Apple Music Cover Art Rules(artists.apple.com)
artists.apple.com
Apple Music Cover Art Rules
https://artists.apple.com/support/1120-cover-art
65 comments
Just what anyone ever asked for: Corporate rules on album covers.
If there's one thing musicians love, it's corporate guidelines!
If there's one thing musicians love, it's corporate guidelines!
As evidenced by how big record labels are struggling to get artists to sign contracts with them.
Oh, wait.
As evidenced by how big record labels are struggling to get artists to sign contracts with them.
Oh, wait.
That's good, the old "you hate capitalism but you have an iPhone" trope. 2/10.
2/10.
Rating other people's comments, what a delightful blast from the past! Are you posting from Digg in 2005?
Rating other people's comments, what a delightful blast from the past! Are you posting from Digg in 2005?
These rules are not only silly, but applied inconsistenly.
"Only include relevant information such as artist name, release title as text, and the exact song title or album as released."
Two albums in a row I was involved with had real problems with Apple due to some additional text on the covers, which was essential to their conceptual nature, think Tull's "Thick as a Brick". One was stylised as a movie poster, the other as a book cover.
"Only include relevant information such as artist name, release title as text, and the exact song title or album as released."
Two albums in a row I was involved with had real problems with Apple due to some additional text on the covers, which was essential to their conceptual nature, think Tull's "Thick as a Brick". One was stylised as a movie poster, the other as a book cover.
Because PNG and GIF are accepted, what happens if I submit transparent pixels? Do they become black? White? Do end user devices render them transparently with window BG behind them? What if the GIF is animated?
I feel like Apple left a few fun low-hanging edge cases on the table here. Also no barcodes; but does that include QR codes?
I feel like Apple left a few fun low-hanging edge cases on the table here. Also no barcodes; but does that include QR codes?
I recall Death Grips "No Love Deep Web" (very NSFW) being pixelated, IIRC
So many historical and significant album covers violate these rules.
Apple seem to be trying to push app store like restrictions to the whole music industry. How many classic album covers would violate these rules?
A lot. A whole host of covers probably violates the arbitrary 'no pornography' guidelines (even omitting the obvious examples like The Scorpions' Virgin Killer). Then again, this is just a set of criteria for Apple Music. Artists can always just generate a gradient just for Apple Music like that pretentious Baby Keem example — the paragraph below those covers about sparking conversation; that has to be some form of sarcasm I'm not getting right?
> No barcodes
Well, too bad for the Barcode Brothers:
https://www.discogs.com/release/224392-Barcode-Brothers-Flut...
> No barcodes
Well, too bad for the Barcode Brothers:
https://www.discogs.com/release/224392-Barcode-Brothers-Flut...
since all their records are in Apple Music, I think the barcode restriction is not "any object that resembles a barcode" but actual product barcodes. At least one hopes.
Once companies get big enough their polices can be industry shaping, before Apple it was Walmart
"On other CD's he has bought at Wal-Mart, record companies had removed songs or altered artwork on the covers to make them acceptable to the discount chain, although Adam said he was not aware of it.
Adam's mother, Arlene, said she did not like Wal-Mart's policy. ''It should be my decision instead of theirs,'' she said."
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/12/arts/wal-mart-s-cd-standa...
"On other CD's he has bought at Wal-Mart, record companies had removed songs or altered artwork on the covers to make them acceptable to the discount chain, although Adam said he was not aware of it.
Adam's mother, Arlene, said she did not like Wal-Mart's policy. ''It should be my decision instead of theirs,'' she said."
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/12/arts/wal-mart-s-cd-standa...
"Industry-shaping" doesn't seem so bad. "Art-shaping" provokes other feelings. Counterculture's lost its soul in the past decade. It's time to rekindle it.
The difference from 1996, is that now Arlene can simply go to the artists’ website and buy the content directly with zero extra friction and bypass all of Walmart’s (or Apple’s) meddling.
