Author Topic: Apple music not paying artists for 3 month trial (Read 16282 times)

leaf · « **on:** June 22, 2015, 00:25 »

I just read a few articles on this situation at it seemed very similar to our situation. Taylor Swift wrote an open letter and complained about the situation in a respectful way and it looks like Apple listened.

I just found it interesting how the music industry is essentially going through the same thing.

http://gizmodo.com/apple-does-abrupt-about-face-over-unpaid-streaming-1712983639
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor

To summarize - for those who don't want to follow the links.
Apple is starting a music streaming service and they are offering a 3 month trial for free. Artists were set to NOT be paid for their music that was paid for these first three months.
In response Taylor Swift refused to release her new album on iTunes in protest and wrote an open letter to Apple explaining her position (linked above)
Apple changed their mind shortly after and announced that they WILL pay artists after all for the three months they are giving away as a trial.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2015, 00:57 »

Classy move by Apple (the second part of the act). And smart, too.

Anyone can guess how would the major stock agencies react in such situation?

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2015, 01:23 »

There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

Pierre · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2015, 02:30 »

very good news !

Apple Music changes policy after Taylor Swift stand
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33220189

"We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

Pierre · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2015, 02:38 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23

I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

i think the lesson here is the music industry knows the score and is aware the value of free exposure on Apple Music is not worth it.

yet another blow in the face of Apple and their freeloading sycophants.

the bar has been lowered so much in the last 20 yrs that now finally it reached the bottom of the barrel : FREE !

as expected there's been a bold answer to this madness and this will set a new precedent, hopefully in the right direction.

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2015, 03:18 »

I call a PR stunt of Apple using Taylor Swift as "bait". Apple just needs to create more of a stir for their new service and a little guerilla marketing won't hurt them either.

If Apple cannot pay artist for a trial period then who can? And to assume that world class artists would take it silently is ignorant. Apple may be ruthless but not stupid.

Pierre · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2015, 04:30 »

Quote from: click_click on June 22, 2015, 03:18

If Apple cannot pay artist for a trial period then who can?

Nobody.

Apple Music and the other music streaming services have been grounded on a solid business model, even the actual market leader (Pandora) is losing millions and it's ridicolous valuation is so high just because we're in the middle of another economic bubble ... their only realistic plans is for their early investors to sell the hot cakes to the muppets at the right time just as they do with all the other failed startups.

sure, music streaming can be profitable, just as long as the artists don't get paid.

i mean, they're paying zero compared to video streaming : on Youtube you can get at least 1$ per 1000 video views ... on Pandora it's around 1$ (gross !) per 15000 streams ... this goes straight to the publisher, not to you ... your final payout is maybe around 1$ per 60-70000 streams.

after all there's a good reason if radio advertising doesn't pay as well as TV ads.

even if Pandora or Apple Music triple their subscriber fees it just doesn't pay enough to make it a profitable business, this has been debated to death since more than 15 yrs, since the time of the first web radios.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2015, 05:02 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23

There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

Pierre · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2015, 05:20 »

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02

It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

the way the news broke out in the medias looks like a typical PR stunt.

apart for rare cases, single artists can't move a finger without the OK of their music labels and their entourage and of course they've no word on how their music is being marketed.

it's probably a way for her record label to tell Apple to F off "by proxy" and to see what sticks on the wall.

Pierre · « **Reply #9 on:** June 22, 2015, 05:31 »

Quote from: click_click on June 22, 2015, 03:18

Apple may be ruthless but not stupid.

the music industry is in dire straits.

