An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple

* Updated : Following a statement released by Taylor Swift’s UK agent, I have responded here*

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.  

(For reference:

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’. 


Jason Sheldon 


515 thoughts on “An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple”

  1. Well said Jason to meny Big Arist are now happy to try and rip off Photographers. They soon forget what it’s like to be skint and tring to make a living.

    Liked by 17 people

    1. excuse me for sending this post from a burner account, but i thought that this story may be interesting to you.

      it is not the same case as this ones, however it does hold some weight when it comes to taylor swift being hypocritical when it comes to the art of photography.

      if you look at the images and the screen shots, it is pretty clear that not only did taylor steal the photo, she did not even say she was going to do so to the photographer. she blatantly stole the image and used it to boost her likeness and branding.

      loved your letter,
      hope you find this story interesting.


      Liked by 9 people

    2. What you Photographers forget is that, like Apple, you are parasitic. Unlike Apple, it’s symbiotic, but still, your photos of Ms. Swift would be of no particular value without her talent and that of the dozens of other paid professionals that help her look and sound great. So you’re gettng use of her talent, her fame, her celebrity, and her image. You aren’t paying HER for that, so why should she be paying you to use images of her own person?

      She stood up for all musicians and artists (including photographers) with this, and has the clout to make a difference. That someone would disparage her for doing so is questionable at best.

      Liked by 4 people

    3. This has me thinking. There was a piece that was on Last Week Tonight (admittedly comedy news) about revenge pornography, and how women, in order to get those pictures taken down had to essentially take nude pics of themselves and get a copyright, in order to have those photos removed from those websites.

      So my question is: if the Taylor Swift brand have such a copywright over images of her performances or even just images of her aren’t they asserting their rights by making sure they can track those images?

      I understand that photographers are artists as well and that it is more than the subject of a photograph that makes for a compelling image. But, do you pay the people who are in your photos?

      Liked by 3 people

    4. Well said. I’m a wedding officiant in NJ, and I am so appreciative of any photos that my event photographers send my way. I always try to give appropriate credit and links and go out of my way to recommend my faves.

      Taylor Swift is fast becoming the Kardashian of the music industry; anything for publicity.

      Liked by 4 people

    5. To all those who aren’t getting why this is a big deal, let’s use a metaphor to explain the situation the photographers are in:

      Imagine Taylor Swift was commissioned to perform her song ‘Blank Space’, for a cost of $10,000, once in front of the Sultan of Dubai. She will be paid the money by a third party, ‘Royal Life Magazine’, which is interested in covering the life of the Sultan. Pretty good, eh? $10,000 to perform one song.

      Except, Taylor gets a contract saying that she can only perform the song once, but cannot ever perform it again after performing for the Sultan. She can’t perform the song on Kimmel Live, can’t perform it on tour, can’t perform it on MTV, or KROQ, or on her YouTube channel, her personal website… not anywhere else. She’s had her one use of the song, that’s it.

      MEANWHILE, the contract insists that the Sultan, who has paid Taylor no money, is free to use ‘Blank Space’ as much as he likes. He can play it every time he’s on TV, whenever he’s coming off of a lear-jet, he can film TV commercials and use the song, he can make his own films and use the song as a backdrop to that film…

      Would Taylor sign such a contract? Is such a contract respectful of her as an artist? Or is she getting a raw deal here? Does she rely on being able to exploit ‘Blank Space’ across multiple mediums (radio, Vimeo, iTunes, Best Buy) to make a living?

      Think about this metaphor. Photographers are creative artists. Don’t be the Sultan, Taylor.

      Liked by 5 people

    6. Shouldn’t the photographers’ disagreement be with the agency hiring them to spend their own money and time without promise of sufficient recompense?

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Do creative people need to be Taylor Swift before big Tech listens to The Rights of The People in The U.S. United States Patent and Trademark Office Office or in The U.S. Copyright Office? If so, then I need more Facebook “friends” or followers. How about Google? Yahoo! and other Powerful Tech Companies? Do they respect it? Wait three (3) months and we’ll tell you if you getting paid or not…LOL

      Liked by 5 people

  2. I’m sorry but your point is not very valid, you’re drawing a flawed analogy. I get what you’re trying to say and you have a good idea but the way you’re trying to support it doesn’t stand up to scrutibity

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I absolutely concur with Hhh. Your mixing “apples” and oranges. The apple issue is one of legal nature. When a song is copyrighted and then subsequently released, royalties are legally due to both the artist/band and the copyright holders (typically those who wrote the song). By apple choosing to not to pay those royalty payments, they were in direct conflict. Apple was simply trying to cover the cost of marketing a free trial period for their site at the expense of the artists and Taylor was 100% correct for standing up, not only for herself, but all music artists and composers of music.