Have you actually looked at the rules? Which one do you find objectionable?
I red the article with the idea that I am going to snap at Apple for starting with "Express yourself" and then placing a bunch of restrictions, but then I red the restrictions and I can't find anything that I could object to. Even when they say "No blurry, pixelated, tilted, or cropped images" they clarify "unless intended".
There is infinite freedom within the rules. There is no need for you to spam my phone screen with additional hashtags, handles or copies of information that I already have on my screen.
I red the article with the idea that I am going to snap at Apple for starting with "Express yourself" and then placing a bunch of restrictions, but then I red the restrictions and I can't find anything that I could object to. Even when they say "No blurry, pixelated, tilted, or cropped images" they clarify "unless intended".
There is infinite freedom within the rules. There is no need for you to spam my phone screen with additional hashtags, handles or copies of information that I already have on my screen.
"Only include relevant information such as artist name, release title as text, and the exact song title or album as released" seems to imply no other text is allowed.
"No dates" - would Pulp Disco 2000 be allowed? Who knows?
Maybe their machine learning was all getting confused.
edit: I will add - I really couldn't care if it were just Apple blocking some music from their store - appleid is too much of a hassle anyway! But it'll drag the whole music industry into having to work with the lowest common denominator bland cover art.
"No dates" - would Pulp Disco 2000 be allowed? Who knows?
Maybe their machine learning was all getting confused.
edit: I will add - I really couldn't care if it were just Apple blocking some music from their store - appleid is too much of a hassle anyway! But it'll drag the whole music industry into having to work with the lowest common denominator bland cover art.
That would seem to rule out a very high percentage of the music I listen to, which frequently has abstract or fully image-processed content on the cover. I have a feeling I know what they're trying to avoid in their catalogs, and that's looking like a crate of records in a dusty music shop. They are merchandising the hits, not trying to even make it feasible to find the market-losers later.
How do their rules exclude abstract images? If this is the one you're referring to:
> No blurry, pixelated, tilted, or cropped images unless intended.
Notice the 'unless intended.' I imagine they're trying to avoid hastily or poorly uploaded artwork.
> No blurry, pixelated, tilted, or cropped images unless intended.
Notice the 'unless intended.' I imagine they're trying to avoid hastily or poorly uploaded artwork.
> hastily or poorly uploaded
I would say that is often a good description of the artistic intent.
I would say that is often a good description of the artistic intent.
I wonder if Viper is on Apple Music
Assuming you mean the artist with albums titled "Trap Lord 2" and "Life Is Fair 4 Me II", yes, they are.
thanks for this subthread =)
Isn't it the same as a physical store refusing to stock your album because of something objectionable to them on the cover?
Yes but they seem to have some pretty draconian rules where a beautiful looking music catalogue (for users and Apple’s marketing screenshots) is more important than the artistic nature of whatever album art the musician might want.
Who are Apple to say I can’t put another artists photo on my album?
Sounds to me like it’s primed for some artist(s) to break as many rules as possible with a legitimate release to see how Apple actually respond.
Who are Apple to say I can’t put another artists photo on my album?
Sounds to me like it’s primed for some artist(s) to break as many rules as possible with a legitimate release to see how Apple actually respond.
> Who are Apple to say I can’t put another artists photo on my album?
Are you not able to purchase music and import to the Music app with whatever metadata you want?
I am not posing a rhetorical question, I do not have experience with the Music app outside of using the Apple Music subscription service so I would like to know if they do restrict these kinds of things.
Are you not able to purchase music and import to the Music app with whatever metadata you want?
I am not posing a rhetorical question, I do not have experience with the Music app outside of using the Apple Music subscription service so I would like to know if they do restrict these kinds of things.
I'm not OP, but yes it is possible to import arbitrary music into the Apple Music app with whatever cover art and other metadata you want. It's as easy as dragging in a folder of normal, tagged FLAC or MP3 files and it will use the metadata in them to group into albums etc.
