By: Kathryn Barber
With the upcoming release of Taylor Swift’s re-recorded album Red (Taylor’s Version), on November 19th 2021, Swift fans are getting ready to experience this album all over again just nine years after the original release of the album. Why would Taylor Swift (“Swift”) be re-recording her past work? Well, the answer is simple. Swift wants to legally own her work. Artists, like Swift, tend to sign contracts with recording labels who turn the artists’ musical compositions into the master recordings, which are then copyrighted by the label. Typically, these contracts give the record labels ownership of the master recordings, along with the ability to control the manufacturing, distribution, and promotion of that recording. Additionally, contracts between artists and record labels usually contain clauses that prohibit artists from re-recording their music until two to five years after the original release of the album or when the contract between the parties ends. While Swift is not the first artist to re-record her masters, she certainly is paving the way for future artists to be more assertive and demanding when making contracts with record labels in order to ensure artists have more say in their masters and maybe even fully own them as well.
When Swift was just fifteen years old, she signed a record deal with Big Machine Records which conveyed the ownership rights of the first six albums Swift produced to the label. However, Swift was able to keep the copyright to her songs as long as she wrote the lyrics. After Swift’s Sixth studio album came out, Reputation, Swift and Big Machine Records were unable to come to a new deal and thus, Swift entered into a new contract with Republic Records and Universal Music Group. The agreement between the parties allows Swift to own all of the master recordings she makes from now on.
Just one year after Swift signed with her new record label, Big Machine Records was bought by Ithaca Holdings LLC for just over $300 million, with Swift’s discography accounting for an estimated $140 million of that. Swift outwardly condemned this transaction, as she never was offered to purchase her master recordings, something she repeatedly asked Big Machine Records to consider. Just when Swift was about to release Lover, Ithaca Holdings LLC announced it sold Swift’s master recordings to Shamrock Holdings for around $300 million without Swift’s knowledge. Now, in an effort to gain ownership of her past music, Swift has now been on a mission to re-record her master recordings. On April 9th, 2021, Swift released her first re-recorded master album, Fearless (Taylor’s Version).
One question of debate has been if Swift is even entitled to re-record her masters. Swift is legally able to re-record her masters after a number of years because of the re-recording clauses in her contracts with Big Machine Records. Swift can currently re-record all of her past albums with the exception of Reputation, as Reputation was released in 2017 and it has not been five years since the original release [so be on the lookout for Reputation (Taylor’s Version) come 2022]. Additionally, Swift owns the copyright to her music because she writes her own lyrics. But, Swift does not own the musical composition of her songs, as these rights belong to the producers who create the master recording. Swift wants the ability to not only hold the copyright to her music, but also own the master recording so that she can control the distribution and promotion of her music. Swift was running into issues with Big Machine Records, as she and the record label had different ideas on where and how they wanted her music to be heard. For a song to be used in film, the filmmaker needs two different licenses. They first need a sync license, which must be approved by the songwriter, plus a master use license, which is granted by the owner of the master recording. Therefore, both Swift and Big Machine Records had to approve licensing rights for her music to be used in film, which proved to be difficult for the parties to come to agreements on who to grant the licenses to. Having the ability to determine who uses her music is a huge reason as to why Swift wants to own her master recordings.
Swift’s undertaking to re-record her masters has received a lot of public attention, but there have been other artists before her who have attempted to do the same. Artists like JoJo and Def Leppard were some of the first to have gone through similar routes as Swift in an attempt to own their music. Prince famously stated that “if you don’t own your masters, your master owns you.” Because of her popularity and social media presence, the attention and awareness Swift has created is expected to change the music industry forever. Young artists, like Olivia Rodrigo, are being more cautious when signing record deals, knowing the ramifications of not owning their masters. Additionally, some record labels may start prohibiting artists from re-recording their masters for their lifetime rather than allowing re-recording after a certain number of years. Swift’s ability to take this battle of legally owning her music publicly has created support for artists to own their own music and will potentially change the relationship between record labels and artists as we know it.
Student Bio: Kathryn Barber is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. She is a staffer on the Journal of High Technology Law. Kathryn received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from Clark University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
