What just happened?
Taylor Swift is set to release the rerecorded ‘Taylor’s version’ of her Grammy award-winning album ‘Fearless’. Swift was given the right to start rerecording her albums in November 2020 after leaving Big Machine Records and signing with a new label, a move that resulted in Swift’s masters being sold without her knowledge. [1]
What does this mean?
Swift’s rerecordings' are not only a symbol of regaining ownership in a world where women are constantly having to fight for their rights, but for Swift herself, it was an action that will protect her artwork for a lifetime. Despite writing and producing her music, Big Machine Records were in control of the copyrights and thus Swift had no control over her work. In the music world, copyrights pertain to legal ownership which involves an exclusive right to redistribution and reproduction.
A clear example of successful women being controlled by those with more power in the industry was demonstrated when Swift’s music was sold twice, first to Scooter Braun when Big Machine was acquired for a sum of around $330m, and secondly to an investment firm by Braun for a sum estimated to be around $300m. Symbolically this action suggests that her body of work can be sold and distributed without her permission, representing a larger current issue in society.
As Swift is both the composer and writer of her work, without remaking her work she would still be entitled to revenue generated by her music. This demonstrates that the core matter of rerecording was unrelated to money, and was one of an artist’s natural right to be in control of their music, a cause Swift has supported for years as she signed an open letter on a copyright plea 2016.
Swift’s fanbase has supported her throughout her legal battle and thus the expense of recording her music sounds perfectly reasonable. ‘Love story ‘Taylor’s Version’’ debuted at N1 on the charts, accentuating the support Taylor Swift is receiving as she endeavours to regain her control.
How does this affect the legal sector?
Rerecording her work will not only give Swift power over her music but might devalue her original recordings which were sold for over $300 million. To rerecord music an artist needs to acquire both publishing rights and ensure there are no rerecording restrictions under the contract. Swift’s recordings could pave the way for other artists involved in long publishing and copyright battles with their labels, like Paul McCartney and Deff Leppard. As well as this, the power move also highlights a flaw in the system that seeks a remedy. [2] [3]
The case highlights how the media can change industries and therefore how the law is involved. The cause of Swift being unable to legally own her discography was due to her 2004 record deal signing with Big Machine, a time when artists heavily relied on radio exposure and therefore required record company backings and connections. Such requirements aren't necessary today, as social media is able to generate enough exposure, meaning record companies very rarely restrict artists upon signings. [4]
Such legal battles in the music industry aren't isolated, with a similar battle occurring between Michael Jackson and The Beatles. Such cases previously were hidden from the public eye, something common in the legal world. The influence of the media in the music industry has now showcased that legal battles aren't always masked by confidentiality agreements, raising the question of how the legal world can be impacted with public attention.
Swift's case is arguably atypical with her sizeable fanbase. Glenn Tilbrook, lead singer of Squeeze has been in the business of rerecording music, but an effort that led to no avail as Tilbrook reported that '10 years later, we've not had a single uptake'. Yet this is something that Swift may not need to concern herself with as she rerecorded 'Taylor's Version' of 'Love Story' garnered 5.8 million streams in the US alone on its day of release, indicating that ownership of music, though may seem like a given right, may only be worth such legal battles if there's a clear indication of a payoff. [5]
Written by Alliyha Ahmed
Assessing Firms
#Wiggin #Clarke Willmott #VWV
References
[1] Kristin Vartan, 'Breaking down the legal terms in Taylor Swift's music ownership dispute' (Entertainment Weekly, 15 November 2019) <https://ew.com/music/2019/11/15/taylor-swift-song-ownership-legal-terms/>
[2] Frank Pallota, 'Here's why Taylor Swift is rerecording her old songs' (CTV News, 12 February 2021) <https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/here-s-why-taylor-swift-is-rerecording-her-old-songs-1.5306217>
[3] Bonnie Stiernberg, 'Now That Taylor Swift Re-Recorded Her Old Music, Could These Other Artists Follow Suit?' (Inside Hook, 12 February 2021) <https://www.insidehook.com/article/music/other-artists-rerecording-their-music>
[4] Paul Gynn, 'Taylor Swift v Scooter Braun: Is it personal or strictly business?' (BBC News, 1 July 2019) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48801130>
[5] Tim Ingham, 'Taylor Swift Plans to Re-Record Her Hits Here’s What She Might Be Facing' (Rolling Stones, 9 December 2019) <https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/taylor-swift-plans-to-re-record-her-hits-heres-what-she-might-be-facing-923019/>