It's also user-configurable whether the app will move your files into its folder and organization scheme or just leave them alone where you put them.
It's also user-configurable whether the app will move your files into its folder and organization scheme or just leave them alone where you put them.
Then I am not seeing the problem.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"No misleading or generic cover art" <- I don't know how much black metal is on that service, but if they have to abide by this law, I'm guessing not a lot :D #everythingIsAForest
"Cover art specifications: A perfect square."
...which we will butcher by rounding the corners in all of our apps.
...which we will butcher by rounding the corners in all of our apps.
1. Better have a million album covers be butchered the same way, than having a bunch of them butchered in different ways (eg. having rounded corners applied twice).
2. If designs change, having the corners around is necessary for future proofing
2. If designs change, having the corners around is necessary for future proofing
I find it weird cause I've actually seen exceptions to the perfect square rule, which you'd figure they'd enforce in the upload.
On Apple Music, Ween's album GodWeenSatan: The Oneness has album art that isn't a square, it's a slightly wide rectangle. When it's in a carousel with other albums it's not even vertically centered, it's bottom-aligned so it's a bit shorter than all the other albums. Though if you click into the album itself they put some magenta letterboxing on the top and bottom that's slightly darker than the pink on the album cover.
On Apple Music, Ween's album GodWeenSatan: The Oneness has album art that isn't a square, it's a slightly wide rectangle. When it's in a carousel with other albums it's not even vertically centered, it's bottom-aligned so it's a bit shorter than all the other albums. Though if you click into the album itself they put some magenta letterboxing on the top and bottom that's slightly darker than the pink on the album cover.
...which we will butcher by rounding the corners in all of our apps.
They're probably just future-proofing the data.
Corners have been getting less round over time, and Apple is preparing for a day when corners become right angles again. And also for a day when everyone wants just circles, or ovals, or stars, or some other shape.
They're probably just future-proofing the data.
Corners have been getting less round over time, and Apple is preparing for a day when corners become right angles again. And also for a day when everyone wants just circles, or ovals, or stars, or some other shape.
Do you really expect Apple to allow pornographic album covers? I release music and also stream music and none of these rules are objectionable to me. When I'm using streaming platforms, I don't want to see social media handles, references to pricing or an avenue for hucksters to start selling things via album covers.
Wikipedia has a list of controversial album covers[0], and trying to split them into pornographic/not pornographic is tricky, at best. It would be a shame to lose many of those covers (which IMO have plenty of artistic merit) because of a draconian implementation of this rule, but there’s plenty others that are just cheap. Unfortunately, Apple is listed on several as having come down on the side of (again, IMO) being overly conservative.
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_album_...
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_album_...
They also have profile photo rules, notably, that it must include your face.
I later found out that you cannot remove your profile photo, even upon request. Nor can I replace it with something other than my face.
Can’t say I’m a fan of that policy, for privacy reasons.
I later found out that you cannot remove your profile photo, even upon request. Nor can I replace it with something other than my face.
Can’t say I’m a fan of that policy, for privacy reasons.
> Can’t say I’m a fan of that policy, for privacy reasons.
It also seems wrong for artistic reasons. Unsurprisingly Daft Punk seems to be an exception to this rule. I guess they were lucky enough to start the anonymous artist thing and become famous before Apple decided you're not allowed to do that on their platform.
And what about music projects that aren't necessarily a concrete band but a revolving crew of people that could come and go at any time? It seems simple and limiting to act like all music should have one or more human faces attached to it.
It also seems wrong for artistic reasons. Unsurprisingly Daft Punk seems to be an exception to this rule. I guess they were lucky enough to start the anonymous artist thing and become famous before Apple decided you're not allowed to do that on their platform.
And what about music projects that aren't necessarily a concrete band but a revolving crew of people that could come and go at any time? It seems simple and limiting to act like all music should have one or more human faces attached to it.
Maybe the solution to that for now is to use a fake, AI generated photo from https://thispersondoesnotexist.com or some other service.
