Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Taylor Swift has got bad blood with a British photographer. 
  
 Freelance photographer Jason Sheldon wrote a response to Swift's much-lauded letter to Apple, accusing her of artistic double standards. 
  
 While Swift lambasted Apple Music for not paying artists during a free three-month trial — a policy Apple quickly changed — Sheldon says the singer is guilty of doing something similar to concert photographers. 
  
 In his response, Sheldon shares a contract he had to sign when photographing Swift's March 2011 show at the LG Arena in Birmingham, England, which said, "Photographs may be used on a one-time only basis for news or information purposes," and that Swift's management company will have "perpetual, worldwide right to use" of the photos. 
  
 "I can't use it in my portfolio, feature it on my website and even the original newspaper couldn't reuse it," Sheldon told the BBC. 
  
 Taylor Swift in concert at the Birmingham LG Arena in the UK in 2011. Image: Dave Hogan/Getty Images 
  
 Not being able to repurpose the photos in any way means Sheldon has "incurred expenses to work, which I can’t recover," according to his response. "Therefore preventing me from licensing my photos to more than one publication, or even (as later versions of this contract stipulate) preventing me from using the images ... while they can use them without licensing the usage is highly unfair and unjustified." 
  
 Swift's demands are not unusual of a performer, especially one at her level of fame. After the 2013 Super Bowl, photos that were deemed "unflattering" of Beyoncé were allegedly removed from Getty. It's part of the artist's way to establish control over the use of some of their images. 
  
 A spokesperson for Swift responded to Sheldon in a statement. 
  
 "The standard photography agreement has been misrepresented in that 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 spokesperson said. "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." 
  
 Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments. ||||| If there's one thing we know about Taylor Swift, it's that she wants to get paid. 
  
 The world's biggest-selling artist is not so much a musician as she is a full-body lifestyle experience. You can fill yourself with her Diet Coke and moisturize your skin with her lotions before stepping into her line of Keds and moving to New York, which has been waiting for you. 
  
 There isn't a single aspect of Swift's career as an artist that isn't diligently commercial; she's a force of nature, a constant tidal wave of art and business. It's awe-inspiring, even if staying brand-safe means that she might never be able to write a song about anything other than new relationships, ongoing relationships, and failed relationships, in an unending cycle. 
  
 So why did Apple think for one second that it could get away with not paying Taylor Swift? 
  
 We don't need to get into the depth of the details here; you know them. Apple Music pays higher royalties than competitors like Spotify because there's no free option; you have to pay $9.99 a month to use it. But to entice consumers into signing up, Apple's offering a three-month free trial, and artists like Swift weren't going to see any money during those three months. Last week Adele's label said it wouldn't participate in Apple Music, and yesterday, Swift posted an open letter to her Tumblr saying she would withhold her album 1989 due to this "shocking" and "disappointing" turn of events, and 17 hours later Apple's Eddy Cue apologized on Twitter and completely backtracked. Artists will now collect some royalties during the Apple Music free trial period, but at a different (presumably lower) per-stream rate, according to Apple. Applause and retweets all around. You just can't screw with Taylor Swift; she wants to get paid. 
  
 So what was this? A victory for Taylor Swift? A victory for Apple, which turned a day of headlines about Swift withholding 1989 into a day of Taylor Swift victory laps? A victory for consumers? A victory for the music industry? 
  
 Turns out it's none of the above. Instead, it's a victory for the status quo, which remains steadfastly in place even as Apple insists that its new music service will save the industry from plummeting streaming royalties just as the iPod and iTunes saved it from piracy. 
  
 There's no guarantee 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches 
  
 Apple's frantic fallback still hasn't guaranteed that 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches; the company has to figure out the specifics of those per-stream rates, and presumably has to sign a new deal with Swift. But the speedy damage control ensured that today's headlines would be about Taylor Swift beating Apple, not Taylor Swift being mad at Apple for not paying her. It's a win on many levels, but it also exposes a hard truth about Apple Music: it's offering the same fundamental deal to artists and labels as the much-vilified Spotify. 
  
 Here's the basic deal Spotify offers artists: a free service that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by ads but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties. 
  
 Here's the basic deal Apple is now offering artists: a three-month free trial that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by Apple's enormous bank account but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties. 
  
 Swift has been pointing the fuck-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked 
  
 Hmm. Not much of a difference there, especially if Apple doesn't convert free users to paid users at a significantly higher rate than Spotify; you'd rather get a little money indefinitely than a little money for three months. But that's the entire bet, if you think about it: the industry is wagering that Apple's marketing prowess and huge iPhone install base will allow it to sign up more paid music subscribers than any other service has seen thus far. It's probably a good bet, but it illustrates the difficult high wire act Apple is trying to pull off as it positions itself as the second-time savior of the music industry while coming up with fundamentally the same ideas as everyone else. And Apple hasn't shown any particular ability to walk that line; Taylor Swift has been pointing the fuck-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked in the face. If Apple had played it correctly, Swift would have launched Apple Music at WWDC with a live performance; instead Eddy Cue was doing damage control at midnight on a Sunday. 
  