- paid downloads on iTunes etc are declining year on year.
- streaming is booming but is unprofitable.
- selling physical CDs is a thing of the past
- piracy and freeloading are now openly tolerated if we think about Youtube
- most of the mainstream music is stuck in a limbo since 20 yrs
- EDM in the USA is the "new Disco" and will soon crash and burn

matter of fact, i was recently listening to hard to find old tunes and guess what, i found 99% of them on Youtube, often with very good quality and i also found bootlegs and video from the same artists that i've never heard of .. all stuff that is probably not even on sale.

on top of this there are musicophiles forums specialized in obscure artists, providing tons of links and free stuff.

i was also searching for a bunch of Jimi Hendrix song, i ended up finding a lot more than that and just out of curiosity i grabbed a whopping 30GB torrent with his entire discography including cover scans and super rare tracks that you can't find in any online store since they've probably never been published .. suffice to say all the tracks are in FLAC format (lossless) and sound as good as the original CDs, a few have been remastered by hendrix fans.

now, what's next ? a single reason i should pay for anything ... i don't know .. at this point everything is going to change big time but how are the artists supposed to make even a tiny profit, who knows.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2015, 05:35 »

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

There have been articles mentioning a collective action.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/15/breaking-apple-facing-massive-withdrawal-from-independent-artists-labels

taken from http://www.microstockgroup.com/ranting-off-topic/apple-killing-the-music-business-again-a-warning-for-photo-stockers-!/

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2015, 05:41 »

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

Here from Apple self

https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824947342229504

It wasnt just one artist

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2015, 06:37 »

I think it's good that this problem is finally hitting the general public. Gene Simmons also has some pretty harsh but accurate criticism about free media.

http://loudwire.com/kiss-gene-simmons-i-blame-fans-lack-of-rock-stars/

click_click · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2015, 07:03 »

Quote from: Pierre on June 22, 2015, 05:31

...
matter of fact, i was recently listening to hard to find old tunes and guess what, i found 99% of them on Youtube, often with very good quality and i also found bootlegs and video from the same artists that i've never heard of .. all stuff that is probably not even on sale
....

I was always wondering how that works. How can "other" people upload songs of famous artists to Youtube and get away with that?

I once filmed a university graduation and when I wanted to publish it, Youtube refused it because during the closing ceremony they played a famous song in the background.

So I have no clue how all these different versions of famous songs were even possible to be uploaded to Youtube in the first place?

Does anyone know how this is possible?

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2015, 07:07 »

I think if the single largest contributor to microstock went to an agency and said enough is enough, something might change. So far, that hasn't happened. That single largest contributor made a deal to benefit him/herself and forgot about the rest of the contributors. And if even one or two more of the largest contributors joined in, something might have changed. I guess we will never know now.

Good for Taylor Swift and the others standing up for themselves. Even if it was a publicity stunt.

Pierre · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2015, 08:18 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 22, 2015, 06:37

I think it's good that this problem is finally hitting the general public. Gene Simmons also has some pretty harsh but accurate criticism about free media.

http://loudwire.com/kiss-gene-simmons-i-blame-fans-lack-of-rock-stars/

he's 100% right but nobody will lose sleep over the missed opportunity of the next Elvis or Lady Gaga .. and i certainly won't miss a mediocre band like the KISS ...

if the whole star system ceases to exist it will be only a good thing for music.

there's a lot of good music coming from indie artists today, you just need the time to find out and it's never been easier for unknown artists with talent to publish online and to make themselves known to a small bunch of fans ... no middlemen, no BS.

Pierre · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2015, 08:23 »

Quote from: click_click on June 22, 2015, 07:03

So I have no clue how all these different versions of famous songs were even possible to be uploaded to Youtube in the first place?

and that's nothing, try searching any movies pre-1990 on youtube, there's so many of them, full version, some even 3 hrs long ! quality is hit or miss but you can watch it for free and nobody is complaining, only the recent movies are removed, it seems that anything at least 20 yrs old is OK and won't be taken down.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2015, 08:33 »

In related news, the writers at Gawker media recently voted to unionize:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/04/gawker-media-union-writers-guild

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/04/gawker-employees-vote-to-unionize-join-writers-guild-of-america/

http://gawker.com/why-weve-decided-to-organize-1698246231

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #18 on:** June 22, 2015, 09:36 »

Quote from: click_click on June 22, 2015, 07:03

I was always wondering how that works. How can "other" people upload songs of famous artists to Youtube and get away with that?

I once filmed a university graduation and when I wanted to publish it, Youtube refused it because during the closing ceremony they played a famous song in the background.

