Taylor Swift makes amends. A bit.

Shortly after Taylor Swift called out Apple on their attempts to make artists cover the costs of the three month Apple Music trials, Jason Sheldon pointed out that the terms she imposed on photographers weren't entirely fair, either.

While Apple crumbled overnight in the face of Swift's attacks, Swift has taken longer to respond to Sheldon but her people have just launched a new contract which goes some way to addressing Sheldon's worries.

The new contract does make clear that the camera people keep copyright on the pictures and will be credited if Swift or her team choose to use them on social media but it's still pretty restrictive.

Photographers versus Taylor Swift

After Taylor Swift won the battle with Apple to ensure that artists get to make money from their work, a photographer asked why her photographer contracts were okay, then:

“You say in your letter to Apple that ‘Three months is a long time to go unpaid,'” Sheldon writes. “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…”

He goes on to say, “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?”

Some people have been quick to defend Swift, saying it's unlikely that she's written the photographer contract. Which is true, but a person who is clearly in control of their career would at least have signed off on it.

The most egregious part of the Swift contract (itself not uncommon in the modern music industry) is that it gives Swift's management the right to smash people's cameras and equipment for non-compliance.

Now, the idea that a minor fracas over copyright could result in anyone deliberately destroying cameras might seem extreme, but it's not unusual. For example, if you purchase a ticket to a gig at, say, Southend's Cliffs Pavilion, the terms and conditions are written to allow staff to destroy your stuff:

The use of equipment to record or transmit audio and/or visual material inside the Venue is strictly forbidden. Unauthorised recordings, tapes, films or similar items may be confiscated and destroyed. Any recording made in breach of these conditions shall belong to the Venue and/or Promoter of the Event. Neither the Promoter nor the Venue will be liable for the loss, theft or damage to confiscated items.

As, increasingly, video and audio is being published to the web as it is consumed, either the Pavilion intends to march on Periscope servers with bats and torches; or else this is just basically a way to punish transgressors by smashing their stuff without any comeback.

Is Swift a hypocrite? Probably not - there's a wide difference between making musicians subsidise a major multinational's promotional campaigns and a photography landgrab, but it would be nice to see her take a lead in the question of photographer's rights in the same way she's taken on Apple.

Photographerobit: Alfred Wertheimer

Photographer Alfred Wertheimer has died, says his niece.

Wertheimer had a small but notable part in rock history - he spent six days with a young Elvis Presley, taking over 2,500 photos of the singer on- and off-stage. What's even more remarkable is that the photos were largely overlooked until the 1990s - nearly two decades into the Dead Elvis Industry.

Wertheimer also worked on the Woodstock movie, but it's the closeness to Elvis that made his career (and, indeed, paid off handsomely as the photos toured in later years.)

Kevin Cummins attempts to turn back the tide

Talking on 6Music, Kevin Cummins has said that people shouldn't take photos at gigs.

Oddly, Cummins is paid to take photos at gigs (and does it incredibly well), but I'm sure this isn't like the bloke who runs the food hatch suggesting you should never have your tea before going to the gig. Not at all.

The comments on the 6Music Facebook page fall, broadly, into three camps - people who don't see the harm in people taking a few photos of an event they've paid a lot to go to, to remember it by.

People who think that somehow not taking photos means that their experience is superior to that of those who do - because they're, like, living in the moment, maaaan. As if a quick glance at the back of a camera is akin to stuffing your fingers in your ears, leaving the building, and never coming back.

Third, there's a group of commenters - who are right - who say that it's probably more important to tell people not to go to gigs and stand in the audience yakkity-yakkkitying all the way through the set.

One things unites all three sets of people, though: the visceral hatred of the 21st century outcast, the person who videos the whole gig using an iPad.

Stone Roses want to snaffle photographers' rights

Given the bazillions of pounds being poured over The Stone Roses on the occasion of their reunion, how disappointing they've attempted to chisel a bit more by making photographers sign rotten contracts:

Photographers are planning to boycott the Stone Roses reunion concerts in Manchester this weekend in a dispute over the use of their images.

They claim a contract issued by the band is unfair as it expects them to surrender all rights to their pictures.

The National Union of Journalists is supporting the boycott.

The band's PR man, Murray Chalmers, is quick to deny there's anything wrong with demanding photographers hand over their rights:

The Stone Roses press agent, Murray Chalmers, said it is normal for contracts to be signed and, as far as they are concerned, "there is no boycott".

"We have a complete list, a full quota of photographers who are covering the concerts," he added.

Ah yes, if someone has signed a contract then it must, by its very nature, be fair. Although if you took that line, The Stone Roses would still be releasing records on Silvertone for tuppence.