 It's only when the services have meaningful leverage that artists back down; Swift hasn't said word one about YouTube, the most popular ad-supported streaming service in existence, because taking her videos of off YouTube would be a disaster for her fans. But Apple can't afford to have Swift taking shots at Apple Music, while Swift can just sit back and let her army of ultra-devoted fans actually buy her albums from iTunes proper. 
  
 In fact, it's curious that Apple's not overtly taking advantage of its commanding lead as a music retailer to let artists like Swift window their releases against demand. Hardcore fans might buy new records on their release days, while others might wait for them to hit the streaming catalog. Singles might be made available to buy first, or to stream for a while ahead of wider release as a promotional tactic. Apple's already taught millions of people to pay for music on iTunes, but instead of using streaming to support and expand music sales, it seems to be running two distinct services whose overlap hasn't been made entirely clear. To be fair, that's Spotify's problem as well: the company's foolishly religious stance on free streaming means that it hasn't offered any particularly innovative new solutions to the business of selling music to artists beyond yet more playlist types. 
  
 No one knows how any of this is going to work 
  
 Apple is the world's largest music retailer, so Swift was extremely deferential in her open letter yesterday. But last November, when she pulled her catalog from Spotify, she was blunt. "Everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," she said. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music." 
  
 We're still in that experimental phase. No one knows how any of this is going to work, or even if paid music streaming services are a realistic path towards making music itself as valuable as tote bags and tour merch has been for Taylor Swift. But unless Apple and Spotify and all the rest try to come up with newer, better ideas, Taylor's just going to stay pissed. 
  
 Verge Video: Achieving high-end personal audio in the streaming music era ||||| Being the biggest name in music has its perks, but it’s not without a trade off. Unless Taylor Swift donned a brunette wig and a fat suit, she’ll be recognized in public (and even in disguise, we’d probably find out and her alter-ego would be a internet sensation all in itself). So when she goes for a casual hike, the cameras find her. 
  
 But, um, Taylor – you’re going the wrong way. Is hiking backwards the latest craze in fitness? 
  
 Nope, she just didn’t feel like smiling. (We all have those days, amiright?) Swift posted this response to the photos on Tumblr. 
  
 But this isn’t the first time T. Swift has used her security to blindly guide her while she stumbles backwards. Check out this video from March taken in Los Angeles. 
  
 Ironically, both times she walked backwards to avoid publicity, these stories are getting ten times more coverage because Swift chose to walk backwards. Is she looking for the funny pictures so she can giggle with Martha Hunt, Gigi Hadid, and Hailee Steinfeld about how the paparazzi fell for her calculated stunt? She certainly doesn’t hide from cameras when she’s holding hands with Calvin Harris. 
  
 All we know is that Taylor is going to have some killer calves if she keeps this avoidance tactic up. |||||
Solution:
Many people have been fawning over Taylor Swift since her open letter to Apple convinced the company to do an about-face and pay musicians for music streamed during a user's Apple Music free trial period. But a number of people, chief among them Pandora's former chief technology officer, are now pointing out some problems with the idea that this is somehow a victory for artists: That ex-CTO, Tom Conrad, posted a series of tweets yesterday pointing out that Spotify, YouTube, Pandora, and other music streaming services already pay artists for music streamed during free trial periods, Time reports. Apple's 180 "simply puts it at parity with all other players," he wrote, adding, "Reminder: Apple uses music to make billions off hardware. Artists see nothing from this. Swift's letter and Apple's response is mostly theater. ... We shouldn't herald this move as progress. It's status quo." Plus, he notes, there's the fact that Swift has never gone after terrestrial radio (on which her career was built and from which she doesn't get any money), and—though she's criticized Spotify for "devaluing music"—she's never pulled her music off YouTube, which "certainly devalues music if Spotify does," Conrad writes. That's because Swift can't afford to pull her music off YouTube—the site is too huge, and her fans would revolt, writes Nilay Patel in a post at The Verge titled, "Taylor Swift vs Apple: nobody wins." As Patel points out, "It's only when the services have meaningful leverage that artists back down," and "Apple can't afford to have Swift taking shots at Apple Music, while Swift can just sit back and let her army of ultra-devoted fans actually buy her albums from iTunes proper." But the only result of her campaign was to essentially ensure Apple offers "the same fundamental deal to artists and labels as the much-vilified Spotify." And she wasn't alone in achieving that result, as NPR notes: Though she's getting most of the credit, independent music labels also played a big role in convincing Apple to change its mind. Meanwhile, Mashable notes that Swift also had to respond to a freelance photog who accused her of doing the same thing to the people who photograph her shows. Still a Taylor fan? Click to watch her shut down a Grammys reporter or to find out why she walks backward.