So I have no clue how all these different versions of famous songs were even possible to be uploaded to Youtube in the first place?

Does anyone know how this is possible?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/08/youtube-now-tells-you-how-copyrighted-music-will-affect-your-video-before-you-upload-it/

Pierre · « **Reply #19 on:** June 22, 2015, 10:10 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 22, 2015, 09:36

http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/08/youtube-now-tells-you-how-copyrighted-music-will-affect-your-video-before-you-upload-it/

not anymore, i guess ... here take a look for instance ... HD-quality dvd-rips of Rambo 1/2/3/4 full lenght :

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rambo+full+movie

or use the query "full movie" for many other films, there's pretty much anything, also mainstream stuff up to 2003 like the Matrix saga.

Google is the leader in piracy and they make billions out of it as 90% of the sh-it on Youtube is illegal.

by the way, another interesting article on this topic from the Copyright Alliance :
http://copyrightalliance.org/content/piracy_profit-youtubes_dirty_secret

click_click · « **Reply #20 on:** June 22, 2015, 10:48 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 22, 2015, 09:36

Quote from: click_click on June 22, 2015, 07:03
I was always wondering how that works. How can "other" people upload songs of famous artists to Youtube and get away with that?

I once filmed a university graduation and when I wanted to publish it, Youtube refused it because during the closing ceremony they played a famous song in the background.

So I have no clue how all these different versions of famous songs were even possible to be uploaded to Youtube in the first place?

Does anyone know how this is possible?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/08/youtube-now-tells-you-how-copyrighted-music-will-affect-your-video-before-you-upload-it/

Thanks Jo Ann for the link!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #21 on:** June 22, 2015, 11:35 »

But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

None.

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #22 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:03 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 11:35

But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

None.

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes

billions? Lol

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #23 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:34 »

Yeah Ron a little math might come in handy!

Debut album released in 2006 Forbes says she is worth 200 million this year alone so how much has she made over 9 years?

Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

So now we have to consider products and marketing.

Taylor Swift Dolls, Toys, clothing apparel, perfumes, jewelry, hair and makeup products, food endorsements Etc.
of her goods and merchandise.

So she is easily worth Billions to an industry driven by sales and greed.

If it sells market it if it does well market another way.

You ever work in the retail business industry Ron?

Doubt it.

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 12:03

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 11:35
But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

None.

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes
billions? Lol

Pierre · « **Reply #24 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:45 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 11:35

But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

i still prefer to make 0.30$ per download on SS than 0.30$ on iTunes or Beatport, i can easily make a saleable image with little effort, but it can take days or work to make a song.

moreover, my photos will sell for a few years at least while the shelf life of a song is 2-3 months and if we talk about EDM it's 20-30 days !

micro sites will never promote a single artist, but the so called "boutique agencies" will, up to you to get the foot in the door, of course at this point they're the exception to the rule but it doesn't mean it's impossible to make a brand out of your images.

my opinion, the real problem we're facing nowadays is that people will be glad to waste 100$ on a dinner or to get drunk on friday night but they'll be literally shocked if someone asks them money for a photo or a painting or a song.

books are also the last thing they plan to buy, and what about commercial software or artsy merchandising, good luck with that.

for whatever reason, after decades of free piracy for all it's becoming now socially accepted and expected to pay nothing for anything digital apart their ISP and their 3G/4G connection.

now, should be blame and shame the users or shoud we accept that times have changed radically since the 90s ?
my feeling is the supply is NOT meeting the demand and of course it can't compete with piracy on any level.

if we look at countries where there's no enforced copyright laws and piracy is fully legal, the musicians make money only with gigs and private parties, especially with weddings, while the photographers too are big on weddings and fashion and assignment, nobody would make a dime with stock apart for wire news photographers and nobody would get rich selling CDs or t-shirts.

is this the future ? i think yes, this is what's in store for all of us basically, but stock will survive especially for news and travel but you need a huge portfolio to stay afloat ... while we discuss if 0.30$ per download is a fair price i see old ladies from eastern europe earning 8-10 euro per hour for cleaning toilets, just to give you a different perspective ... the equivalent of 20-30 downloads in just 1 hour, no matter if you're super fast at shooting saleable images, it still pays like sh-it ... what about specialized mechanical workers, 25 euro/hr ... what about lawyers, doctors, engineers, or even middle managers earning 100K/year ?

making and selling images will never make you rich, it's a lifestyle and has it's pros and cons, but all this discussion about money doesn't make any sense, even Yuri admitted he felt like selling cheap burgers considering how much he spent on production and that's true for him and true for us ... we should just keep microstock as a side hobby and focus on fine-art or other fields where our work is appreciated and paid accordingly.

