A UK spokeswoman for Swift responded by saying: "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.
"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."
Apple have since made a U-turn on their policy of not paying for songs in the trial period.
In November last year Swift withdrew her entire catalogue from Spotify, and said she was making a stand not for herself but for new artists and bands, young songwriters and producers who would not be paid for a quarter of a year of plays.
Apple's U-turn was given a cautious welcome by music industry figures.
Alison Wenham, from the Worldwide Independent Network which represents the independent music industry, said: "The decision from Apple to pay royalties to rights owners during the proposed three-month trial period is clearly a positive and encouraging step and we welcome the beginning of a fair and equitable relationship between Apple Music and the global independent music sector."
Musicians' Union assistant general secretary Horace Trubridge said it was "unclear" exactly what Apple was proposing.
He said: "When they say they will pay, are they paying the publishers and records labels so they can pay the artists, or are they paying the artists direct?
"Also, it's one thing if you are an act like Taylor Swift and have that market share and commercial power, but if you're an act with a major label from the 1970s or 1980s, which is where a lot of the streamed music is from, you've probably got a crap contract that does not pay out much for streaming."
- AAP