I can't see Apple getting away with similar rules to passport photos or police mug shots.
I can't see Apple getting away with similar rules to passport photos or police mug shots.
my Apple Music profile photo is a pic of my dog.
When did you upload yours? I’ve attempted to upload non-face photos on multiple occasions now and had them all rejected.
if memory serves, it was early after launch. I follow a few playlists and their profile photos are usually cartoons (eg Lofi Girl).
I should clarify I’m talking about my artist profile picture, configured through artists.apple.com.
Would love to see some indie stuff on Bandcamp or one’s own artist website that explicitly break all of these rules then show an alt cover on Apple Music or iTunes.
> No references to physical packaging, digital packaging, or retailers (for example, vinyl or CD).
Jesus fucking Christ
Jesus fucking Christ
I wonder if that rule is more to avoid people doing lazy ports of existing artwork files leaving stuff like "X Disc Box Set", "Our Price[1] Exclusive" or the Compact Disc logo on the covers. Although it's hard to parse, so I might be wrong.
"No Dates" is funnier, plenty of compilation albums and so on must break that, plus stuff like Prince's 1999. Not sure what that's really meant to catch.
[1] Other record stores are available, and they may even still be in business.
"No Dates" is funnier, plenty of compilation albums and so on must break that, plus stuff like Prince's 1999. Not sure what that's really meant to catch.
[1] Other record stores are available, and they may even still be in business.
Are they gonna take Kanye's Yeezus or Jesus is King off of the service? Oh right, these rules only apply to small artists.
[deleted]
Spinal Tap would have run into trouble with this.
"Well, you should have seen the cover they wanted to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me."
"Well, you should have seen the cover they wanted to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me."
The guidelines help Apple to have a more uniform visual presentation of the albums, but it can be detrimental to the artists creativity. You don't want a SEO analogy of this for musician.
This may not be popular, but as someone who has worked with content management systems on small and large scales, but is first and foremost an artist/ designer, these rules don't come across (to me at least) as constricting/ controlling/ unreasonable/ soul-destroying (that would then choke/ smother creativity and personal expression), but actually provide very helpful guidelines for mass distribution (if that's your goal as an artist).
If you as artist want freedom of expression at the cost of mass distribution on a platform like Apple Music, then do your own thing and maintain integrity to your vision without compromising, even if it may mean less people might have access. Maybe the people you wanna reach don't even use Apple Music.
If you as artist want to insist upon your aesthetic and vision, but still want the potential reach that Apple Music might provide, and you as artist have the clout and muscle to insist upon it even if it rustles feathers, then by all means, flex and see what you can finesse with your influence & sway. Maybe you'll get special treatment. Maybe you won't, and instead create buzz in the pop culture gossip rags that you tried and failed, or Apple Music made a special case for you. Either way, it might end up as free press, if your goal is attention.
Otherwise, I think this guideline is helpful so you can get your music on a massive platform, with as little back & forth as possible, since FAANG type companies will most likely have all sorts of guidelines and legal issues for all types of content, given their global reach across multiple mediums, etc.
The artist/ designer in me these days isn't offended by these guidelines, and is actually glad they're clear and straightforward. That being said, I could see myself being offended maybe say, 10-15 years ago, but even then I'd prob still wanna work within the constraints rather than insist upon my creative choices that would go outside those bounds – unless I had full conviction I needed to express myself in a way that broke their rules and disqualified me from getting approved.
If you as artist want freedom of expression at the cost of mass distribution on a platform like Apple Music, then do your own thing and maintain integrity to your vision without compromising, even if it may mean less people might have access. Maybe the people you wanna reach don't even use Apple Music.
If you as artist want to insist upon your aesthetic and vision, but still want the potential reach that Apple Music might provide, and you as artist have the clout and muscle to insist upon it even if it rustles feathers, then by all means, flex and see what you can finesse with your influence & sway. Maybe you'll get special treatment. Maybe you won't, and instead create buzz in the pop culture gossip rags that you tried and failed, or Apple Music made a special case for you. Either way, it might end up as free press, if your goal is attention.
