Look What You Made Her Do: Taylor Swift's Fight for her Master Recordings

Pop icon Taylor Swift recently bought back the master recordings for her first six albums. The nostalgic trip behind the "Taylor's Version" albums was a way of circumventing the restrictions placed on her due to not having access to releasing her original records. 

That's because, until 2018, Swift had a record deal with music label Big Machine, which gave them the rights to the master recordings of these six albums released with them. Swift rejected the offer to rejoin the label in exchange for access to her master recordings. Afterwards, Big Machine was acquired by Ithaca Holdings, which is owned by Scooter Braun, whom Swift has a history of dispute with. Eventually, Ithaca Holdings sold her rights to Shamrock Holdings in 2020, who re-released part of her masters in an effort to exert their control of her works.

Re-recording albums was her way of fighting back. 

Music compositions are made up of many different copyrights, even down to who owns the recording. The person who owns the master recording is limited to making derivative works (like remixes) and reproducing/distributing copies of those recordings, according to 17 U.S.C § 114(b). Notably, this means the owner of the master recording cannot re-record what the original author made, nor can they "perform" it, such as hosting a concert. This is what prompted the Taylor Versions - you buy the copies recorded by Taylor Swift so you deny the big bad music industry from profiting off her likeness. It brings back nostalgic songs for new and old fans alike while allowing Swift to maintain copyright ownership.

This decision had a cascading effect on music contracts, one that can be seen to this day. Swift's battle, however, brings attention to the business behind master recordings. How limiting is it to have your original recordings owned by a record label? Is there any business or career implications, or is Swift's feud just Bad Blood?

Taylor's sixth studio album, Reputation, has yet to be re-recorded. It is unknown whether she will plan to in the future in lieu of buying back her original recordings. Source: Rosa Rafael

Today's Contracts

Taylor had to wait a short while before the conditions of her former contract allowed her to re-record. Today's artists may be faced with re-recording clauses of 10 years or longer.

The success of the Taylor's Version series has prompted major music labels to extend their re-recording clauses to unreasonable lengths. This prevents an artist from being able to profit off their own works upon leaving the record label. 

Yet, Swift has empowered other artists to re-record their works. John Fogerty, member of the late-sixties rock band Creedence Clearwater Revival, decided to release a compilation of re-recorded songs to celebrate finally getting back the rights to his music in 2023. It seems, for some artists, Swift's actions have taken on a new meaning - for celebration, not compensation. 

Swift is just the most famous example. Many artists who felt shortchanged by their record labels have done similarly in the past. For instance, eighties-era rock band Def Leppard began re-releasing their classics in 2013 in defiance of Universal Music Group, claiming they're holding back on much-deserved royalties.

Why Re-record Instead of Remaster?

Remasters are highly contested in their copyright status.

In 2016, ABS Entertainment, which owns the works of famous pre-1972 artists such as Al Green and Andy Williams, sued CBS for playing remastered 

versions of their songs on radio. CBS claimed these remasters are entirely new copyrights, and the district federal court in Los Angeles agreed with them. This victory wouldn't last long, though, as a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the decision, according to ABA Journal. The main counter-argument was that reductions in noise or changing the work's format did not constitute enough of a change from the original.

At worst, it's considered a derivative work. And those who own the master recording have the sole right to produce derivative works.

Once you get into changing the melody, notes, pacing, etc., you start getting into the realm of remixes, not remasters. Unfortunately, these are almost always considered derivative works as well. 

Although remasters and remixes alter the track itself, the law hardly considers them an original copyright work separate from the master recording. Source: Sascha Bosshard

Is It Worth Owning the Originals?

Should your average artist fight tooth-and-nail to own their master recordings from the hands of a record label? Nowadays, it depends.

Negotiations can often break down as a result of re-recording clauses. Some labels are now offering options for musicians to take a lesser pay in exchange for "earning" their master recordings back. However, as songwriter and Northwestern University professor Melissa Ferrick points out, accomplishing this can be difficult for a musician without the requisite resources, which may ultimately mean owning your work is actively detrimental.

In addition, not every artist can promote their older works in the way Taylor Swift can. The wildly successful Eras Tour worked because of the sheer volume of hits across every single album. It's unique for newer fans to be so familiar with older songs and vice versa; it makes it difficult to capture your entire audience.

That isn't to say artists should give up. Rather, it should be indicative of the unfair state of record label deals. Giving up the master recording can immediately inject cash into your career, but at the cost of artistic freedom. Some artists may be able to negotiate for the masters to be transferred back to the artists after a set time period, once most of the royalties have been acquired. This compromise may not bode well with every label, however, as record labels may want to profit further off certain works past their original promotional span. 

By no fault of Swift's own, it'll be extraordinary difficult for new age musicians without the bargaining power of a hit lineup to leverage a record deal in their favor. It's a sad reminder that the entertainment industry is, in fact, an industry. It's an even better reminder that you need a lawyer to protect yourself from these deals. To own what you make seems natural, and it should be. Your work is yours. With a lawyer, you should fight for it to stay that way.