Taylor Swift’s Team Fires Back At Concert Photographer’s Contract Complaints


 |  | By 



The Blank Space hit-maker hit headlines this week when she wrote an open letter to tech giant Apple, accusing company bosses of short-changing artists by failing to offer royalties during a planned free trial of their new music streaming service.

Her public stance prompted Apple executives to rethink their plans and subsequently bow to Swift’s payment request during the three-month trial period, but the news was met with criticism from photographer Jason Sheldon.


He claimed the pop star was a hypocrite for demanding Apple not “exploit” artists’ work while her own management team makes professional snappers adhere to restricted publishing rules in return for access to her shows.

Sheldon vented about the issue online, claiming Swift’s concert contract only allows snappers to publish pictures once before managers claim the use of the images for free in the singer’s marketing materials.

A spokesperson for Swift has now fired back at Sheldon, insisting the contract is the “standard” in the industry and that it has been “misrepresented”, adding, “It clearly states that any photographer shooting The 1989 World Tour has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management’s approval.”

The publicist adds, “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.”

However, Sheldon is not happy with the response and took to Twitter.com on Tuesday, June 23rd, to clarify his argument.

He writes, “For the record, I never claimed they take our copyright. Just the right to use and give our images away worldwide in perpetuity, just as bad… If you have a contentious contract that you present to people, yet say that it’s amendable for anyone that objects to certain parts of it… then you’re clearly aware that it’s not a fair contract and if it IS amendable, then there is no point having it in the first place.”


Share This Story On Facebook