Otherwise, I think this guideline is helpful so you can get your music on a massive platform, with as little back & forth as possible, since FAANG type companies will most likely have all sorts of guidelines and legal issues for all types of content, given their global reach across multiple mediums, etc.
The artist/ designer in me these days isn't offended by these guidelines, and is actually glad they're clear and straightforward. That being said, I could see myself being offended maybe say, 10-15 years ago, but even then I'd prob still wanna work within the constraints rather than insist upon my creative choices that would go outside those bounds – unless I had full conviction I needed to express myself in a way that broke their rules and disqualified me from getting approved.
The rules aren't even applied right now.
"No year or dates." - 1989 by Taylor Swift
"No references to physical packaging, digital packaging, or retailers (for example, vinyl or CD)." - Yeezus by Kanye West
Wild
"No year or dates." - 1989 by Taylor Swift
"No references to physical packaging, digital packaging, or retailers (for example, vinyl or CD)." - Yeezus by Kanye West
Wild
If you consider baby's penis on the Nevermind cover porn, then, by definition [1], it looks sexually arousing to you.
Perhaps not the best thing to openly advertise to others.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
Perhaps not the best thing to openly advertise to others.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
I just want cover flow back :(
I suppose it doesn't make sense for the streaming generation, but I liked flipping through my albums
I suppose it doesn't make sense for the streaming generation, but I liked flipping through my albums
Yes! I forgot all about that feature! That was cool.
What about a bulge?
Had to double check that one of my favorite albums - Bongripper's "Satan Worshipping Doom"[0] still had demon titties on Apple Music. I guess they don't consider it explicit enough.
[0] https://music.apple.com/us/album/satan-worshipping-doom/5565...
[0] https://music.apple.com/us/album/satan-worshipping-doom/5565...
Goblin Cock has been altered though!
https://music.apple.com/us/album/bagged-and-boarded/15816775...
https://goblincock.bandcamp.com/album/bagged-and-boarded
https://music.apple.com/us/album/bagged-and-boarded/15816775...
https://goblincock.bandcamp.com/album/bagged-and-boarded
I think by pornographic they mean like what you’d see on PornHub, not artsy breasts like say Nothing’s Shocking[1] and so on.
[1] https://music.apple.com/us/album/nothings-shocking/101851820...
[1] https://music.apple.com/us/album/nothings-shocking/101851820...
"Slow, Deep, and Hard"[0] by Type O Negative literally depicts PIV sex. That's the album I'm most familiar with that could be argued is "pornographic".
[0]: https://music.apple.com/us/album/slow-deep-and-hard-remaster...
[0]: https://music.apple.com/us/album/slow-deep-and-hard-remaster...
Apple Music has a pornography problem regardless.
I used to (stupidly) browse through Apple Music's "New Music" just to be presented with images that I wouldn't want shown on my TV if I happened to be casting in the living room nor at work.
IMO, there should be a filtered setting that blurs photos that might be in any ways explicit. We label the songs... why not the albums?
I used to (stupidly) browse through Apple Music's "New Music" just to be presented with images that I wouldn't want shown on my TV if I happened to be casting in the living room nor at work.
IMO, there should be a filtered setting that blurs photos that might be in any ways explicit. We label the songs... why not the albums?
“Simplistically elegant…” sigh
> No parental advisory logo if the release is not explicit.
I worked in radio in the 1990's and remember a song called "Parental Advisory" which had a Parental Advisory logo as part of the album art. I think there was an actual album called Parental Advisory that had nothing but the PA logo on its cover.
I wonder if those are in Apple Music.
I worked in radio in the 1990's and remember a song called "Parental Advisory" which had a Parental Advisory logo as part of the album art. I think there was an actual album called Parental Advisory that had nothing but the PA logo on its cover.
I wonder if those are in Apple Music.