Twenty years after Taylor Swift signed her first recording contract, the pop star officially owns her own music.<\/p>\n
On May 30, Swift announced that she bought<\/a> the rights to the master recordings of her first six albums from Shamrock Capital. The purchase price was about $360 million, according to Billboard<\/a>.<\/p>\n But what does this mean and what implications could it have for other artists?<\/p>\n Traditionally, when a new artist signs with a record label, the label owns the master recordings the musician makes, said David Herlihy<\/a>, owner of an entertainment law practice and teaching professor at Northeastern University.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cRecord labels have long built their value on owning master recordings and having artists obligated to render their exclusive recording services,\u201d Herlihy said<\/a>. \u201cThe labels pay money and the artist is obligated to record for them, and the label always has the fruits of their labor. That\u2019s sort of the way that record labels have operated since electricity.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Swift left Big Machine after her deal expired in 2018. The following year, the label sold her masters<\/a> to Ithaca Holdings, which was owned by then-music manager Scooter Braun.<\/p>\n Swift accused Braun and his clients, which included Kanye West<\/a>, of bullying her. At the time, she said<\/a>: \u201cNever in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time (Big Machine CEO) Scott Borchetta has heard the words \u2018Scooter Braun\u2019 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\u2019t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Big Machine Records said at the time that Swift had a chance to own her masters and other associated works, but \u201cchose to leave\u201d the label. Borchetta also denied seeing Swift in tears or near tears over Braun.<\/p>\n But while the master recordings belonged to Braun (who sold them to Shamrock Capital in 2020), Swift\u2019s contract didn\u2019t prevent her from re-recording her old music.\u00a0<\/p>\n Melissa Ferrick<\/a>, 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n This is how Swift was able to release \u201cTaylor\u2019s Versions\u201d of her previous albums that included both the original tracks and \u201cvault tracks,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen a person makes a record, the label owns that particular recording that you made that day in that recording studio,\u201d Ferrick said. \u201cThey\u2019re 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.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not uncommon for artists to re-record their music and many do so, sometimes through live albums. But Swift\u2019s re-recordings had a particular appeal due to her ongoing popularity<\/a>, Herlihy said.<\/p>\n \u201cMost artists don\u2019t have anywhere near the shelf life that Taylor has,\u201d he said.\u00a0 \u201cShe\u2019s an evergreen artist and her recordings are going to be listened to for quite a long time compared to most artists.\u201d<\/p>\n Doing so also undercut the value of her masters, Herlihy said. As of 2023, Swift\u2019s first two re-recordings (of 2008\u2019s \u201cFearless\u201d and 2012\u2019s \u201cRed\u201d) far outperformed the originals in streaming numbers.<\/a><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"Portrait](\"https:\/\/news.northeastern.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/David-Herlihy.jpeg?w=1100\")
David Herlihy said the contract Swift signed is not unusual in that her record label owned her master recordings. Photo by Matthew Modoono\/Northeastern University<\/p>\n![\"Headshot](\"https:\/\/news.northeastern.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Melissa-Ferrick_1400.jpg?w=1100\")
Melissa Ferrick said not every artist wants to own their own masters as doing so is a big business undertaking. Photo by Matthew Modoono\/Northeastern University<\/p>\n