Odd Future not fond of photographers

Odd "they were the future once" Future have added actual misogynistic behaviour to the let's pretend misogyny of their lyrics, hitting a female photographer. Venues Today reports:

A Venues Today freelance photographer covering the Voodoo Experience in New Orleans said she was slapped in the head by a rapper from the group Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All while taking photographs during the group’s daytime set.
[...]
[It was when] Tyler, The Creator came out that things apparently started to get ugly.

“He told the crowd that he hated photographers because the fans paid good money to see the band, and they should be up front,” she said.

His words seemed to rile a couple of rappers on stage, who walked over to the group of 30 to 40 photographers shooting the set. The rappers apparently started to try to pour water on the shooters' cameras and equipment. Photographers started leaving the pit, but [Amy] Harris stayed and kept snapping photos. That’s when rapper Left Brain, real name Vyron Turner, approached the photo pit and while standing on a stack of monitors, began hitting and kicking the photographers' equipment. Turner then turned his attention on Harris, slapping her in the head as she tried to take his picture, knocking the camera out of her hands.

"It literally knocked the lens out of the body of the camera," said Harris, who didn’t press criminal charges against the group, she said. “I had a mark on my face for a couple hours afterwards."

Other photographers in the pit have corroborated Harris' account, and the promoter of the event has issued a statement:

Marcee Rondan from the Mitch Schneider Organization has issued the following statement: "The Voodoo Experience does not in any way condone the behavior of Odd Future towards the approved media assembled in the photo pit during the band’s set yesterday. Festival organizers would like to apologize to their media guests who experienced and/or witnessed this abusive behavior."

Oddly, Tyler wasn't so anti-photographer when be snapped for the fawning NME cover story last year. Funny, that.

Photographerobit: Robert Whitaker

Roger Whitaker, who photographed the Beatles during their final tour, has died of cancer. The Guardian has a full obituary today.

Perhaps his most-famed Beatles-era work was this cover:

Beyonce: Hobbled

Oh, poor Beyonce. Arriving at a charity do at the New York Met, she decided she wasn't going to hang around for the photographers and only did a quick pose.

The photographers? They weren't happy, and started to boo her.

Unfortunately, Beyonce was wearing a hobble dress and, as she tried to get away, discovered that she couldn't climb the stairs.

Which meant that, in her bid to not spend too much time with the photographers, she wound up having to be slowly half-carried up the stairs while the camera pit continued to boo her.

The moral of this story? If you want to make a quick getaway, don't wear a fetish dress.

Lady GaGa thinks she's Southampton Football Club

Lady GaGa continues her downward spiral from hero to Madonna-wrapped-in-meat with an attempt to force photographers to give her their work:

In addition to standard release restrictions regarding the use of images shot at her concerts, the document states that any photos taken at the show become the property of Lady Gaga. This an especially bold demand as the government has established that copyright exists the moment when a work is created, which in this case is the moment when a photographer clicks their shutter button.

According to Rolling Stone, there's actually a less-restrictive release being presented to photographers from larger organisations. That makes it look even worse - not just an attempt to grab rights, but a calculated attempt to only grab the rights from smaller organisations who don't have the power to fight back.

It's starting to look a lot like the funny smell wasn't coming from the meat dress.

Hands and Hague

Thanks to Jim W for this email:

Wandering around the Ox Union and spotted this lovely snap of a future Foreign Sec with his mate, the thoroughly lovely Guy Hands, behind him.

For some reason both are next to the scraggly historian EP Thompson.

Condition of the English Record Label, etc.

And here's the photo...

What a lovely vision.

Lady GaGa will snap

For Lady GaGa, vanity fashion and perfume lines aren't going to satisfy her. Oh, no, she needs to spread her probably-real-swans'-wings wide and so she's doing something with Polaroid:

“I am so proud to announce my new partnership with Polaroid as the creative director and inventor of specialty projects,” said Lady Gaga.

“The Haus of Gaga has been developing prototypes in the vein of fashion/technology/photography innovation – blending the iconic history of Polaroid and instant film with the digital era – and we are excited to collaborate on these ventures with the Polaroid brand.

Lifestyle, music, art, fashion: I am so excited to extend myself behind the scenes as a designer, and to as my father puts it — finally, have a real job.”

Inventor? Inventor?

The second paragraph of GaGa's sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Polaroid, who know something of their own iconic history, you'd have thought have struggled to bring together instant cameras and the digital era, and so it's unclear what hope GaGa has. Indeed, things are so grim at Polaroid they're, erm, reduced to stunts like this.

Naturally, Polaroid are trying to make it sound like this isn't simply slapping a fmaous name and a picture of a woman wearing a bra made from spoons on the box:

Lady Gaga “will be involved in everything from concept to product design to marketing”, Polaroid is aiming for a Christmas 2010 launch of a line of Lady Gaga-branded products.