Pixart · « **Reply #25 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:47 »

Actually, Ron is right - she is only worth 60 Mil per year on music and ancillary sales. It would take a few years to hit a billion. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/taylor-swift-net-worth/

Man, am I glad I don't have to count all that money.

Pierre · « **Reply #26 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:59 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34

Debut album released in 2006 Forbes says she is worth 200 million this year alone so how much has she made over 9 years?

well, possibly just enough to buy a big villa and a new car ...

200 millions are the gross earnings going to her record company (sony ? universal ? i don't know), her net cut after tax is maybe 5% of that if she's lucky ... see the sad fate of Whitney Houston and many others like her ..

cthoman · « **Reply #27 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:04 »

Quote from: cathyslife on June 22, 2015, 07:07

I think if the single largest contributor to microstock went to an agency and said enough is enough, something might change. So far, that hasn't happened. That single largest contributor made a deal to benefit him/herself and forgot about the rest of the contributors. And if even one or two more of the largest contributors joined in, something might have changed. I guess we will never know now.

Good for Taylor Swift and the others standing up for themselves. Even if it was a publicity stunt.

Didn't he do that? He basically got nowhere with the other agencies. Granted, these were deals that were just for him, but I can't really blame anybody for looking out for just themselves in this business.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #28 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:15 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34

Yeah Ron a little math might come in handy!

Debut album released in 2006 Forbes says she is worth 200 million this year alone so how much has she made over 9 years?

Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

So now we have to consider products and marketing.

Taylor Swift Dolls, Toys, clothing apparel, perfumes, jewelry, hair and makeup products, food endorsements Etc.
of her goods and merchandise.

So she is easily worth Billions to an industry driven by sales and greed.

If it sells market it if it does well market another way.

You ever work in the retail business industry Ron?

Doubt it.

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 12:03
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 11:35
But that single artist alone is worth Billions not to mention marketing and advertising.

What single Micro shooter is worth billions to any micro company?

Yuri aside.

Not to forget to mention that the music industry is completely different then Micro is by miles.

The music industry will back their artists with everything they have, what micro site is willing to do that for one contributor?

None.

Quote from: leaf on June 22, 2015, 05:02
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 01:23
There's a big difference. Music Artists seem to be far more collective than us. They withhold content collectively we operate as individuals only interested in our own little world. I am referring to the big guns. Factories never pull their content collectively.

This wasn't a collective move by the industry. It was a single artist saying - enough is enough and refusing to add her latest work to iTunes
billions? Lol

$200M net worth is not per year, muppet. When you attack people, make sure you got your facts straight or might come off looking like a plonker. And I did work in retail. I also have managed a portfolio of $450M annually, mainly supporting merchants offering digital products. How does that compare to patching up flat tires?

bunhill · « **Reply #29 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:27 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34

Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

cassette ?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #30 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:46 »

Quote from: bunhill on June 22, 2015, 13:27

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34
Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

cassette ?

Yeah you can still buy cassettes.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #31 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:48 »

Quote from: bunhill on June 22, 2015, 13:27

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34
Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

cassette ?

Yeah, billons

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #32 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:52 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 13:46

Quote from: bunhill on June 22, 2015, 13:27
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on June 22, 2015, 12:34
Oh and lets not forget that is just her album, LP, Cassette, CD sales and concerts.

cassette ?
Yeah you can still buy cassettes.

Its not even released on cassette

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Release_history

Shelma1 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 22, 2015, 13:56 »

I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.

bunhill · « **Reply #34 on:** June 22, 2015, 14:03 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56

I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.