      In your case, you trying to draw a similar conclusion, but the reality is that Taylor is not preventing you from being paid. She’s simply controlling HER image and associated rights, which is 100% in line with all copyright statutes and law. She has the legal right to control distribution, by whom and to whom.

      Sorry, but you’re barking up the wrong tree.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. If you have to attack someone’s spelling or grammar it’s because you have nothing better to say in retort. It’s a little pathetic, unsympathetic to simple typing errors and extremely ableist to those with dyslexia or similar difficulties.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. cl8onshuttle actually is not “ad Hominem”

      Wikipedia page is wrong. Argumentum ad hominem means against a man. “Ad Hominem” example:

      Mister X – A is vegetarian.
      Lady Y reply – Hitler was vegetarian too then A is evil like Hitler

      Actually Ropodope used a “diversione”. He moved the argument from the analogy between musician and photographer to the correct spelling. The subsequent analogy could resemble an “ad personam” but there is no correlation with the main argument.

      And my response is a total win by “retorsio argumenti”.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. That’s a work for hire contract. If Apple hires Taylor Swift through a work for hire contract and pays her upfront for exclusive rights to the work, they can have it.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. That is NOT a work for hire contract … for starters it doesn’t specify any payment from Swift to the photographer.

      That applies to any and all freelancers who want to attend the concert.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. A work for hire contract is when someone pays you for work you do for them.

      Here Taylor Swift isn’t paying the photographers.

      In order for them to get access to her concert to do their job trying to get photos for a newspaper, or media source, she’s telling them she can own their work.. for FREE and although they’re not allowed to let any publications use their work more than once, ever, she’s allowed to destroy the market for their work by giving it away for free (even though she didn’t pay for it) to any publication.

      This is a horrible, horrible practice, and part of what’s made it impossible to make a living as a concert photographer.

      I applaud this letter

      Liked by 3 people

    3. Additionally, she’s actually preventing photographers from doing their jobs.

      Most clients will want perpetual rights to republish their articles these days for compilations, etc, and newspapers literally can’t run photos they can’t get these rights to.

      In addition, this policy shows taylor swift doesn’t understand how photographers make their rent, OR she expects that musicians, producers and writers deserves to get payment for their work traditionally when their music is played or re-used, yet photographers don’t deserve payment when their images are shown.

      Taylor swift wouldn’t expect to write a song, and have one fan pay for it once, then have an agency give it away for free, yet she is asking photographers to allow one client to use the photo once, then give the rights to her for free, and never allow any other clients to also use the photo (which is how photographers, like musicians, actually earn a living).

      I hope this does a good job of explaining why this is being brought up when she’s talking to apple for musicians to get paid.

      To photographers… she is our apple.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Um then change your contract? Your the one that PUT 2 and 3 there. Change it? If you didnt, tell your boss. She didnt ask. Ypu put it forward. Just sayin.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. “while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….” Sorry, I didn’t get that from #3 which clearly states their rights “FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE”.

    So if I correctly read between the lines, you got this as part of a response to a “press pass” application. One where you get a free ticket into the show and can bring equipment to document that show for a pre-qualified publication that you work for (either staff or freelance) as long as you abide by the conditions set forth above. Not really sure what you’re complaining about… Shoot the gig according to the rules or stay home. If I were Taylor Swift, I wouldn’t want 80 trillion shots of my shows appearing on iStock for $1 either, it devalues the brand. This is FAR different than her calling you up and asking to shoot 3 months of her tour FOR FREE. Further, I bet she already has a photographer on staff, making great money. You are not that photographer, so you cut the best deal you can with the most lucrative publication you can find, and be happy they aren’t handing out press passes like candy at a parade, or you really would be shooting for free.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. True. Whatever the point of the photographer is, the thing is Taking photos and wanting publicists to buy it is like being in a contest, you either win or lose. It’s different from offering your music to the public. Sorry, but it’s just so wrong to compare.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. The “non-commercial” phrase is deliberately misleading, as the list of “non-commercial” uses include commercial use, such as promotion material.

      In other words, Firefly Entertainment, Inc, acquires a gratis, perpetual license to use the photographer’s work.

      If you don’t see the problem with this, I guess you’ve never tried to make money from any kind of art or service.

