You Belong With Me: Reclaiming Copyright Ownership

By Megan George on December 20, 2024

Introduction

On June 30, 2019, Taylor Swift announced that Big Machine Label Group (BMLG), her former record label, had sold the master recordings of her first six albums to Scooter Braun.1 In a candid Tumblr post, Taylor expressed her frustration and heartbreak over losing control of her life’s work, describing the situation as her “worst-case scenario.”2 She revealed that her attempts to negotiate ownership of her masters with BMLG founder Scott Borchetta had failed, as she was offered a deal requiring her to “earn back” her albums one by one in exchange for producing new ones.3 The subsequent sale of her masters to Scooter Braun—someone she accused of “manipulative bullying”4—highlighted the vulnerability of artists in a system where master recordings are typically controlled by record labels.

Taylor’s post reads:5

Masters Recordings: What Are They?

We learned that copyright is a set of exclusive rights in works of expression, performers’ performances, sound recordings, and communication signals. Section 5 of the Canadian Copyright Act states that “copyright shall subsist in Canada, for the term hereinafter mentioned, in every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work…”6 So, how do master recordings fit into this framework? Master recordings (“masters”) can be described as the official recording of a song or performance.7

A song typically involves multiple layers of copyright:

  1. Lyrics: The words accompanying a song are protected as a literary work. The copyright in the lyrics belongs to the person(s) who wrote them, unless otherwise assigned.8
  2. Musical Composition: Elements like the melody, rhythm, and sound of a song are protected as a musical work. The copyright for this aspect is owned by the individual(s) who created the music, again subject to any other assignments.9
  3. Sound Recording: The recorded version of the song is protected as a distinct “sound recording,” separate from the copyrights on the music and lyrics. In the recording industry, this is commonly referred to as the “master” recording. The copyright in the sound recording is typically owned by the “maker,” often a producer employed by a record label.10


In Canada, the rights to the sound recordings are found in section 18 of the Copyright Act,11 which states:

“18(1) […] The maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the sound recording or any substantial part thereof:

1. to publish it for the first time,
2. to reproduce it in any material form, and
3. to rent it out,

and to authorize any such acts.”

While the individual creators own the copyrights in the lyrics and musical composition by default, in reality, that ownership is usually transferred to other individuals or corporations by contract. In Canada, section 13 of the Copyright Act12 states:

“13 (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

[…]

(4) The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations relating to territory, medium or sector of the market or other limitations relating to the scope of the assignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence, but no assignment or grant is valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right in respect of which the assignment or grant is made, or by the owner’s duly authorized agent.”

Accordingly, each copyright exists independently and can be held by different people. A case that illustrates the diverse forms of copyright ownership is the bankruptcy proceedings of Re Song Corp.13 The court elaborated on how the bankrupt companies had obtained copyright from various artists, such as the Tragically Hip, the Nylons, and Teenage Head.

In regard to the copyright associated with the musical composition, the companies would provide an advance to the songwriter for the purpose of producing a demo. Subsequently, they would obtain assignments of copyright ownership from the songwriters to “administer the copyright in the musical works.” However, when it came to the masters, the recording artist involved was often not the same individual who composed the music. Because of this, the companies entered into contracts with the recording artist as well, ensuring that they (the company) retained all royalties until the expenses associated with producing the master, music videos, and other costs were fully recouped.14 In practice, only five to ten percent of the recording artists were ever fully recouped. In this case, the court differentiated between two categories of copyright interests regarding music held by the bankrupt companies: the copyright interests which had been assigned to the bankrupt companies reverted to the original owner, however the copyright in the sound recordings, where the bankrupt companies acted as the “maker,” remained with the trustee and could be sold or assigned to a third party.15

This case illustrates how ownership of the masters does not always equate to ownership of all copyright aspects in a song. 

Taylor’s Version

In Taylor’s case, she retained the copyright in the musical composition and lyrics of her songs as a lyricist and songwriter. However, when she initially entered into a contract with BMLG, the contract specified that BMLG would possess the copyright for the masters for her first six albums.16 When BMLG sold all its assets (including the rights to Taylor’s masters) to Scooter Braun, who then sold them to an investment firm (Shamrock Capital) for over $300 million USD, Taylor was in a challenging position. In order to use the sound recordings from her first six albums, she would have to license or repurchase those rights from Shamrock Capital.17

However, as Taylor owns the copyright in the musical compositions and accompanying lyrics, she always had the exclusive right to perform and create adaptations of her songs (subject to the terms of her original contract with BMLG).18 In Canada, this would be governed by the “derivative rights” section of the Copyright Act.19

Flash forward a few weeks after the sale, as fans and other celebrities were rallying to support Taylor, she received a tweet from Kelly Clarkson:20


So, that’s exactly what Taylor did. In response to losing control of her original masters, Taylor embarked on an innovative project to reclaim ownership of her music by re-recording her entire catalogue, producing new versions under her full ownership. These re-recordings, branded as “Taylor’s Version,” allowed her to create new copyrights that she could control, while also empowering her fans to support her directly by streaming and purchasing the updated versions instead of the originals.21

Re-Recording Clauses & The Success of “Taylor’s Version”

While Canadian copyright law does not explicitly address re-recording rights, the ability of an artist to re-record their songs is typically governed by the terms of their contracts. These agreements often include clauses specifying whether and when re-recording is permitted. In Taylor’s case, her contract contained a re-recording clause that allowed her to begin creating new versions of her albums after a designated period.22 Her clause was up sometime in 2020,23 and Taylor released her first “Taylor’s Version” a short year later: Love Story (Taylor’s Version) on February 2021.24

Re-recording music to regain control over master recordings isn’t new, but Taylor Swift has taken it to a whole new level. Prince re-recorded his album 1999 after failing to get his masters back from Warner Brothers and even considered redoing his entire catalogue. Frank Sinatra re-recorded some of his hits in the 1960s, and Def Leppard re-recorded a couple of songs to earn more from royalties.25 But Taylor’s re-recordings have been a massive success. Fearless (Taylor’s Version) was the first re-recorded album to top the Billboard charts, Red (Taylor’s Version) broke the Spotify record for the most streams in a day by a female artist, and 1989 (Taylor’s Version) outsold the original version within its first week. On top of that, Taylor’s re-releases are making her old masters lose value, with sales of the originals dropping every time a new version comes out. Her approach and success has redefined what it means for artists to take back their work.26

This has had impacts on the recording industry. In response to Taylor’s success in her re-recording project, major record label companies are overhauling recording contracts for new artists.27 For years, record labels maintained relatively reasonable restrictions on re-recording rights, typically prohibiting artists from re-recording their music for two to three years. However, Taylor’s success with her re-recordings has caused labels to rethink their approach.28 As lawyer Gary Greenstein explains, labels are now asking, “What’s the risk of a Taylor’s Version?”29 In response, they’ve started pushing for much longer prohibitions on re-recordings—sometimes as long as 20 to 30 years. While it’s unlikely they’ll achieve such lengthy restrictions with skilled legal representation on the artist’s side, the goal is clear: to ensure artists are well past their vocal prime by the time they’re legally allowed to re-record their work.30

Conclusion

Taylor Swift’s fight for ownership of her music and the groundbreaking success of her “Taylor’s Version” project have underscored the complex relationship between contract law and copyright law, while also revealing the limitations of current copyright frameworks. Although re-recording her albums allowed Taylor to reclaim her artistic agency, it raises important questions: Should an artist who writes the lyrics and musical composition of a song not have priority—or at least the opportunity—to acquire the copyright to their master recordings? Taylor’s success serves as a powerful example for other artists and has ignited a larger conversation about ownership, fairness, and the evolving dynamics of the music industry.

