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 ..

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.