Copyright Law in the Music Industry: Taylor’s Version

10th October 2025

By Aurélie Lévesque, 4th Year IEL Student

I. Introduction

In 2019, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift announced that she would be re-recording her first six albums: Taylor Swift (2006), Fearless (2008), Speak Now (2010), Red (2012), 1989 (2014) and reputation (2017).[1] This announcement came after her catalogue, including the music, artwork and music video rights were sold without her consent to Scooter Braun for an estimated USD 350 million.[2] The sale, whilst being a “routine transaction in the music industry, led to a public clash between Swift and Braun as she no longer owned the rights to her music.[3] She then confirmed that she would begin the re-recording process in November 2020, which is when her contract with Big Machine, her previous music label she originally signed with in 2006, allowed her to do so.[4]

Originally, it was uncertain whether the project Swift took on would be successful. There seemed to be little appeal and business potential for re-recording albums, some being over 10 years old. However, the commercial success of Taylor’s Version is undebatable: according to Billboard, Fearless (Taylor’s Version), the first album to be re-released, received 1.81 million equivalent album units, whilst the original Fearless album earned approximately 530,000 in the same time period.[5] It became the first ever re-recorded album to top music charts in history.[6] Furthermore, upon the release of 1989 (Taylor’s Version) in October 2023, the album broke Spotify’s record for the most single-day streams in 2023, and sold over 1 million copies in the US during its first week.[7]

Swift’s record-breaking re-releases created uncertainty in the music industry, particularly with ‘re-recording clauses’ that labels use in their contracts with artists. Record labels are now changing their contracts and demanding that artists agree to wait up to 30 years to re-record their music, out of fear of a new Taylor’s Version.[8]

The following blog post discusses the implications of an artist controlling the rights to their master recordings, a fundamental principle behind copyright law, particularly when business and profits come into play. Part II examines the legal background behind intellectual property (IP) rights, and particularly the US Copyright Act. Part III uses Taylor’s Version as a case study to understand how copyright law allowed the singer to re-record her original songs. Part IV discusses how the music industry and labels are changing their contracts to protect their investment and prohibit competition between artists and labels.

II. Legal background

A.    The origins of IP rights

Intellectual property law focuses on protecting “private rights in respect of expressive and informational subject-matter (intellectual products) to balance “competing rights and interests or as a tool for regulating access to their benefits”.[9]  There are four principal categories of IP rights with different protections and requirements: patents & allied rights (offering protection for technological inventions), trademarks & allied rights (protecting commercial names, signs/logos, designs, etc.), copyright & related rights (protecting authorial works, films, music and sounds, performances, etc.), and lastly rights in data & information (protecting, in particular, trade secrets and data).[10]

Copyright law dates back to the Roman era.[11] Roman law developed the principle of accessio; for example, painting a picture on another’s canvas meant acquiring ownership of that canvas.[12] The first copyright legislation, however, was introduced much later in the 18^th century.[13] The Statute of Anne of 1710 was established “to encourage learned men to compose and write useful books, and to protect the ‘authors or proprietors’ of such books from ‘ruinous’ piracy.”[14] The late 19^th century saw copyright legislation being introduced in all major European states, including Spain, Austria, Germany and several others.[15]

B.    What is copyright?

Copyrights are “limited-term exclusionary rights that subsist automatically in authorial works such as poems, paintings, musical tunes and dance compositions”.[16] They have a limited duration of protection (usually the author’s lifetime with a certain number of years added after their passing), and confer a range of rights to their holders, including “the rights to copy and communicate to the public the protected work or subject matter.”[17] In the US, §302 of the Copyright Act provides protection for the duration of the author’s life, and 70 years added after the author’s death.[18]

C.    US Copyright Act

1.     Development of US Copyright law

According to the US Constitution, “Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”[19] Copyright law in the US was enshrined in the constitution in 1790 to “protect through law original works of authorship”, including literary, musical, architectural, choreographic and audiovisual creations, forming the foundation of US copyright law.[20]

