Swift announced that she bought the rights to her masters. What does this mean and will her purchase affect the music industry?
Twenty years after Taylor Swift signed her first recording contract, the pop star officially owns her own music.
On May 30, Swift announced that she bought the rights to the master recordings of her first six albums from Shamrock Capital. The purchase price was about $360 million, according to Billboard.
But what does this mean and what implications could it have for other artists?
@northeasternglobalnews $360 million later, Taylor Swift owns her master recordings. We spoke with music industry experts to understand what effect her purchase might have on the record label industry. #TaylorSwift #MusicIndustry #RecordLabels #Law #ReputationTV #TaylorsVersion #RepTV ♬ Painful Consideration – Ausku Studio
$360 million later, Taylor Swift owns her master recordings. We spoke with music industry experts to understand what effect her purchase might have on the record label industry. #TaylorSwift #MusicIndustry #RecordLabels #Law #ReputationTV #TaylorsVersion #RepTV
Traditionally, when a new artist signs with a record label, the label owns the master recordings the musician makes, said David Herlihy, owner of an entertainment law practice and teaching professor at Northeastern University.
“Record labels have long built their value on owning master recordings and having artists obligated to render their exclusive recording services,” Herlihy said. “The labels pay money and the artist is obligated to record for them, and the label always has the fruits of their labor. That’s sort of the way that record labels have operated since electricity.”
The digitization of music over time has shifted this a little bit as artists can now record and post their own music online. But at the time Swift signed her record deal with Big Machine Records, it was common for artists to have little to no power when signing with a label, Herlihy said.
Swift left Big Machine after her deal expired in 2018. The following year, the label sold her masters to Ithaca Holdings, which was owned by then-music manager Scooter Braun.
Swift accused Braun and his clients, which included Kanye West, of bullying her. At the time, she said: “Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time (Big Machine CEO) Scott Borchetta has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever.”
Big Machine Records said at the time that Swift had a chance to own her masters and other associated works, but “chose to leave” the label. Borchetta also denied seeing Swift in tears or near tears over Braun.
But while the master recordings belonged to Braun (who sold them to Shamrock Capital in 2020), Swift’s contract didn’t prevent her from re-recording her old music.
Melissa Ferrick, a songwriter, performer and professor of the practice in music at Northeastern University said many labels have a re-record clause that allows artists to re-record their songs after a certain amount of time.
This is how Swift was able to release “Taylor’s Versions” of her previous albums that included both the original tracks and “vault tracks,” which were songs originally written for certain albums but not released with them. Since 2021, she has released re-recordings of four of her first six albums.
“When a person makes a record, the label owns that particular recording that you made that day in that recording studio,” Ferrick said. “They’re going to just own that recording. After that period of time is up, any artist can go back in and re-record all of those songs again on a different day, even in the same studio with the same players at the same tempo, with the same instruments. Then you own it.”
It’s not uncommon for artists to re-record their music and many do so, sometimes through live albums. But Swift’s re-recordings had a particular appeal due to her ongoing popularity, Herlihy said.
“Most artists don’t have anywhere near the shelf life that Taylor has,” he said. “She’s an evergreen artist and her recordings are going to be listened to for quite a long time compared to most artists.”
Doing so also undercut the value of her masters, Herlihy said. As of 2023, Swift’s first two re-recordings (of 2008’s “Fearless” and 2012’s “Red”) far outperformed the originals in streaming numbers.
Swift said in her letter that she has heard from new artists who said they negotiated the rights to their own master recordings because of her battle.
But both Herlihy and Ferrick said there is unlikely to be a huge industry shift over this.
“I can’t imagine that this is going to change practices for signing new artists because there’s so much investment in a brand new act,” Ferrick said. “It is the people that are investing that money that have the right to make that money back. I can’t imagine that would be controversial to many people.”
Ferrick said what is becoming more common is some labels are offering “glorified distribution deals” where they give artists less money and have the masters revert back to them over a period of time. However, Ferrick said, managing this is no easy task, which is why some artists don’t even want to own theirs.“I want to be careful with younger artists that I work with,” Ferrick added. “They may not have the ability yet or the team in place yet to take care of their catalog the way that Taylor does.”
However, Swift, while not the first artist to fight to own her masters or re-record old songs, has brought attention to the dangers of not owning one’s work. Ferrick said recording contracts often have the option of an artist’s masters being sold, which means a person’s work could end up in the hands of someone whose beliefs don’t align with theirs, as was the case with Swift.
It was this particular personal component, along with Swift’s superstar status and following response, that made this case notable and set a precedent for other artists to come.
“She’s now laid the groundwork,” Ferrick said. “And there’s a lot to be said for ownership, particularly as a woman. She’s an incredible businesswoman. I think this is another check mark for her, and for others to see that she’s controlling her work and her destiny. There was some personal stuff (too). I’m not sure how much Taylor Swift needs the money. This was a pretty contentious break with Scooter Braun and I think the treatment of her was pretty bad. I think there’s more at play here.”