Remember that Apple is primarily in the business of selling hardware. The services they provide are ultimately about making the platform better. It's a completely different model.

Also - Taylor Swift is a rarer commodity than microstock which is over-supplied.

tickstock · « **Reply #35 on:** June 22, 2015, 14:21 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56

I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.

I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

leaf · « **Reply #36 on:** June 22, 2015, 14:35 »

several posts removed after one user decided to insult and use coarse language. Said user has also been banned.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 22, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote from: bunhill on June 22, 2015, 14:03

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.

Remember that Apple is primarily in the business of selling hardware. The services they provide are ultimately about making the platform better. It's a completely different model.

Also - Taylor Swift is a rarer commodity than microstock which is over-supplied.

If you read the article, you'll see that 70% is the industry standard. Apple is paying just slightly more.

cathyslife · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:18 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 13:04

Quote from: cathyslife on June 22, 2015, 07:07
I think if the single largest contributor to microstock went to an agency and said enough is enough, something might change. So far, that hasn't happened. That single largest contributor made a deal to benefit him/herself and forgot about the rest of the contributors. And if even one or two more of the largest contributors joined in, something might have changed. I guess we will never know now.

Good for Taylor Swift and the others standing up for themselves. Even if it was a publicity stunt.

Didn't he do that? He basically got nowhere with the other agencies. Granted, these were deals that were just for him, but I can't really blame anybody for looking out for just themselves in this business.

Hi Cory!
I really wasn't talking about anyone in particular. Yuri came to mind (not sure if that is who you are talking about). I am just saying in a general sense, way back when, when the abuse from agencies started and they started shortchanging contributors, if a group of the top 10 or 20 or 100 microstockers got together with a sit-down with the agencies, maybe something could have been negotiated? Instead of everyone looking out for themselves? Just a thought.

splitimage · « **Reply #39 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:23 »

Interesting twist the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134646/Taylor-Swift-accused-making-photographers-lucrative-rights-images-just-hours-criticised-Apple-not-paying-artists-fairly.html

Photographer claims Taylor Swift demands all rights to photographs taken at her gigs!

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #40 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:32 »

Quote from: splitimage on June 22, 2015, 15:23

Interesting twist the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134646/Taylor-Swift-accused-making-photographers-lucrative-rights-images-just-hours-criticised-Apple-not-paying-artists-fairly.html

Photographer claims Taylor Swift demands all rights to photographs taken at her gigs!

I have to agree with the comments there. The photographer enters a contract with her. He can choose not to sign it. She is asking for the images after first use. She wants to control what happens with images of her, taken at her concert. Dont like it, dont sign it.

Anyway, off topic.

Pierre · « **Reply #41 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:33 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56

I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.

it's the living proof that selling music is cheaper and more profitable than selling stock images.

the after tax net profit of agencies like SS is around 20-25% at best, in the very best scenario they could pay us 40%, maybe even 50%, but never ever 70%, that was unsustainable even in the 90s which is supposed to be the "golden era" of stock ...

cthoman · « **Reply #42 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:40 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.

tickstock · « **Reply #43 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:43 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 15:40

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.

Sounds like it did work. After you pulled your files you were no longer getting paid 15% right? And on top of that they changed the royalty rate.

Pierre · « **Reply #44 on:** June 22, 2015, 15:43 »

Quote from: splitimage on June 22, 2015, 15:23

Interesting twist the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134646/Taylor-Swift-accused-making-photographers-lucrative-rights-images-just-hours-criticised-Apple-not-paying-artists-fairly.html

Photographer claims Taylor Swift demands all rights to photographs taken at her gigs!

it's a legal gray area.
basically a typical case of "rights grab" but in my opinion it's unenforceable, who's to stop someone selling those pics on Getty or REX, who's going to double check, to sue, to counter sue ?

copyright is not transferable, and the whole contract is probably worth nothing and has never been tried in court, so ...

and indeed, if the guy is paid only for a one-off shooting the price would be 2-3x times more at least.

cthoman · « **Reply #45 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:30 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 15:43

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 15:40
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.
Sounds like it did work. After you pulled your files you were no longer getting paid 15% right? And on top of that they changed the royalty rate.

