Artists outwitting major labels have always gained popular traction in the eyes of the media and public. Everyone loves a good old underdog story. Global citizens and listeners rejoice at artists’ reclamation of their own creative products. However, the contractual effect of a ‘power-move’ on future generations of artists is yet to be fully understood. Notably, in recent years, Taylor Swift’s bold decision to re-record her initial albums has reshaped her musical journey and sent out ripples through the industry by showcasing how artists can capitalize on the hidden fine print of contractual understandings between artists and their music labels.
For context, copyright in music can be held on two fronts. Firstly, over the composition of the song itself (usually held by the artist themselves) and secondly, over the sound recording/ master recording of the performance of the work. Artists tend to keep composition rights to themselves while the master recording is usually held by their labels, allowing them to license the work to third parties. Ownership over the master recording would allow labels to receive profits every time a listener streams the song or makes a purchase of the work. Taylor Swift began her career in 2005 by signing a thirteen-year recording contract with Big Machine Records. According to the terms of her agreement, Taylor was locked in for six albums where ownership of all master recordings would be provided to Big Machine Recordings. After the end of her contract in 2018, Big Machine was acquired by Scooter Braun’s company Ithaca Holdings. This resulted in Braun owning all her albums’ master recordings, despite Swift calling him an “incessant manipulative bully.” The songs were later purchased by Shamrock Holdings. As a reply, Taylor chose to re-record her albums in order to diminish Shamrock’s control over her music. This daring decision not just helped her regain her artistic expression but also played a key role in her reaching billionaire status in 2023. Taylor’s re-recording project exceeded all the goals set by the original albums upon its release. As a result, Shamrock now owns master recordings that are worth close to nothing.
The project has driven labels into incorporating preposterous re-recording restrictions into their agreements with artists. Labels including Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Universal Music Group are requiring musicians to wait ten to thirty years after the expiration of their initial contract before re-recording their songs. Cigarettes After Sex’s entertainment attorney Gandhar Savur recently reported having sealed deals with 30-year re-record restrictions post the ‘Taylor’s version’ project. Interestingly, even though re-recording restrictions are not nascent in recording contracts, they typically restricted re-recording only for a period of about 3-7 years. Labels are observing how re-recording projects can devalue and dilute master recording ownership and are attempting to prohibit re-recordings for 20-30 years.
Artists like Olivia Rodrigo, inspired by Taylor Swift, are setting a new standard by making sure they own their master recordings right from the start. In 2024, we’re seeing a rise in bedroom artists who have found success through self-promotion, allowing them to keep full creative control over their music. Many musicians are now following suit, negotiating better terms for their master recordings in light of Taylor’s achievements. Traditional labels are finding it difficult to stay relevant as streaming continues to transform the industry, making it easier than ever for artists to reach audiences and distribute their work.
Conclusion
The traditional power dynamics between artists and record labels have been challenged by Taylor Swift’s re-recording project, which has caused a seismic change in the music industry. Swift has not only restored her artistic integrity but also established a significant precedent for other musicians by assuming ownership of her master recordings. Labels have tightened contractual limits in an attempt to safeguard their financial interests as a result of the “Swiftie Effect,” indicating their rising concern over artists’ newly discovered agency but the usefulness of traditional record companies is being questioned more and more as performers like Olivia Rodrigo and innumerable independent artists use platforms for self-promotion and direct audience interaction. The practice of streaming has changed how music is distributed and empowered many artists to promote themselves without the necessity of major labels or companies.
What Taylor Swift did will most likely have a ripple effect for a long time and it’s easy to assume that the new generation of artists will be keener on standing up for themselves and getting what they are worth. With the rise of the importance of ownership and authenticity, the industry will have to conform or stand the risks of obsolescence. Once again, strategically, Swift’s efforts may initiate changes never seen before in music whereby the relationship between the artist and the label is redefined, for the better of artists in the end.
Authors: Rutvik Mehta & Vishal Menon