Taylor Swift’s high-profile dispute with her former record label, Big Machine Records, shed light on the intricate world of music copyright law. Following Big Machine’s subsequent sale of Swift’s albums to Shamrock Holdings, a private equity group, in 2020, she announced she would rerecord each of the six “stolen” albums with the now famous “Taylor’s Version” label attached to signify the reclamation of her work. Swift has already released four of the six hotly anticipated re-recordings and is finishing a record-breaking world tour.
Taylor Swift can teach us all a bit more about how copyrights work within the music industry and how she leveraged the Copyright Act of 1976.
Swift’s case highlights two types of music copyrights: (1) composition copyright (lyrics and melody) and (2) sound recording copyright (the actual recorded performance). While Swift owned her composition copyrights, the label owned her sound recording copyrights, which may be better known as the “masters.” Traditionally, when artists sign with a major record label, they sign away their sound and recording copyrights from the label in exchange for funding, marketing, and distribution. The copyright distinctions are crucial for several reasons:
- Separate Revenue Streams: Each type of copyright generates a revenue stream. Composition copyrights generate money through performance royalties, sync licensing, and mechanical royalties. Sound recording copyrights earn income through sales, master use licensing, and streaming.
- Control and Licensing: The copyright owner controls how the music is used. As the composition copyright owner, Swift has the power to license the song to be used in commercials or for other artists to cover her catalog. The record label holding the sound recording copyright controls how the specific recording is used in film, TV, or sampling by other artists.
- Re-Recording Rights: When an artist owns the composition copyrights but not the sound recording, they can re-record the music to create new sound recordings that they own. Swift is the first significant artist to undertake this endeavor.
Control, licensing, and revenue are all critical to artists in giving them the power and financial stability to maintain artistic and personal freedom. For artists currently under a contract in which they do not own the copyright to the sound recording, re-recording is a viable option. Though re-recording music was once generally permissible after the artist had been separated from the label for a few years, Swift’s success has led some record companies to try and prohibit re-recordings for decades after the split between the artist and label. For new artists, these provisions could further restrict their rights to their music and the accompanying revenue.
For any musician hoping to sign with a label, obtaining legal counsel to understand the ownership of different copyrights and re-recording provisions is crucial to protect the artist’s interests. If you would like to know more about your rights as an artist, reach out to learn how we can help.
About Griffith Barbee PLLC
Griffith Barbee is a boutique intellectual property and commercial litigation law firm in Dallas, Texas. Our award-winning lawyers represent companies, business leaders, and entrepreneurs in federal and state courts nationwide and in tribunals within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
