Taylor Swift Teaches Copyright Law
The unprecedented phenomenon of the American country singer who became a one-woman economy by mastering her copyrights
When 14 Grammy Award winning singer-songwriter Taylor Swift performs, the ground literally shakes. Her Eras tour concerts have led to seismic activity equivalent to 2.3 magnitude earthquakes, according to seismologists. She was recently named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year 2023. And she is a one-woman economy, creating such an incredible economic boost wherever she tours that international politicians literally beg her to perform in their country.
(In fact, Thai politicians are currently disgruntled with the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) for the grant subsidies Swift’s upcoming March 2024 Singapore concerts received.)
But it wasn’t always like this. In a career spanning over 20 years, Taylor Swift has reinvented her music and personal style numerous times and faced multiple career-ending setbacks.
She initially struggled to gain mainstream recognition due to preconceptions about her young age and her country music roots. The 2009 MTV Video Music Awards incident with Kanye West led to her being savagely cancelled. And throughout her career, she has often been subjected to sensationalising headlines and reductive, misogynistic narratives about her personal life and relationships.
“Swift’s biggest setback is key to her stratospheric success. Her mastery of copyright law got her there”
But her biggest setback of all is the key to her stratospheric success today. This is the story of how her mastery of copyright law got her there.
How songs are copyrighted
In 2005, 15-year-old Taylor Swift was just starting out as a country music artist. She signed a 13 year recording deal with Big Machine Records, that gave the record company the ownership of the masters to her first six albums in exchange for cash up front.
Music copyright is made up of two different parts:
Composition: Which refers to song lyrics, melodies and sheet music
Master: The recorded performance of the song
Singer-songwriters like Taylor Swift with record label deals only own the composition of their songs (known as publishing rights); they do not own the rights to the masters.
“Singer-songwriters with record label deals only own the composition of their songs, not the rights to the masters”
The battle for her masters
After her contract expired in 2018, Swift decided to move on from Big Machine and signed a deal with Republic Records instead. Swift tried to buy the old masters for her music from Big Machine, but the deal fell through because Big Machine allegedly wanted her to create 6 more albums under the label in exchange for the rights she sought. Swift found this to be “unacceptable”.
In 2019, Big Machine Records was bought by record executive Scooter Braun (who previously managed Kanye West) for around US$330 million. Swift's catalogue reportedly constituted around 80% of Big Machine's revenue. The sale included the ownership of all the masters and copyrights owned by the company. Swift claims that he was an “incessant, manipulative bully” and that he tried to “dismantle” her musical legacy by orchestrating public attacks against her, including the infamous Kanye West and Kim Kardashian controversy in 2016.
This friction was exacerbated when Braun and Borchetta (the CEO of Big Machine, who stayed on after the purchase) allegedly prevented Swift from performing her older songs at the American Music Awards (AMA) of 2019 and using her older material for her 2020 documentary, “Miss Americana”. Swift also claimed that Borchetta told her team that she would be allowed to use the music only if she agreed to not re-record "copycat versions" of her songs. In response to this, Swift commented that "the message being sent to me is very clear. Basically, be a good little girl and shut up. Or you'll be punished”.
The sale of her masters to Scooter Braun was a public and personal gut punch for Swift. Losing control of the recordings she poured her heart and soul into, especially to someone she viewed as an antagonist, felt like a devastating creative betrayal. It wasn't just about money; it was about the ability to shape her artistic legacy.
When the news broke publicly of the sale of Swift’s masters, fellow singer-songwriter Kelly Clarkson wrote the following tweet:
Subsequently in August 2019, Swift announced that she would re-record and release her first 6 albums so that she would own the complete rights to them herself. While she could only start in November 2020 due to the terms of her contract with Big Machine, she still owned the publishing rights. By re-recording her songs, she would be technically covering her own songs as new recordings, resulting in new masters that she would fully own.
“By re-recording her songs, Swift would be covering her own songs, resulting in new masters that she would fully own”
Swift mastery of copyright law
Re-recording a whole album is a massive undertaking. The sheer cost and effort of re-recording a single album, running into millions of dollars, could seem like an insurmountable task - and Swift had 6 with Big Machine. Swift herself acknowledged the enormity of the task, stating in her signature storytelling style that “Nobody wants to redo their homework on the way to school”.