      Liked by 8 people

    3. Jim, I think you misinterpret “non-commercial use” in the contract. It means Taylor Swift will not resell the photographer’s work. The contract allows her unlimited use of the work for her own commercial purposes, such as public relations.

      Liked by 7 people

    4. JIM. Hit the nail ON THE HEAD. If I pay to set up a show, and you want to photograph the show, you are entitled to NOTHING. TS may agree to anything she chooses to, but this is NOT like your right to go take pictures of a National Monument. This is a PRODUCT. She owns her brand fully, and it is crazy to think that someone on that tier of the industry WOULDN’T be highly restrictive. It is not hypocritical. She’s entitled to the benefits of her work. You are not entitled to the benefits of her work.

      Liked by 1 person

    5. You don’t see the hypocrisy, Jim? It’s pretty obvious. I too have shot far bigger acts than Taylor Swift and frequently had to sign according to these bands’ T&Cs, but none have been half as restrictive or plain greedy as this one.

      Liked by 5 people

    6. It may not be an equivalent situation, but the point is still valid that it involves taking people’s work and expecting to use it without paying them for it (forever) and at the same time restricting them from using it more than once! Why is that necessary? So don’t give out so many press passes if you don’t want too many pictures floating about. And if you have your own (paid) photographers then you don’t need to use other people’s work without paying them for it. I’m sure there are ways to address concerns about having their pictures sold nilly willy all over the place without the kind of draconian restrictions in that contract.

      Liked by 4 people

    7. In reply to DAP: “Whatever the point of being a photographer is…”– let me stop you there, saying there’s a “point” seems to question the integrity of concert photographers, and it’s insulting. Photographers are artists, just like musical artists, and all other types of artists. It’s simply ignorant to think you can just point a camera and get an amazing photo (this can happen every once and awhile, but all photographers know that with no technique or knowledge of composition, your photos will, frankly, be shit)– as if photography is simply a hobby that anyone can do. If that were the case, people wouldn’t hire photographers to take the photos they need, they would take the photos themselves. Do you think you can just walk into a room and casually shoot a high-fashion shoot as well as Annie Leibovitz? These photographers build up their names because they’re talented artists who have a passion for what they do–similar to the “indie” music artists Taylor is standing up for who are breaking into the music scene. It’s NOT wrong to compare, because when it comes down to it, we are simply talking about artists getting paid for their hard work. Suggesting that a photographer going to a Taylor Swift concert is solely taking a photo to give to a news site for money cheapens it. Yes, freelance photographers seek out press passes and compensation from different press companies, but as a freelance photographer a great way to build up your portfolio and gain experience is concert photography. On the same note, a photographer may just enjoy concert photography over other types of photography. Photographers just want to pursue their love and passion (just like musical, fine, graphic, etc. artists do) but they need to get paid, as well. It’s not “like being in a contest”, “win or lose”, it’s “work hard to perfect your skills, then showcase those skills through press or personal outlets to gain more clientele and keep your dream alive”. Please respect the job of photographers instead of trying to cheapen it to something along the lines of a kid with an Elph who’s just trying to make a quick buck.


  6. This is not a very well thought out argument.

    For starters, you ARE being paid for the product you are selling the artist. You take a picture. You sell it to Taylor. Transaction complete. It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.

    If I’m a roofer, I don’t charge you every time it rains. I build your roof, you pay me. Done.

    A streaming service is a different beast. A tangible good or a digital file is not directly being purchased. The only way for the artist to receive payment is for a royalty to be paid every time a song is streamed to the consumer. Alternatively, you could purchase Taylor’s album on iTunes, download it, and forever have the digital files. You don’t continue to pay Taylor in that scenario.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. “It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.” So why should a radio station have to pay every time they play it if they buy the cd in the first place?

      Liked by 5 people

    2. They are not demanding your work for free. You get a free ticket, access to a special place to take your pictures and you can sell them afterwards. Factoring in the ticket prizes etc. that´s a good deal for you. How often was your work used by the management? Is there a reference to you when they do?

      Liked by 3 people

    3. A free ticket? You mean kept outside, until escorted in to shoot songs 2 and 3, then escorted out. Access to a ‘special place’ and sell them afterwards? How is doing my job a good deal for me when the artist wants to use my photos without paying for them? I don’t go to work for the benefit of a ‘free concert’. I go to work so that their PR company can justify charging the artist a retainer for publicity “they” have generated in the press, for which I am contributing to, and expecting to be paid for.

