When a new Taylor Swift album is about to launch, many Swifties amplify their excitement by listening through previously released albums. In doing so, they may see several songs with (Taylor’s Version) in front of familiar titles. Her strategic re-recordings highlight critical legal nuances in music rights and copyright ownership. This article delves into the legal strategy behind Taylor Swift’s Taylor’s Version re-recordings and their profound implications for artists and copyright law.
HOW SONGS ARE COPYRIGHTED
First, it is important to understand that music copyright is made up of two different parts:
- Composition – generally referring to song lyrics and musical notes
- Master – the recorded sound, which is what we listen to on platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, or the radio
Prior to 2025, Taylor Swift only owned the composition of her earlier albums; she did not have the rights to her masters. This distinction is crucial in music law, as further explained in resources discussing the difference between sound recording and musical composition
From a practical standpoint, this means she was unable to perform her old songs without the permission of the owner of her masters, which, in this case, was Big Machine Records. Just prior to the 2019 American Music Awards, Ms. Swift released a statement that she was being blocked from performing any songs from her old albums by Big Machine Records. Big Machine Records was able to do this because they alone held the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare, distribute, and publicly perform Taylor Swift’s previous “sound recordings.” This authority stems directly from the Copyright Act of 1976.
FINDING A LOOPHOLE: TAYLOR SWIFT’S RE-RECORDINGS
Although Ms. Swift’s prior contract with Big Machine Records was largely airtight, and the Copyright Act gave Big Machine Records considerable authority, she was still able to start re-recording her old albums in 2020.
This raises questions: If Big Machine Records still owned the copyrights in the sound recordings, how are Taylor Swift’s re-recordings not considered infringements of the original songs? Indeed, as many listeners observe, her rerecorded songs often sound virtually identical to the originally released versions. This process has been widely covered, including how versions like “Bad Blood” from 1989 (Taylor’s Version) maintain fidelity to the originals (Variety).
The legal basis for this strategy lies in 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 allowed for Taylor Swift to make a recreation of a previous song—one that is virtually identical—as long as she produced a new recording of that song. To acknowledge this, Ms. Swift re-released the original songs, but added a “(Taylor’s Version)” annotation at the end of each song title. This annotation served to both:
- Indicate that it is, in fact, a new recording of a previously recorded song
- Avoid any trademark issues that would arise from using the exact same title of a previously released song
LESSONS LEARNED FROM TAYLOR SWIFT’S RE-RECORDINGS
What Taylor Swift experienced is not specific to her; it happens to many young artists. By publicizing her experience, Ms. Swift significantly illuminated the importance of a well-negotiated contract in the music industry. Her ongoing quest to “shake off corporate control” and regain ownership was widely documented. This public awareness also inspired other artists to follow her lead in reclaiming their masters.
Conversely, music studios will also be scrutinizing artist contracts to prevent re-recordings which can be detrimental to their bottom line. Artists will want to retain strong legal counsel to help ensure their creative rights are properly protected.
But don’t worry about Taylor! In spring 2025, she bought back her original masters, removing the necessity for her to continue to re-record songs (amidst having teased Reputation and Taylor Swift in the works). While this may disappoint some fans, most maintain their loyalty and passion for all things Taylor. And it’s this passion which helped (Taylor’s Version) succeed, as albums like “Fearless (Taylor’s Version)” sold more than four times the original album!
Way to go, Showgirl!
