If you have read entertainment news at any point within the last three years, there is no doubt that you have scrolled by or even clicked on an article about Taylor Swift and her "Taylor's Version" of old albums.
If you do not already know, the basic story is that Taylor Swift is re-recording, or essentially covering, her older songs since she does not own the rights to them.
But that is Taylor Swift's music? How does she "not own the rights" to her songs?
This situation is not new in the music industry, but Swift's solution to the ownership issue is groundbreaking.
The first thing to look at is who specifically owns a song. This may be a surprise, but most of the time it is not an artist that owns a song, it is their label. In most situations, even if a musician writes their lyrics and melodies, they only have publishing rights and get royalties. In a record deal contract, the label owns the rights to an artist’s song or their “master recording.” There are a few circumstances where that is not the case, such as an artist being an independent creator and publisher of their music through websites like SoundCloud, but overall it is the label that is the rightsholder to an artist's music.
So how does Taylor Swift get away with playing her old albums?
Since the "Taylor's Version" albums are re-recordings of the songs, the music is considered a cover, which makes Swift the owner of the master recordings. This gives her the rights to the music she is recording, despite the original tracks being owned by the label.
What does this mean for the future?
As of now, Swift has set a precedent for artists who want to own the rights to their music. However, some labels have begun to insert clauses in contracts, making it difficult for new artists to do the same as Swift.
As the music industry continues to develop, only time will tell how the legalities of music ownership will change.
댓글