Products? Plural? That she'll be involved in "everything" with? She's going to be spreading herself very thinly, isn't she?

Them Crooked Vultures: No pictures, please

It's something of a forlorn hope on the part of Promowest that they can turn back the tide of technology.

People going to see Them Crooked Vultures (John Paul Jones, Dave Grohl, Josh Homme and a desperate hope that people don't see the words 'supergroup' as a dire warning) are being told to leave their cameras at home:

NO CAMERA’S ALLOWED DURING THIS PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CELL PHONES. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT TAKING PICTURES YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DELETE THEM. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT A SECOND TIME, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DELETE THEM AND ESCORTED OUT OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Back in the 1980s, sure, you could spot someone with a camera and bully them. But when everyone at the gig will have a phone with a camera built in, how is this even going to work?

Janes Addiction come up with workaround for photographers stealing their soul

Janes Addiction are delighted to have photographers come up and take pictures of their shows.

Oh, providing they sign paperwork passing all copyright in any pictures they might take straight to the band.

Which kind of misses the point about professional photographers, don't you think?

Bookmarks: Some stuff to read on the internet: SXSW

It's worth keeping an eye on Mark McNulty's photoblog - he's in Austin, but taking photos of stuff away from the stages. (He'll be doing the bands too, though.)

Sleeve values: Courts block CD cover

There's a bit of a battle taking place in the US between The Arizona Daily Star and the Awful Truth; a judge has ordered an injunction against the band using a photo from the paper on their sleeve pending a full consideration of the copyright issues.

What makes this interesting is it's not, for once, about the money, but about the rights of an artist (in this case, the photographer and the newspaper) to not have their work used in a way which harms them. The picture is off two policemen kneeling over the body of a third, murdered, policeman; the album's title is Kill a Cop for God. You can see why the paper might be worried at any suggestion they were relaxed about the image being used in that context.

The Awful Truth, for their part, claim that the picture falls under fair use protection - that the courts have granted an injunction suggests the judge doesn't think so.

You'd have to hope that the band would see sense before it comes to court - regardless of the copyright issues, putting the rights of a musician to use a photo ahead of the rights of the family and friends of a murdered person to make some kind of point. Even if you believe you're in some sort of war, you should respect the fallen of the other side, surely?

Lily Allen is upset with the New York Times

In fact, she believes that:

The New York Time are cheap skanks

So cheap, there's only a single Time, it seems.

Lily is annoyed that the New York Times syndicated the photos it took of her for a piece in the magazine.

There's a lot of scene-setting in Allen's complaint. An awful lot. Here's a quick canter through what you have to wade past:

So, something has been really bugging me [...] Ambrosia my press agent and friend called me very excited [...] the cover of their Arts section. [...] goes without saying The New York Times is an incredibly prestigious publication [...] would fly in from New York, hang out at my house [...] feel more relaxed and then we’d go out for dinner after [...] she was called Milena and she [...] showed her round [...] an ISSA patterned all in one, louboutins, hoop earrings [...] got out her Dictaphone [...] interview for an hour, hour and a half [...] this restaurant called the Wolsley [...] a bottle of wine I wasn’t really drinking at the time [...] I decided to let my barriers down [...] Wiener Schnitzel [...] Duck [...] shared a pickled cucumber salad thing [...] left Milena with my friend Louis [...] she and Louis seemed to get along [...] my email address and contact details [...] all she need do is ask, and I bid them both farewell [...] a little awkward about her paying for dinner, but she insisted [...] a photographer whose name escapes me came round to the house to take a picture to accompany the NYT piece, [...] piece was so intimate and the biggest part of the interview had been conducted at my house [...] allow photographers into my home [...] special circumstances and after all TNYT is one of the most respected news publications in the world. [...] article came out [...] a really nice piece with a picture of me sat on my sofa, on the cover of the arts section. [...] I saw Milena was in New York [...] Bowery Ballroom and had an after party [...] I thanked her for the article as it was very complimentary ,it’s not often people write nice things about me.

So, with all that detail, you might be wondering what it is that Milena did to her. Did she make up a story that Lily doesn't have a plug and fresh in her bathroom? Did she double-dip the shared pickled cucumber?

Now I want to be clear, this has nothing to do with Milena she is a reporter and that is all. The reason what I’m about to tell you is so hurtful is because I had a really nice time with her and I feel that I will only ever feel badly about that day in London from now on .

Yes, after wading through a small novel about the interview, it turns out that the complaint is actually about the photographs. Still, I guess it's important for Lily to mention a couple of times that the New York Times is a prestigious newspaper which put her on the prestigious front page of its very, very prestigious arts supplement which is known around the world for its prestigiousness.

