Look What You Made Her Do: Why Taylor Swift is Re-Recording Early Albums

By: Delaney Szekely, Staff Writer

In August 2019, Taylor Swift once again altered the music world when she announced her intention to re-record her first six albums.¹ The re-recordings, denoted with “Taylor’s Version,” were an attempt for Swift to reclaim her art and ownership rights.²

Under copyright law, a song has two copyrights. The songwriter or composer holds the first copyright for the actual music and lyrics.³ The other copyright protects the “recorded performance,” which pieces together the musical arrangement of the music and lyrics.⁴ A recording label typically controls this copyright, more commonly known as the “master.”⁵ Having multiple parties with a copyright interest to a song blocks the artist from having full control over the use of their music.⁶

Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, and reputation were all recorded under Swift’s original recording studio, Big Machine Records.⁷ Upon the conclusion of her contract with Big Machine Records, she made clear her interest to buy the masters to her original albums. However, the label sold all six album master recordings to Ithaca Holdings under the leadership of Scooter Braun. The bad blood did not stop there. Ithaca Holdings then sold her masters to Shamrock Holdings, again, against Swift’s wishes.⁸

Swift knew all too well the recording studios were not interested in letting her purchase the masters to her original albums. As a shrewd businesswoman, Swift masterminded plans to acquire the masters. Typically, artists’ contracts prohibit re-recording albums for five to seven years after the initial release.⁹ Swift began fearlessly re-recording her initial albums as soon as her contractual obligation lapsed in 2020.¹⁰ During this time, she entered a new contract with the Universal Music Group.¹¹ In this contract, Swift provided a provision entitling her to the master copyrights of her initial six albums.¹² As she already held the copyright for the written music, obtaining copyright ownership of the masters made her the “majority control[er]” of her music.¹³

In addition to re-recording the songs, each song is renamed with the tag “Taylor’s Version.”¹⁴ The denotation provides further copyright protection to Swift, as it indicates that this is a new version of a previously released song.¹⁵ Additionally, the tag provides the re-recorded versions further legal protections necessary for previously recorded music.

The re-recorded versions of Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989 Taylor’s Version have far outperformed their original counterparts.¹⁶ By reclaiming her music, she greatly devalued the original masters.¹⁷ Even though the original masters still exist, fans have zealously taken to the re-recording project and boycotted what has been dubbed the “Stolen Versions” of Swift’s albums.¹⁸ To further entice her audience, Swift added tracks from the vault. These vault tracks were songs that were written for the original album, but did not make the initial cut.¹⁹

Although these works have succeeded beyond Swift’s wildest dreams, there has been a major shift in the music industry as a result. Swift’s success has caused recording companies to tighten their contracts by extending the ban on re-recordings from just five to seven years to a window of now twenty to thirty years.²⁰ Swift has clearly put in the work to advocate for artist ownership through this massive undertaking, but it may be unlikely to see art reclaimed in this style again due to new re-recording clauses.

2016 Best Legal Blog Nominee