      Liked by 7 people

    4. I agree with you. The original blogger’s logic is completely off. You, Mr. Roofer, are absolutely correct in your logic. You’re comparing apples to apples. He is not. And, I’m a photographer. So I understand his biz. If someone licenses a photo that’s taken of any artist, this contract says the photographer will be paid for a one-time use of that photo – if it is picked up. That ensures it doesn’t show up in some unrelated context, goodness knows when and represented in goodness knows what context without authorization. Well, a lot of businesses produce merch on spec, hoping customers will buy their products. That’s the risk of business. And, businesses (including freelance photogs) get tax deductions to help cover some of the costs of doing biz. It doesn’t matter either whether you think your ‘product’ is better than someone else’s. That’s irrelevant. What matters is who is willing to buy. And the terms under which they are willing to buy. This contract is very clear in its terms about licensing any given photo that’s optioned for pay for a single use.

      Liked by 2 people

    5. You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not about whether my photograph sells or not.. it’s about the fact that Ms. Swift objects to Apple demanding the right to distribute her music to every new customer for a period of 3 months, without having to pay her a dime.. giving her work away for free.
      Her restrictions on photographers say that she demands the right to use photos without paying the photographer, and even more, GIVE them to the very publications that photographer normally earns a wage from, forever – while additionally preventing the photographer from being able to use his own work ever again… She’s telling Apple she doesn’t like them giving her work away, while she’s happily reserving the right to give everyone elses work away…

      Liked by 5 people

    1. Neither paparazzi or work for hire but a freelance who was commissioned by a newspaper. This is not a work for hire contract, but a contract presented to every photographer who are commissioned to photograph her shows.

      Liked by 4 people

  7. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not intimately knowledgeable about the photography profession but I suspect trying to compare photographic licensing to music licensing is about as misaligned as trying to compare game licensing to music licensing. For example, developers of apps on the iOS store get 70% cut, which is different to what musicians get paid, who are in turn producing a product that is sold in a different manner to photographs. To try and put them all in the same category is a bit disingenuous. Yes, photographers get a raw deal at times but an opinion piece like this may not win you much support.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. In all of those cases, the person developing the product does not lose the rights to their product.

      As a photographer, it is the shittiest possible experience to be told “We’re only going to pay you $350 up front, because that’s what the picture is worth! And then we’re done paying you because the picture is now ours to use.” by a publication. Every time they print it now, every time they sell a copy, and every time they re-distribute it- you are not getting paid.

      Try that with music or game licensing and you’ll have a god damn revolution on your hands with the physical head of every major music label or game publisher on a spike.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. @Dylan. No, that’s not strictly true. Often software is made to contract and once done, the programmers ‘hand off’ the finished product (along with all source) to the people who contracted you. For example, software companies hire software programmers as contractors all the time. They produce software (and thus a product) as per the contract, then it’s no longer theirs. Sure, they can keep the source code (and probably violate the contract) but there wouldn’t be much point. Like I said before, making comparisons against different mediums is a bit of a stretch but there is some overlap. I can only speak of my own profession as I’m not a photographer.

      Liked by 3 people

    3. lol. the point here is that taylor swift is NOT paying the photographer, but is asking for the rights to all their work.

      oh yeah… also according to this contract… the photographer can’t even put the photo in his own portfolio!!! (no additional uses in ANY media!)

      So the photographer isn’t paid by taylor swift, she gets ALL the rights to their photography, AND the photographer can’t even show the work in his/her portfolio!

      um. really?

      and yes, photographic licensing is like music licensing where the photographer is paid when the image is used. There are some complete buyouts, but that’s not the case here where taylor swift is not paying for the photos AT ALL

      Liked by 2 people

    4. Well, Glenn, you can’t have it both ways. Either you are “not intimately knowledgeable about the photography profession” or you do, in fact, know what you’re talking about. “I suspect” just doesn’t cut it. And therein lies the problem with not knowing what you’re talking about: you’re talking about it anyway!

      Liked by 1 person

    5. @curiousjosh How about looking at this from a different perspective then. The photos are being taken at a concert of which the setting, stage, lighting, dancing, singing is all the IP of the Taylor Swift team. A freelance photographer (not under contract by Taylor Swift) trying to capitalise on the IP of someone else is essentially creating a derivative work and passing it off as their own for profit (yes, the photographer chooses the timing, camera settings and does processing but the work is still derivative). Is this fair and reasonable? If you were responsible for the creation of this concert, would you agree with having your IP diluted in this way? If other freelance professions such as food and drink sellers can’t work within the bounds of concert setting, why should a freelance photographer?

