[vacri]

The reason deals like those you've mentioned exist is because photographers who want to use images to profit commercially often need the people pictured to sign a photo release.

This is different to the linked article... how? The author wants to profit commercially from the person in the (theoretical) photo.

both are very much about a big entity acting to control and profit from the works of smaller artists.

A fundamental difference is that Swift's music is independent of Apple. A photo of Swift could not exist without Swift herself. Apple can't resell Swift's music without her permission, why should a photographer, usually given preferential access with these agreements, not have similar restrictions if not in a public place? If photographing Swift is that much more profitable than photographing the local no-name band, then part of that is due to Swift's own work; the photographer is working from the success of the subject matter; in literature this would be akin to a derivative work.

I do agree that there are a lot of different perspectives, but I just didn't like the 'smell' of the linked article. It gave a pretty one-eyed view.