During the 19^th century, copyright law developed and expanded in protections. The 1790 act included “historical and other prints”, the first artistic, musical and literary works were registered, and the recordation of copyright assignments began.[21] In jurisprudence, notably, the US Supreme Court delivered two landmark rulings: Wheaton v. Peters [1834] rules that “an author has perpetual rights in unpublished works, but after publication, rights are limited by statutory provisions imposed by Congress” and Selden v. Baker [1880] rules that ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted.[22] Both cases laid the foundation upon which modern copyright doctrine and jurisprudence would be developed.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Copyright Act of 1909, which was the first “comprehensive copyright law of the [20th] century”.[23] In 1912, copyright protection was granted to motion pictures, and in 1953, “recording and performing rights were extended to nondramatic literary works”.[24] Later, in 1972, copyright protection was extended by Congress to protect sound recordings.[25]

In 1976, the Copyright Act was signed to supersede the 1909 Act, extending protection to all works, both published and unpublished in a “fixed and tangible form”.[26] The Act also provides for protection during the author’s entire lifetime plus fifty years.[27] In 1994, this was extended to seventy years.[28]

2.     Copyright legislation and the music industry

Under the US Copyright Act, §102 states that “(a) Copyright protection subsists […] in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression […] [and] include the following categories: […] (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; […] (7) sound recordings”.[29] Additionally, according to §106, “the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; […] (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public; […] (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission”.[30] In terms of exclusive rights regarding sound recordings, §114(b) states : “The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording”.[31]

III. Copyright, re-recording clauses & Taylor’s Version 

In 2005, Taylor Swift signed a thirteen-year contract with Big Machine Records, a major American record label.[32] Before streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music, record labels would often hold the rights to artist’s master recordings, in exchange for financial support, promotion and distribution of the music.[33] After the end of the contract and the release of her sixth studio album, Swift left Big Machine and signed instead with Republic Records.[34] The primary reason was Big Machine’s refusal to let her own her  master recording rights, and Republic Records allowing Swift to do so.[35] After leaving the label, Scooter Braun, a major record executive, purchased Big Machine Records, along with Swift’s master recording rights, without her consent.[36] They were then sold again in 2020, without Swift’s consent, to Shamrock Holdings for an estimated $300 million.

Musical works are protected by two types of copyright: one for sound recording, and one for the musical composition.[37] The former is typically owned by the record label, and the latter is owned by the artist;[38] essentially, Swift owns the sheet-music itself, whereas Big Machine owned the original sound recordings of her first six albums. The right to the sound recording itself is, arguably, much more profitable, which is why labels typically own these, to protect with investment in the music and the artist themselves.[39] They are typically known as master recording rights.[40] Owning the masters for a song allows the owner to authorize its licensing for use in movies, TV shows, and commercials.[41] These are known as affirmative rights of a master recording.[42] Ownership also grants negative rights of “[preventing] others from making unauthorized uses of fixed sounds”.[43]

Swift’s ownership of the musical composition rights of her songs, including lyrics and melodies,[44] allowed her to re-record her first six albums, provided that she waited 5 years after the original release. In April 2021, she released her first re-recording, Fearless (Taylor’s Version). Swift is not the first singer to do re-record her music in order to regain control over her catalogue. Prince, for example, re-recorded his album 1999, and originally intended to re-record his entire discography, although this project was never completed.[45] However, from a business perspective, several aspects of Swift’s brand have allowed her to own the most successful re-records. First, Swift’s catalogue boasts of 11 full-length albums, six of which she no longer owns. Re-recording her first six albums caters to both older fans who were around for the original releases, as well as bringing in new, younger fans.[46] Furthermore, the nostalgic value of her discography, her large fan base, and adding in unreleased ‘From the Vault’ tracks into the re-released works in her favour and has contributed to the commercial success of Taylor’s Version.[47]

This works in Swift’s favour because of her fame and legacy in the music industry; her situation is unique compared to the average musician. Not all artists hold the same platform or dedicated fanbases that she does,[48] nor the same resources; artists can spend up to $100,000 to produce an album, and not all labels are willing to finance a large re-recording project like Taylor’s Version.[49] Artists with smaller catalogues do not have the same opportunity for generating revenue when re-recording their music.[50] Thus, as the next section outlines, Taylor Swift has changed the game for contracts in the music industry, but there is still a need for further protection and regulation of re-recording clauses that protect a label’s investment without being abusive on the ‘weaker’ party (the musician, in this case).

