The commercial use clause in the contract forbids Swift from using the photos in a way that is directly monetized (selling posters, t-shirts, albums, etc. with the image on them). That means she can use them for gig posters, Facebook ads and posts, instagram, twitter, as promo photos, etc. without paying a cent……

My point still stands… the fact that someone else might pay for the photos is the same as the fact that someone else may pay for Taylor's album. Regardless, it's someone powerful wanting something for nothing.

Regardless whether the analogy lines up perfectly…

Regardless of the amount of creative energy involved, work is work. If one works, someone else shouldn't get to use the result of that work for free. Also, photography is a lot more than just clicking the shutter, but there are many other places online that this argument is made, so I won't waste keystrokes on it.

If she were the one paying the fee that'd be one thing. In most cases photographers work on spec and hope to get paid upon usage of their photos. If an artist wants to have unlimited usage of my photographs, they should have to pay.