      @Stephan J Harper I’m merely voicing an opinion/perspective as someone who resides outside the photography profession but has experience in a different industry (software and music) of which there is IP overlap. I don’t take sell photos for a living.

      Liked by 1 person

    6. Actually, other businesses CAN trade in the vicinity of stadium shows, but they will have paid a fee to the promoters to be able to set up their stalls (ice creams and drinks for example). Everyone keeps failing to understand that we are not ‘stealing’ or leeching off the back of the artists fame… Our exchange to them in being granted access (not sneaking in, but being ALLOWED in by her publicists or promoters) is the resulting press and publicity.
      That’s the deal.

      She’s getting something in return for our photos.. That’s where the deal should end.

      Do ice cream sellers have to continue paying artists a percentage of sales forever after they’ve been making a profit from the audience at shows? No.

      Liked by 1 person

    7. @juntion10 Surely that’s the crux of the matter though? The freelance photographer claims that they are offering press and publicity but perhaps from the perspective of the artist, this is an untameable beast of which they have no creative control. By contracting their own photographers, they can be more selective about obtaining exclusive content which they know won’t end up in media outlets they’d rather not appear in. Obviously fans will always be able to take photos (although generally these are with phones or smaller cameras) but they keep their photos for the memories, not because they’re trying to sell them. Buying a ticket to a concert is like entering a contractual arrangement between yourself as the fan, and the artist. If the artist sets the condition that freelance photography isn’t permitted, or must be bound by an exclusivity contract, then surely that wish can be respected.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Your point is fairly valid but not quite the same. The pictures you take off Taylor’s shows are (presumably) of her, right? Apple can’t claim any ownership to her music (IP), but if the photograph is of her then I think she should be allowed to, because in a weird way she’s the IP in the picture you took so it wouldn’t really be your IP, more like derivative work.
    Just an alternative perspective. I think she’s fine to ask to use photos of her or her show setup, but shouldn’t be able to if it’s of just the crowd or something. Then again it gets into the whole issue of what constitutes as IP in a photograph.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The fundamental difference is that an image taken by a photographer is owned by the phtographer, not my the subject of the image. The image is the work of the photographer and the photographer deserves to be paid for that work wherever and whenever it is used. Just like Ms Swift and her music.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. It’s not about IP, it’s more about copyright. The copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer the moment it is taken, although, I believe the rules/law are slightly different in the US, especially with the “work for hire”. In a way, you’re argument could be used by Gibson, Fender or whoever makes her guitars, that they own the IP because they were written on their guitars. The issue here is, and it’s not only Swift that does it, that musicians are always bitching about copyright theft of their music (copying isn’t theft because if it’s stolen you have nothing, if it’s copied you have more), and yet they happily present these photo contracts stealing the rights of the photos, which is theft because they are taking the photos without payment and not allowing the photographer to use them. Personally, as a music photographer, I never sign those sorts of contracts, or even bother shooting such artists because there are thousands of other musicians who want good photos and are happy to pay without restrictions. If she has a staff tour photographer and wants to control her image, then she should supply the media with photos immediately after the concert, but she shouldn’t expect them to pay more than their freelancers get paid for a shot, which is next to nothing, otherwise she will end up with no press coverage, except when she is complaining how hard it is for her to make even more millions.

      Liked by 8 people

  9. Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on. We went from Taylor Swift and Apple to photography, which has literally NOTHING to do with the initial argument. You’re fishing for a red herring friend. This is just a desperate attempt trash on an artist speaking out on an important issue.
    Good try, but your argument is literally invalid.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It’s exactly the same issue. Exploitation of artists.
      I’m not trashing her argument, I’m agreeing with it. I’m pointing out that she does exactly the same thing she’s criticising Apple for.. Expecting artists to let their work be used for free.

      Liked by 13 people

    2. Oh wait a second. How would it be if you did something really great and worthy of admiration but then this big honcho comes and decides, “Hey this stuff is actually great, it should be mine! The world shall know it as mine!” And then it is presented all over the earth as something by the big guy, he earns millions out of it and you don’t get even a single penny out of it. I’m assuming from your comment that you’d like that, huh?

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Gurl, I’m was a part time photographer then. So, I somehow know how this roll that’s why I commented on this. So shut your fabricated smiley face to your smelly mouth and join learning things with your ignoramu