By Andreia M. Tamashiro,* LL.M. 2025
*The author thanks Mr. Gary Greenstein, Partner at Wilson Sonsini, for his guidance on this post.
When Taylor Swift announced she was re-recording her first six albums, she wasn’t just revisiting past hits–she was reclaiming ownership of her music. Her battle over album masters highlights a huge issue in the music industry: who truly owns the songs artists create? This blog post explores the legal landscape of copyright in music, the strategy behind Taylor’s Version, and what it means for the future of artists and record labels.
Taylor’s Eras Tour & Album (Re)Recording
In 2006, at the age of 16, Taylor Swift released her first album, featuring songs that hit No. 1 on the Hot Country charts. Eighteen years later, at age 34, she concluded the Eras Tour—a two-year global phenomenon spanning 149 shows across 21 countries, generating over $2 billion in ticket sales.
The Eras Tour started in March 2023 in Arizona and ended in December 2024 in Vancouver, Canada. Despite the demanding schedule of the Eras Tour, Taylor also released two albums in 2023: Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) and 1989 (Taylor’s Version), and one in April 2024: The Tortured Poets Department.
Unlike Swift’s 2024 album, The Tortured Poets Department, her 2023 releases consist of re-recordings of her non-Taylor’s Version legacy albums. Swifties (Taylor’s fans) may ask: if Taylor wrote all her songs, why did she re-record them?
Music Industry & Copyright Law
To answer the first question, it is essential to understand the two different levels of copyrights for songs: the musical compositions and the sound recordings (or “masters”).
A helpful analogy is to think of a song as a pizza. The musical composition, typically the song lyrics, is like the pizza ingredients—dough, tomato sauce, cheese, veggies, and other toppings. Meanwhile, the sound recording, or “master,” is the recorded sound, which is the finished pizza itself. In this analogy, the music artists are the chefs who create the pizza, the ingredient suppliers are the songwriters, and the record label is the restaurant. In Taylor’s case, she fulfills both roles as the ingredient supplier and the chef, since she writes and performs her own songs.
Therefore, the record label typically manages the copyright for the master, while the music artist or songwriter retains the copyright for the musical composition. It is important to note that this determination is not automatic. It depends on the contract signed by the artist and the record label concerning the ownership of the master and the distribution of the musical composition’s shares.
In Taylor Swift’s case, although she owned the copyright for her song compositions, her former record label, Big Machine Records, owned the masters. By re-recording her songs, Swift not only gains financial benefits from owning her masters but also exercises greater control over the direction of her recordings. This raises a second question: were monetary gains and control the only reasons that led Taylor to decide to re-record her songs?
Taylor’s Copyright Battle & Strategy Developed
The origins of Taylor Swift’s copyright battle date back 2005 when she signed a record deal with Big Machine Records, which owned the masters of her first six albums. The amicable long-term relationship ended in 2018, when Ithaca Holdings LLC, owned by the music manager Scooter Braun, acquired the record label—and, consequently, its masters—for a rumored $300 million.
Due to the longstanding animosity between Swift and Braun, Swift sought to regain ownership of the master recordings herself. However, before she could even bid on her own work, Braun’s team required Taylor to sign a non-disclosure agreement that stated she “would never say another word about Scooter Braun unless it was positive.” She rejected Braun’s team’s demand, and ultimately, Ithica sold the masters to Shamrock Holdings for $420 million.
Swift, dissatisfied with Braun profiting from her work, sent a letter to Shamrock Holdings stating she “cannot currently entertain being partners with” them. Due to the tension between the parties, in a 2019 interview with CBS Sunday Morning, the singer confirmed her intentions to re-record her songs.
Amid the dispute, Taylor signed a record deal with Universal Music Group, under which she retains the copyrights to any masters she produces. Swift released her first album of Taylor’s Version in 2021, Fearless (Taylor’s Version), followed by Red (Taylor’s Version). During The Eras Tour, she launched Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) and 1989 (Taylor’s Version). For now, only two albums, Taylor Swift and Reputation, are pending re-release.
It is important to note that Swift could re-record her songs because she owns the composition copyright, and her contract legally released her from any prohibition on re-recording after three years. Swift left Big Machine Records in 2018, and the first Taylor’s Version was released in 2021.
The new albums are improved versions of her old works, retaining the same titles followed by “Taylor’s Version.” The new song versions are faithful to their originals, with some production updates and a more mature voice. In addition, the artist shares new tracks from what she calls “from the vault.”
The Taylor’s Version project has been an immense success, and Swift now owns much of her catalogue. Meanwhile, Shamrock Holdings possesses something much less valuable, and other artists are inspired by Swift’s initiative, viewing re-recording as a profitable route to ownership of the masters. Other record labels, now aware of this dangerous loophole, may seek to prohibit re-recordings for twenty or thirty years rather than just two or three.
What the Future Holds & Next Steps
Although Swift was not the first artist to re-record her songs, she initiated a movement that prompted other artists and record labels to reevaluate the balance of power and ownership.
Creators can learn valuable lessons from Swift’s copyright battle. First, it is essential to have an attorney who is familiar with the legal issues in the music industry to prevent bad outcomes and exploitative deals that can arise when signing a binding contract. Second, it is important to understand any copyright provisions (or lack thereof) in the proposed agreement so that artists know the rights they are waiving. Third, creators should recognize that terms are negotiable and they should anticipate success–considering how the deal will impact them in the best possible scenario is a good way to strive for a beneficial agreement for both parties.
While Swift’s success story is unique, it conveys an important lesson: artists must be proactive in understanding and negotiating their rights. As record labels adapt to this shift, the fight for artistic ownership continues–paving the way for a more balanced music industry.