have the exposure of their music on the Apple deal and are willing to have it be free for more pay in three months.
My point is that, Taylor should do what is right for her and I fully support that. It's what Garth did many moons ago. He owns his own music. That was his deal. I'm just not on board that what's really great for the best selling artists is good for all artists. In anything, it might help some newer artists if big names pulled out of some of the services because they might be noticed in the small vacuum that is created.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 9:47:03 GMT -5
Link: www.billboard.com/articles/business/6605673/apple-music-taylor-swift-blog-post-analysisTaylor Swift's 'Win' Over Apple Shows How Smart the Tech Giant Really Is By Glenn Peoples | June 23, 2015 10:29 AM EDT Apple's Sunday-night concession looks like a likely outcome to a predictable series of events. Two things stand out in Apple's announcement Sunday it will pay independent creators for 90-day trials. First, the preceding controversy was entirely predictable. Second, the end result was arguably predictable, too. A quick back story: Apple's initial licensing contract to independent labels and publishers would not have paid rights holders and creators for streams originating from the service's 90-day free trial period, which begins on June 30. As Apple svp Eddy Cue told Billboard, the company intended to pay rights holders by paying a higher royalty to compensate for the temporary loss of income. As one would expect, the independent community has been inflexible since receiving a proposed contract for Apple Music. A2IM encouraged its members to delay signing the contract. The Beggars Group as well as independent music groups in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Australia publicly expressed displeasure their displeasure with Apple's offer. Taylor Swift's Open Letter to Apple Music: Artists, Executives & Techies React One might wonder why Apple, as savvy a company as exists, failed to anticipate music industry backlash over its proposed deal. One might also wonder why a company renowned for its negotiating skill so quickly admitted defeat on this particular deal point. But perhaps this controversy is not what it seems. Another possible explanation comes from Sun Tzu's The Art of War: all warfare is based on deception. Apple was likely to foresee the controversy that would arise. This requires no special insight into the independent music community. This is the same group of rights owners that banded together to create Merlin, an independent rights organization, so independents could negotiate licenses with the leverage of a major music company. Many independent artists, namely Thom Yorke and David Byrne, have waged public relations campaigns against streaming services deemed not to support the people that create the music. It should have anticipated that its contract -- or at least the terms for the 90-day free trial -- would leak to the media. Rights owners, managers, artists and trade groups routinely utilize the media to raise awareness and comment on the licensing contracts of digital services. Recall that an independent label contract for iTunes Radio leaked before its launch in 2013. Earlier this year, Sony's 2011 contract with Spotify leaked, generating significant attention and controversy. Numerous independent artists, from Zoe Keating to David Lowery, have published details of their streaming royalties on their blogs. Brian Jonestown Massacre's Anton Newcombe to Apple Music: 'F--- These Satanic Corporations' If the controversy was foreseeable, the outcome must also have been foreseeable: Apple would end up paying rights holders for streams during 90-day free trial periods. This brings up an obvious question: why would Apple court controversy if the outcome were entirely predictable? One plausible theory is Apple was engaging in an act of game theory. By drawing attention to the 90-day free trial, Apple could have diverted rights holders' attention from other deal points (such as advances or minimum revenue guarantees). When Apple agreed to pay during the free trials, rights holders would feel they had gained a concession. In reality, Apple never expected to win that deal point. If this theory seems far-fetched, consider the alternative: Apple believed it wouldn't pay royalties on (likely) tens of millions of free trials, didn't anticipate a strong backlash, ended up conceding a major deal point, and, after agreeing to drop the deal point, said it would keep long-term royalties at their original level of 71.5 percent of revenue. That's a lot of missteps for such a successful company. Music Publishing Leader Says Revenues Down, Looks to Apple Music for Hope There's another wrinkle. Whether purposefully (more believable) or not (less believable), Apple's acquiescence to independent rights owners could end up harming its competitors. Not only will Apple pay 71.5-percent of revenue to rights holders -- greater than the standard 70 percent -- it has also established a new precedent regarding free on-demand streaming. Apple's original terms placed zero value on free listening. Agreeing to pay for free trials helps establish a value on that free listening. As a result, this could encourage rights holders to demand more from ad-supported listening (such as Spotify) and free trials or bundled (with telecom accounts) services elsewhere. It was also likely to have expected rights holders to demand more. Taking the first offer is a failure to negotiate. It's like negotiating the purchase of a car; the initial offer should anticipate a higher counteroffer and should be lower than your take-home price. Instead, the two parties proceed in a gave-and-take until an agreeable outcome is reached. Simply put, the first offer should not be the final offer. As such, independent rights owners should have been expected to want better than the first offer. The Taylor Swift event seems to have been an unanticipated but pleasant surprise. Industry reaction had since peaked by the time Swift wrote her Tumblr post, which quickly gathered international attention. It turned out to be a perfect moment to capitulate to the demands of the creative community, one that ensured Apple would regain the aura of a creators' champion that it has earned over the last 12 years. And given the timing of Swift's post, Apple would appear to have a change of heart on a slow Sunday -- Father's Day, no less -- rather than a news-filled weekday. However Apple got to this point, one can't deny the value of the resulting press attention. "Apple gets PR boost from Swift scolding," trumpets a USA Today headline. Indeed it did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 9:50:13 GMT -5
I'm going with the article I just posted because that's how business and negotiating works. It's from Billboard and it's their business to know and watch.
I do believe that Apple is happy with their play today. Look at the publicity they lucked into with Taylor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 7:41:34 GMT -5
I'm going with the article I just posted because that's how business and negotiating works. It's from Billboard and it's their business to know and watch. I do believe that Apple is happy with their play today. Look at the publicity they lucked into with Taylor.
Thank you Jo for your insight on this...it is very clear that this is about artists that have already made it...already have a following.
The poor artist that just wants to get their music heard...is simply out of luck...at this point.
People should be able to give their music away for free...or get paid if they want.
I feel that this is about the almighty dollar more so than artist integrity.
Now if Taylor puts her money paid by Apple into a school of music for the poor...the Apple pie will taste much better.
I do remember when Taylor first started where a couple folks from BMR went into a bar in Montana and cut the cord to the Juke Box...
because they weren't paying royalties...small story that went unnoticed...the bar started playing music for free for the customers.
I have a feeling that this opened up a can of worms...and I don't wanna fish!
|
|