“Nobody wants to redo their homework on the way to school”
However, since Swift wrote her own songs, she retained the composition copyright and could re-record them. She also negotiated to own the master rights for her new albums when she signed with Republic Records.
Since 2020, Swift has re-released 4 of her 6 older albums – Fearless (Taylor’s Version), Red (Taylor’s Version), Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) and 1989 (Taylor’s Version) – all tagged with “(Taylor’s Version)”. Each album contained additional unreleased tracks to redirect listenership to them. She framed the strategy as a coping mechanism. “It’s all in how you deal with loss,” she says. “I respond to extreme pain with defiance.”
Yet, for Swift, this obstacle was a catapult in disguise. The act of re-recording multiple albums over a short space of time meant that she ended up releasing a vast amount of music over the 3 years between 2021 and 2023. Re-recording entire albums is not unheard of in the music industry - for example, Prince and Frank Sinatra were known for re-recording large numbers of songs over the course of their career. However, attempting it as extensively and quickly as Swift is doing is a remarkable and unique feat, particularly in the age of streaming platforms.
“Re-recording entire albums is not unheard of - but attempting it as extensively and quickly as Swift is doing is a remarkable and unique feat”
The obstacle is the way
Not only did this gargantuan feat enable Swift to regain creative control and ownership of her music, it was arguably instrumental in elevating her to a level of pop stardom that she had not previously reached.
By re-releasing older songs from albums as far back as 2008 and 2012, she ingeniously tapped on the loyalty of her existing, dedicated fan base, while also introducing a whole new generation to her music, many of whom had only just been born when these songs were originally written.
The most recent of these re-released albums, 1989 (Taylor’s Version), set a Spotify record for most-streamed album in a single day when it was released in October 2023. Arguably, the renewal of her back catalogue was absolutely instrumental to the incredible success of her Eras Tour.
“The renewal of Swift’s back catalogue was absolutely instrumental to the incredible success of her Eras Tour”
You heard it here first - following Swift’s lead, we will probably now see other artists re-recording and releasing multiple entire older albums as a business strategy to appeal to new generations of fans.
Swift’s greatest setback is a remarkable example of taking an unjust situation that you would have never chosen, and turning it into a catapult instead. Rather than allowing the disappointment to consume her, her acceptance of the fact that the masters had been sold to her enemy, meant she could get to work turning her setback into something new or better.
Lessons for creators of copyrighted works
It is essential for creators of copyrighted works to ensure that you understand your copyright ownership rights, and the related provisions in your contracts. Missing clauses can leave you vulnerable.
Taylor owns the non-masters rights to her songs by default because she was the author – she wrote her own lyrics and music, and the default position in Singapore is that the author of a copyright is the first owner of the same. This might not always be the case as many artists do not actually write their own songs, which means that they might not be the default owner of the rights, or they may have signed away their authorial rights inadvertently in an agreement where there was unequal bargaining power.
It would have been very unlikely for a budding singer-songwriter, through her parents and lawyers, to have the bargaining power to negotiate a right of first refusal for the masters. However, this is not to say that creators of copyrighted works should not consider negotiating a “Taylor Swift clause” protecting your interests over rights transfers.
“Creators of copyrighted works should consider negotiating a ‘Taylor Swift clause’ protecting your interests over rights transfers”
And as this article shows, even with a default contract, talented singer-songwriters like Taylor Swift can still achieve their goals through clever business acumen and a relentless work ethic.
At That.Legal LLC, we understand that intellectual property isn't just about protection, it's about fuelling your creative vision. We go beyond simply defending your rights – we become your strategic partners, working alongside you to unlock the full potential of your ideas.
“Intellectual property isn’t just about protection, it’s about fuelling your creative vision”
Our team of legal experts brings both deep legal knowledge and entrepreneurial, creative thinking to the table. Contact us to turn your intellectual property into a springboard for success.
Follow us on social
You might also be interested in:
Disclaimer
This article does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion on any matter discussed and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and practice in this area. That.Legal LLC represents neither party in this dispute and is not privy to any confidential information pertaining to the parties. All facts stated herein are compiled from publicly available sources. If you require any advice or information, please speak to a practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction. No individual who is a member, partner, shareholder or consultant of, in or to any constituent part of That.Legal LLC accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this article.