An artisit is an artist is an artist.

I just read an interesting article about Taylor Swift.  She recently had a big to do about Apple I-Tunes and their royalty plan.  She felt that what Apple was doing was unfair to the artists and she was withdrawing all of her music from I-Tunes.  I do agree with her that I-Tunes, who had been offering free downloads during a three month trial, was taking advantage of the artists because while Apple was not charging for the downloads, the artists were not getting paid.  Doesn't seem right does it?

Property of Consequence of Sound

However, Swift has been called our for being hypocritical about her stand on paying artists.  As a photographer myself I was surprised and disappointe at what I read about photo waivers.  It almost makes her appear that only musicians are artists.  When a photographer takes pictures at a concert for someone they are working for, the photographer gets paid for the picture. The photo waiver photographers are required to sign to take pictures stipulates that the image from the show can only be used once and only within the published story about that performance.  This means they can't sell it to other outlets nor can they sell prints of their own images in any way.

 But, the artist can use that picture whenever and whereever and how many times they want to use it without paying the photographer for their work.  They get them free and the photographer looses a lot of money because they don't get paid.  Some how this is not right and yet Taylor Swift has no problem with taking advantage of someone else.  She has millions and she doesn't want to give up any of her music free, which I completely understand, but it seems that she only wants to take and not to give.  She is willing to use another artist's work free without royalty even though she won't do that herself.  Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.  My opinion of her has truly plummeted.