IV. Future of music labels & re-recording

Copyright in sound recordings, whilst profitable for labels, is limited to the recordings themselves, so their owners are “limited in the ways they can protect their copyrights.”[51] Labels use re-recording clauses in the contracts they sign with artists to ensure this protection, retain profitability, and limit competition.[52] Such clauses typically prescribe a limited term prohibiting the artist from re-recording their music. Previously, artists had to wait five to seven years from the original release date of the musical work, or two years after their contract with the label ended.[53] These were standard practices for labels and the music industry in general.[54] With the success of Taylor’s Version, labels want to ensure exclusivity is maintained, and to prevent competition between the artist and the label with a potential re-record.[55] Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment are just a few major labels that now require artists to wait between ten and thirty years to re-record their music.[56]

English philosopher John Locke argued that, according to natural law, “since one’s labour is part of one’s person, a man is exclusively proprietor of his acts of labour”.[57] Locke asserted that “a person who labors should benefit from the fruits of their labor”.[58] This principle is the core idea behind copyright law; by allowing people who create property, whether they are literary, musical, or artistic creations,  to do so and to continue creating,  they can reap the fruits of their labour and have that property to their name.[59] However, as Tilghman argues, courts must strike a balance; in music, it is rarely only the singer behind the production of a song.[60] Others contributing their labour (in this case, the record label) should also be rewarded. With new, up-and-coming artists, such as Taylor Swift in 2005, companies are taking a risk to invest in new talent, and should receive a return on their investment.[61] Nevertheless, as the literature suggests, such clauses must be regulated, as overly restrictive re-recording clauses can inhibit further creativity within the music industry, and are therefore “contrary to the promotion of the useful arts”.[62]

V. Conclusion

Taylor Swift herself summarizes best the continuing fight for artists in the music industry to own their work: “Artists should own their own work for so many reasons, but the most screamingly obvious one is that the artist is the only one who really knows that body of work.”[63] Swift’s re-recording project, a significant, tiring and at times challenging endeavor, is slowly changing the path for young new artists in the industry coming behind her. With the success of Taylor’s Version, artists such as Olivia Rodrigo have been inspired by Swift to negotiate retaining the rights to their master recordings when signing with music labels.[64]

There is still a long path to finding a balance of ownership, and there is no black-and-white answer, because multiple interests come into play. Multiple solutions are possible; for example, some suggest that the label, at first, retains the rights to protect their investment, and transfers ownership to artists after a certain period of time.[65] Little legislation exists to answer this question, but the emergence of Taylor’s Version has emphasized the need to protect artists, ownership, as well as creativity and innovation in the music industry.

Works Cited:

[1] ‘TaylorSwift wants to re-record her old hits after ownership row’ (BBC News, 22 August 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-49432817> accessed 11 May 2025.

[2] Ben Sisaro, Joe Coscarelli and Kate Kelly, ‘Taylor Swift Denounces Soocter Braun as Her Catalog Is Sold Again’ (The New York Times, 16 November 2020) <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/arts/music/taylor-swift-scooter-braun-masters.html> accessed 11 May 2025.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] Jason Lipshutz, ‘7 Key Stats Proving That Taylor Swift’s First Two ‘Taylor’s Version’ Re-Recordings Have Been Dominant’ (Billboard, 6 July 2023) <https://www.billboard.com/lists/taylor-swift-taylors-version-stats-chart-numbers/the-equivalent-album-units-gap/> accessed 11 May 2025.