I also lost a lot of money, file positioning, a ton of time and an agency that was at one time my top earner (that's not coming back). All that for a couple percentage points back. So yeah, would not recommend it to others as a strategy. It's a lot easier to talk about it than to do it. Especially when it is your money/business/livelihood.

tickstock · « **Reply #46 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:38 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 16:30

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 15:43
Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 15:40
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.
Sounds like it did work. After you pulled your files you were no longer getting paid 15% right? And on top of that they changed the royalty rate.

I also lost a lot of money, file positioning, a ton of time and an agency that was at one time my top earner (that's not coming back). All that for a couple percentage points back. So yeah, would not recommend it to others as a strategy. It's a lot easier to talk about it than to do it. Especially when it is your money/business/livelihood.

You also aren't constantly posting how outraged you are, I'm guessing you understand that you made the choice to upload and license your work at that rate.

cthoman · « **Reply #47 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:54 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 16:38

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 16:30
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 15:43
Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 15:40
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.
Sounds like it did work. After you pulled your files you were no longer getting paid 15% right? And on top of that they changed the royalty rate.

I also lost a lot of money, file positioning, a ton of time and an agency that was at one time my top earner (that's not coming back). All that for a couple percentage points back. So yeah, would not recommend it to others as a strategy. It's a lot easier to talk about it than to do it. Especially when it is your money/business/livelihood.
You also aren't constantly posting how outraged you are, I'm guessing you understand that you made the choice to upload and license your work at that rate.

LOL. I didn't realize I was so angry. I'm actually not outraged at all. I've pretty much accepted that it is what it is. I'll take my money and if things improve, then they improve. I don't have any axes to grind against any agencies. I fought my fight and took my lumps. If you can't beat them, join them.

tickstock · « **Reply #48 on:** June 22, 2015, 17:02 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 16:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 16:38
Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 16:30
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 15:43
Quote from: cthoman on June 22, 2015, 15:40
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 14:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 22, 2015, 13:56
I'm surprised nobody is outraged to see that Apple is paying more than 70% royalties while iStock is paying us as little as 15%.
I'm surprised that people who act so outraged about the royalty rate choose to put their work there. I know I wouldn't. Take some personal responsibility.

I tried that. It didn't work, although I did get my 20% back at iStock... so, I guess there are the little victories.
Sounds like it did work. After you pulled your files you were no longer getting paid 15% right? And on top of that they changed the royalty rate.

I also lost a lot of money, file positioning, a ton of time and an agency that was at one time my top earner (that's not coming back). All that for a couple percentage points back. So yeah, would not recommend it to others as a strategy. It's a lot easier to talk about it than to do it. Especially when it is your money/business/livelihood.
You also aren't constantly posting how outraged you are, I'm guessing you understand that you made the choice to upload and license your work at that rate.

LOL. I didn't realize I was so angry. I'm actually not outraged at all. I've pretty much accepted that it is what it is. I'll take my money and if things improve, then they improve. I don't have any axes to grind against any agencies. I fought my fight and took my lumps. If you can't beat them, join them.

I wasn't talking about you. I think you're right.

Pixart · « **Reply #49 on:** June 23, 2015, 14:56 »

Quote from: splitimage on June 22, 2015, 15:23

Interesting twist the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134646/Taylor-Swift-accused-making-photographers-lucrative-rights-images-just-hours-criticised-Apple-not-paying-artists-fairly.html

Photographer claims Taylor Swift demands all rights to photographs taken at her gigs!

I've been hearing about this clause for years, I think that is a pretty standard with big names these days isn't it? Maybe Matt Hayward can comment if he still has time to shoot bands.

I guess they have to cash in on the fact that 90% of their audience is holding up a cell phone for most of the show, if no one is buying signed 8x10's in the lobby they have to take it from the 10 pros with photog passes. Impossible for venues to police the basic rules any more.

60D · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2015, 19:49 »

Repost deleted

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Apple music not paying artists for 3 month trial (Read 16282 times)

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

splitimage

Semmick Photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors