How Taylor Got Her Masters Back

Anti Hero: How (Taylor’s Version) has Impacted The Music Industry

  Zaid Al-Huneidi

On May 30, 2025, Taylor Swift announced the end of a battle she had been engaged in since August of 2018. Swift finally reclaimed the rights to her first six albums and all associated videos, art, photography, and content from Shamrock Capital.[1] Swift gets to turn the page on this era and claim a win for herself and other established artists; however, the same cannot be said for newer artists.

Before delving into the impact this has, some background on what copyrights are created when a song is made and who owns each one is needed. The Copyright Act of 1976 forms the basis of copyright law in the United States.[2] Every song has two copyrights: the musical work and the sound recording.[3] A sound recording is set in a fixed medium and the holder of the rights can authorize the use of the sounds in the recording for use elsewhere.[4] Generally, this right is held by the record label the artist is signed to.[5] The musical work is the lyrics and music prepared ahead of time; while the sound recording is the performance.[6] In this case, Swift maintained the rights to the musical work but not the rights to the sound recording.[7] The recording is important because it restricts not only who may play the songbut can also prevent performance by the artist themselves.[8] Swift re-recording her music, with different sounds, created a new fixed medium with its own set of rights which she controls.

For new artists, this is “a nightmare dressed like a daydream.”[9] Swift’s rerecording of her music paved the way for her to get her masters back by devaluing her original recordings, but has resulted in new artists receiving harsher contracts to prevent this from happening again. The most significant change is the shift in rerecording provisions.[10] Prior to this saga, rerecording clauses were a negotiable piece of the larger contract and an artist with some representation would be able to work with the label on its inclusion, but not anymore.[11] Rerecording clauses in contracts generally ran between five-to-seven years following the release of the original song or two years after the end of the contract.[12] Now rerecording restriction provisions will likely be mandatory, prohibiting rerecording for up to 30 years after release/contract ending.[13] From the artists prospective, some musicians have learned from Swift’s “trouble, trouble, trouble”[14] and have held on to ownership of their masters from the onset.[15] For established artists with current contracts, it may be strategic to wait for their rerecording provisions to run out before trying to reclaim their masters by threatening to pull a similar stunt, as fans and networks do seem to side with the artists as evidenced by the overwhelming preference for “(Taylor’s Version)” of songs serving to devalue the worth of the original versions.[16]

Taylor Swift’s victory highlights how one artist’s determination can alter both the business and legal dimensions of the music industry. By reclaiming control over her masters and publicizing the industry traps that led to the loss of ownership over her work, Swift brought awareness to the importance of new artists understanding the impact record agreements on their ownership rights. While her strategy to reclaim control over her work succeeded, the responses by record labels demonstrate how unprecedented individual actions can trigger seismic shifts that reshape the market for future generations.[17] For established artists, her story illustrates how persistence and legal creativity can move mountains; for emerging artists, it creates new challenges in an already very cutthroat industry and serves as a cautionary tale highlighting the importance of creative ownership.

[1] Taylor A. Swift, My Letter (May 30, 2025), https://www.taylorswift.com/my-letter/.

[2] Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17), U.S. Copyright Off. (as amended Dec. 23, 2024), https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).

[3] What Musicians Should Know About Copyright, U.S. Copyright Off., https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/ (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).

[4] 17 U.S.C. §106.

[5] Brett Milano, Taylor’s Version of Copyright, Harvard L. Today (Apr. 3, 2024), https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/; Steve Knopper, Labels Want to Prevent ‘Taylor’s Version’-Like Re-Recordings From Ever Happening Again, Billboard (Oct. 30, 2023), https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor-swift-re-recordings-labels-change-contracts/.

[6] U.S. Copyright Off., supra note 3.

[7] Id.; see also Marc Tracy, Taylor Swift Buys Back Rights to Her First 6 Albums, N.Y. Times, (May 30, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/arts/music/taylor-swift-buys-masters.html.

[8] Joe Coscarelli, Taylor Swift Escalates Battle With Scooter Braun and Big Machine, N.Y. Times, (Nov, 15, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/arts/music/taylor-swift-scooter-braun.html; Id.

[9] Taylor A. Swift, BLANK SPACE, ON 1989 (TAYLOR’S VERSION) (Republic Records 2023).

[10] Monique Davis, Taylor Swift’s Success in Re-Recording her Albums Causes Major Record Labels to Change Their Ccontracts for Future Music Artists, USC Annenberg Media, (Oct. 31, 2023), https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2023/10/31/taylor-swifts-success-in-re-recording-her-albums-causes-major-record-labels-to-change-their-contracts-for-future-music-artists/;

[11] Milano, supra note 5.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Taylor A. Swift, I Knew You Were Trouble, On Red (TAYLOR’S VERSION) (Republic Records 2021).

[15] See U.S. Copyright Off., Voyager, Registration No. SRU001608716 (2024); U.S. Copyright Off., Voyager, Registration No. SR0001017904 (2024); U.S. Copyright Off., Voyager, Registration No. SR0000898093 (2021); U.S. Copyright Off., Voyager, Registration No. SR0000921805 (2021); U.S. Copyright Off., Voyager, Registration No. SR0000928482 (2022); see also Callie Ahlgrim, Olivia Rodrigo has Full Control of Her Masters Because She Paid attention to Taylor Swift's Battle Over Her Own Music, Business Insider, (May 7, 2021, 2:09 PM ET) https://www.businessinsider.com/olivia-rodrigo-owns-master-recordings-taylor-swift-battle-2021-5.

[16] Milano, supra note 5; Tracy, supra note 7.

[17] Davis, supra note 10; Knopper, supra note 5.