  1. Taylor Swift, “For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work…” (30 June 2019), posted on taylorswift, online: Tumblr <https://www.tumblr.com/taylorswift/185958366550/for-years-i-asked-pleaded-for-a-chance-to-own-my?source=share>. ↩︎
  2. Ibid. ↩︎
  3. Ibid. ↩︎
  4. Ibid. ↩︎
  5. Ibid. ↩︎
  6. Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, s 5. ↩︎
  7. Adrian J Howard, “The making of music: is a master recording tangible or intangible property?” (16 September 2022), online: Borden Ladner Gervais <https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2022/09/the-making-of-music-is-a-master-recording-tangible-or-intangible-property>. ↩︎
  8. Kellech Smith, “Reclaiming copyright ownership: Why Taylor Swift doesn’t need Romeo to save her” (30 August 2023), online: Ashurst <https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/reclaiming-copyright-ownership-why-taylor-swift-doesnt-need-romeo-to-save-her/>. ↩︎
  9. Ibid. ↩︎
  10. Ibid. ↩︎
  11. Supra note 6 at s 18. ↩︎
  12. Supra note 6 at s 13. ↩︎
  13. Song Corp, Re, 19 CPR (4th) 235, 2002 CanLII 49574 (ON SC). ↩︎
  14. Ibid. ↩︎
  15. Ibid. ↩︎
  16. Supra note 8. ↩︎
  17. Ibid. ↩︎
  18. Ibid. ↩︎
  19. Supra note 6 at s 3. ↩︎
  20. Kelly Clarkson, “@taylorswift just a thought, U should go in & re-record all the songs that U don’t own the masters on…” (13 July 2019 at 19:50), online: X <https://x.com/kellyclarkson/status/1150168164853882880>. ↩︎
  21. Aram Ebrahimi, “In My Copyright Law Era” (21 November 2024), online: CIPPIC <https://www.cippic.ca/articles/in-my-copyright-law-era?utm_source=chatgpt.com>. ↩︎
  22. Ibid. ↩︎
  23. Taylor Swift, “Don’t know what else to do” (14 November 2019 at 20:05), online: X <https://x.com/taylorswift13/status/1195123215657508867>. ↩︎
  24. Taylor Swift, “I’m thrilled to tell you that my new version of Fearless (Taylor’s Version) is done and will be with you soon” (11 February 2021), posted on taylorswift, online: Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/p/CLJzk9MjcCe/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==>. ↩︎
  25. Cecilia Giles, “Look What You Made Them Do: The Impact of Taylor Swift’s Re-recording Project on Record Labels” (27 March 2024), online: UCLA Law Review <https://uclawreview.org/2024/03/27/look-what-you-made-them-do-the-impact-of-taylor-swifts-re-recording-project-on-record-labels/#:~:text=Swift%2C%20for%20example%2C%20is%20able,right%20to%20reproduce%20the%20work.&text=17%20U.S.C.,-§%20106(1>. ↩︎
  26. Ibid. ↩︎
  27. Ibid. ↩︎
  28. Brett Milano, “Taylor’s Version of copyright” (3 April 2024), online: Harvard Law Today <https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>. ↩︎
  29. Ibid. ↩︎
  30. Ibid. ↩︎

Cover image: Olivia Marcus & Samantha Sutton, “What to Wear to a Taylor Swift Concert Before The Eras Tour Ends” (3 October 2024 at 15:20), online: stylecaster <https://stylecaster.com/lists/what-to-wear-to-taylor-swift-concert/>.

Thumbnail image: Pop Crave, “3 years ago today, Taylor Swift announced that she had begun re-recording her first six albums following a dispute over her masters” (16 November 2023 at 19:13), online: X <https://x.com/PopCrave/status/1725283485747695657>.


This post is submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the final project in Intellectual Property Law (LAW 422-001).

Read More | No Comments

Copyright & Social Media
Communications Law




Creative Commons License