[6] Mariah Espada, ‘Taylor Swift Is Halfway Through Her Rerecording Project. It’s Paid Off Big Time’ (TIME Magazine, 6 July 2023) <https://time.com/6292599/taylor-swift-speak-now-rerecord-project/> accessed 11 May 2025.  

[7] Rachel A. Beard, ‘What the Hell Happened: ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version)’ and the New Age of Swift-dom’ (The Harvard Crimson, 7 November 2023) <https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/11/7/1989-taylors-version-slut-vault-music-taylor-swift-article/> accessed 11 May 2025.  

[8] Cecilia Giles, ‘Look What You Made Them Do: The Impact of Taylor Swift’s Re-recording Project on Record Labels’ (University of Cincinnati Law Review Blogs, 27 March 2024) <https://uclawreview.org/2024/03/27/look-what-you-made-them-do-the-impact-of-taylor-swifts-re-recording-project-on-record-labels/> accessed 12 May 2025.

[9] Justine Pila, Paul Torremans, European Intellectual Property Law, (2^nd edn, OUP 2019).

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] ibid.

[15] ibid.

[16] ibid.

[17] ibid.

[18] Copyright Act 17 U.S. Code §302.

[19] U.S. Const. art I § 8.

[20] ‘A Brief History of Copyright in the United States’ (U.S. Copyright Office) <https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/> accessed 11 May 2025.

[21] ‘The 19^th Century’ (U.S. Copyright Office) <https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_19th_century.html> accessed 12 May 2025.

[22] ibid.

[23] ‘1900-1950’ (U.S. Copyright Office) <https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_1900-1950.html> accessed 12 May 2025.

[24] ibid.

[25] ibid.

[26] ‘1950-2000’ (U.S. Copyright Office) <https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_1950-2000.html> accessed 12 May 2025.

[27] ibid.

[28] ibid.

[29] Copyright Act 17 U.S. Code §102 (a)(2) and (6).

[30] ibid §106 (1), (3), and (6).

[31] ibid §114(b).

[32] Justin Tilghman, 'Exposing the "Folklore" of Re-Recording Clauses (Taylor's Version)' (2022) 29 J Intell Prop L 402.

[33] Giles (n 9).

[34] ‘Taylor Swift Signs Exclusive Global Recording Agreement With Universal Music Group’ (Universal Music Group, 19 November 2018) <https://www.universalmusic.com/taylor-swift-signs-exclusive-global-recording-agreement-universal-music-group/> accessed 12 May 2025.

[35] Tilghman (n 36).

[36] ibid.

[37] Giles (n 9).

[38] ibid.

[39] Tilghman (n 36).

[40] ibid.

[41] ibid.

[42] ibid.

[43] ibid

[44] Felicia Irene Christabelle Suryanto, Yovita Amanda, and Angelica Brigitta, ‘Taylor's Version: A Case Study in Intellectual Property Rights for Musicians’ (2024) 2 Anthology: Inside Intellectual Property Rights 372.

[45] Giles (n 9).

[46] ibid.

[47] ibid; Inga Parkel, Roisin O’Connor, ‘Why Taylor Swift is re-recording her old albums, from Reputation to 1989’ (The Independent, 15 April 2024) <https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-taylors-version-albums-timeline-b2528845.html> accessed 12 May 2025.

[48] Tilghman (n 36).

[49] ibid.

[50] ibid.

[51] ibid.

[52] ibid.

[53] Giles (n 9).

[54] ibid.

[55] ibid.

[56] ibid.

[57] Henry Moulds, ‘Private Property in John Locke's State of Nature’ (1964) 23 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 179.

[58] Tilghman (n 36).

[59] ibid.

[60] ibid.

[61] ibid.

[62] ibid.

[63] Taylor Swift (@tayloyswift13) ‘I’m thrilled to tell you that my new version of Fearless (Taylor’s Version) …’ (Twitter, 11 February 2021) <https://x.com/taylorswift13/status/1359854050544615425?s=20> accessed 14 May 2025.

[64] Giles (n 9).

[65] ibid.