The problem is that New York Times syndicated the photos and they appeared in OK. Because Lily never signed a contract with the company to say they couldn't.

She seems to think that by selling photographs they had obtained openly and fairly, the New York Times has done something wrong - quoting their response:

I am sorry to say that we have no record or recollection of your client or her representatives ever requesting any restriction on our exploitation of the photographs. Indeed, it is not our general policy to accede to such restrictions, so it is certainly not something we would have agreed to without a written agreement confirming such arrangement.

As the copyright owner of thousands of photographs, a significant part of our business, like most news organizations, is the syndication of photos to third parties. This is very standard in the news business and I'm sorry that it comes as a surprise to your client. Under the circumstances, we are unable to provide you with the assurances you have requested.

I do hope, however, that our correspondence sheds some light on this issue for your client's future arrangements.

Nobody would want their photos to appear in OK unexpectedly, but Allen - or rather, her press agent - appears to not have understood the way things work. She also doesn't seem to have understood the response from the New York Times, either:

Uuuuurrggh , so patronizing, and gross. The world has become a dark place when The New York Times considers OK magazine to be “the news business”. Sorry if that made for tedious reading but, I think the NYT have behaved really badly and I wanted to vent .

The Times doesn't say OK is in the news business - it says that selling on photos is common in the news business. Which is true.

It's unfortunate that OK then used the pictures to imply that Allen had spoken to them - that is wrong (and actions for which OK have apparently apologised to Allen). But selling on of photos is usual (that's how picture libraries function, Lily) and if you don't want it to happen, you make that clear before the shoot. To try and imply some sort of unfairness after the fact is like complaining that someone stole your purse when you left it on the bar while you went to the toilet - however sympathetic an observer might be, you left yourself wide open.

But you know what really hurts Allen?

It’s one thing posing for a picture fro TNYT and wholly another letting OK into your house, and I didn’t even get paid ☹

Bookmarks: Some stuff to read on the internet

There's an evocative end-of-an-era photo-essay on the Creative Review website. Spencer Murphy trails round Soho's independent record shops, recording the last gasps of a corner of culture:

“Actaully another thing happened a couple of months ago,” adds Augur. “You know the bottom of Berwick Street, opposite Somerfields? That bottom corner has been demolished. It’s gone. We’ve got some photographs of that building but it’s completely gone now. So while the project’s about six years late, it’s incredible to think that since we took the shots, two of the shops have gone and the bottom of Berwick Street has disappeared. I’m really glad I finally got round to doing the project.”

Pink: something must be done

Pink has issued a dire warning that if something isn't done about paparazzi photographers soon, something tragic might happen. Like, ooh, maybe a drunken chauffeur driving too fast in a tunnel, pursued by photographers, and crashing, for example. (Presumably Pink hadn't heard about that whole business.)

For what it's worth, Pink doesn't think its fun any more:

“I feel like something tragic is going to have to happen for people to wake up and see how vulturous and poisonous it’s all gotten. Before it was kind of silly, how stupid everyone was. Now it’s just kind of sad and dark; it’s all gone to a totally different place.”

And not solely because they don't seem to be taking pictures of Pink as often as they used to. Oh, no.

Martin, camera have bitchfight

It's only a few days since Gwyneth Paltrow revealed her love of gossip magazines and the gossip they shared. It always seemed like a hostage to fortune, and - having spent some time in hospital - it seems the Martin family's amused tolerance of the lower-shelf producers has run out.

Indeed, Chris has indulged in a spot of decidedly non-pacifist photographer bashing:

The photographer claims that Martin attempted to steal his camera, but was forced to give it back after being wrestled to the ground.

It's a bit rubbish to attack the photographers you court at other times anyway; but if you're going to do it, at least make sure you can beat the sods. There's nothing more humiliating than not only not stealing one person's photos, but then being photographed being beaten up by the paparazzo.

Bjork re-releases greatest hit

Much as the return of Trevor McDonald to the News At Ten reminds you of happier times while feeling sympathy for his plight today, the news of Bjork attacking a photographer at the airport takes you back, doesn't it?

Herald photographer Glenn Jeffrey said his shirt was ripped all the way down the back by Bjork, who was with a man who had asked Jeffrey not to take photos.

"I took a couple of pictures... and as I turned and walked away, she came up behind me, grabbed the back of my black skivvy (long tee shirt) and tore it down the back," Jeffrey was reported saying in the Herald.

"As she did this she fell to the ground. At no stage did I touch her or speak with her," he said.

The man accompanying the singer said to her: "B, don't do this, B don't do this."

Mind you, it's really rude to take pictures of Bjork when she's not dressed as a swan or Aphrodite or plutonium.

It's 11 years since Bjork last attacked someone in an airport.