Beyond tabloid headlines and tour dates, Taylor Swift is once again grabbing national attention—not for a new album, but for the re-release of an old one. Her latest re-recording, 1989 (Taylor’s Version), follows the successful reissues of Red (Taylor’s Version) in 2021, Fearless (Taylor’s Version) in 2021, and Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) in 2023.
So why is Taylor Swift re-recording music she already released years ago? The answer lies in the legal nuances of music rights and copyright ownership. This article explores the legal strategy behind Taylor’s Swift Taylor’s Version re-recordings and what it means for artists and copyright law.
How Copyright Law Works in the Music Industry
To understand Taylor’s strategy, it’s important to first understand how songs are copyrighted in the United States. Every song has two distinct copyrights:
- Composition – the lyrics and musical notes
- Master Recording – the recorded performance of that composition
In Taylor Swift’s case, she owns the composition rights to her earlier albums but not the master rights—those were originally owned by Big Machine Records. This is significant because the master recording copyright owner has exclusive rights to reproduce, perform, and distribute the recorded version of the song.
Why Taylor Swift Couldn’t Perform Her Own Songs
In 2019, Taylor Swift publicly stated that Big Machine Records was preventing her from performing songs from her earlier albums at the American Music Awards. This was legally permissible because the label held the rights to the sound recordings, which are protected under the Copyright Act of 1976.
According to that law, the owner of a master recording holds the exclusive rights to:
- Reproduce the recording
- Distribute the recording
- Publicly perform the recording
Without ownership or permission, Swift was restricted in how she could use her earlier music catalog—until she found a legal workaround.
Taylor’s Version: How Taylor Swift Legally Re-Recorded Her Music
Although Ms. Swift’s prior contract with Big Machine records was pretty much airtight, and the Copyright Act gave Big Machine Records quite a bit of authority, she was still able to start re-recording her old albums in 2020.
How is this possible? If Big Machine Records still owns the copyrights in the sound recordings, how are Taylor Swift’s re-recordings not considered infringements of the original songs? Indeed, if you listen to any of her re-recorded songs, they sound virtually identical to the originally released songs (well, mostly).
According to Section 114(b) of the Copyright Act. The applicable section of the Copyright Law states:
The exclusive rights of the owner of a copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) {making copies] and (2) [making derivative works] of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. 17 U.S.C.A. § 114(b).
In other words, this section allows for Taylor Swift to make a re-creation of a previous song, that is virtually identical, as long as she makes a new recording of that song. To acknowledge this, Ms. Swift re-releases the original songs, but puts a “(Taylor’s version)” annotation at the end of each song title. This is being used to both indicate:
- it is in fact a new recording of a previously recorded song, and
- to avoid any trademark issues that would arise from using the same title of a previously released song
LESSONS LEARNED FROM TAYLOR SWIFT’S RE-RECORDINGS
What Taylor Swift has gone through is not specific to her – it happens to many young artists. By publicizing her experience, Ms. Swift has really shed a light on the importance of a well-negotiated contract in the music industry.
