Copyright Law In The Music Industry (Taylor’s Version) By Talia Cherun

In a move that can only be described as fearless, Taylor Swift decided to speak now and re-record four of her albums beginning in the spring of 2021. Many of you have likely seen the suffix “Taylor’s Version” next to the titles of some of Swift’s most popular songs, and wondered what the difference was between the new and the old iterations of these tracks. Is “Taylor’s Version” just a simple cash grab? A cheap and easy way to profit from the same songs that made her famous? In reality, the difference is so much more. “Taylor’s Version” ultimately symbolizes Swift’s legal victory and autonomy as an artist, as she was finally able to claim her music as her own after 16 years. 

Background

Back in 2005, when Swift was only a teenager, she signed a record deal with the company Big Machine. She quickly rose to fame, recording six hit albums before the company was purchased and repossessed by talent manager Scooter Braun, a long time enemy of Swift’s, without Swift’s knowledge or consent. However, while with Big Machine, Swift signed a contract including a re-record clause, prohibiting her from re-recording her music until 2020. Scooter Braun then sold the rights to Swift’s music to a private equity firm called Shamrock Holdings, which continues to hold ownership of the masters of Swift’s first six albums today. No longer able to tolerate it, this exploitation of Swift and her work fueled her decision to re-record her albums, breaking all ties with the man.

Copyright Law

When it comes to copyright in the music industry, there are three primary layers of ownership of musical tracks:

1. Song lyrics - the written words of a song

2. Musical composition - the melodic arrangement of a song

3. Sound recording  (also known as masters) - the final recorded version of the song

   
   

Taylor Swift has always held the rights to the first two layers: her lyrics and musical compositions. However, she never had ownership of the masters, meaning that every time someone streamed or purchased her music, the profits went to Shamrock Holdings rather than to Swift herself. In other words, Swift did not earn royalties from her music until she re-recorded songs herself. Swift attempted to buy back the masters from Shamrock Holdings, but was ultimately shut down. The re-record clause in her contract delayed her ability to reclaim control, but once that period ended in 2020, she was free to re-record her music on her own terms in order to possess total ownership of and earn profits from her work.

The Impact of “Taylor’s Version”

Presently, Taylor Swift has re-recorded four of the six albums she created while signed with Big Machine records: “Fearless”, “Red”, “Speak Now”, and “1989”. These remastered versions include all of the albums’ original songs re-recorded in Swift’s own style, plus bonus tracks “From the Vault” that were not originally released. These new songs added to the allure of Swift’s re-recorded albums, bringing new levels of popularity and visibility to what Swift was doing. Fans suspect that Swift will re-record her remaining two albums recorded under Big Machine, “Reputation” and “Taylor Swift”, in the coming years. Swift shook up the legal side of the music industry when she began her journey of re-recording music just three years after parting with Big Machine. This prompted record companies today to draft new clauses prohibiting re-recording of music for twenty to thirty years following deviation from their companies to protect their profits for as long as possible. Additionally, the rise of streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music are encouraging new artists to work independently, and forgo signing contracts with a record label at all. Swift’s battle to reclaim her masters has highlighted industry issues, showing other artists the importance of ownership and contract awareness. 

Conclusion

After reading this article, it can confidently be said that“Taylor’s Version” is more than just a marketing strategy: it is an act of artistic courage. Swift’s struggle to gain ownership of the work she spent her entire career creating has inspired other artists to break free of restrictive contracts and controlling record labels, forging entry into a new era of artistic autonomy. Beyond changing the way artists think about their legal rights, Swift’s reclamation of her work has also changed the game for how record label companies draft their contracts, bringing to light complexities of copyright law. Ultimately, Taylor Swift is not just a businesswoman: she’s the mastermind behind it all.

Sources

Gomez, D. (2023, November 1). What’s next for Taylor’s version? everything to know about swift’s re-recorded albums. The Wrap. https://www.thewrap.com/taylor-swift-taylors-version-albums-explained/

McEwan, W. (2024, February 22). Stolen lullabies: How copyright law allowed Taylor Swift to reclaim her masters. Wake Forest Law Review. https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2024/02/stolen-lullabies-how-copyright-law-allowed-taylor-swift-to-reclaim-her-masters/

Milano, B. (2024, April 5). How Taylor Swift changed the Copyright Game by remaking her own music. Harvard Law School. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/