Taylor Swift has made music industry history by re-recording her first six albums in order to regain control of her catalog. But how did she pull this off legally? And can other artists follow in her footsteps?
After her early albums were sold by former label Big Machine Records, Swift vowed to reclaim her work by re-recording it. Now her re-recorded “Taylor’s Versions” are outperforming the originals in streams.
According to Music Business Worldwide, 2022 streams of the re-recorded Red and Fearless far exceeded their originals. This shows fans deliberately choosing Swift’s versions over the Big Machine records.
So what legal loophole allowed the superstar to recreate and profit off music she doesn’t outright own? And is it a viable strategy for others.
When Swift signed her first Big Machine recording contract as a new artist, she had to forfeit ownership of those original master recordings.
However, Swift crucially retained copyright ownership of the songs themselves – the lyrics and melodies. This songwriting copyright is separate from her recordings’ copyrights.
Think of it like a painting. An artist owns the original artwork. But if they retain the painting’s copyright, they can also profit from lithographs, prints, and other reproductions.
Swift’s song copyrights allowed her to legally recreate the compositions on new recordings without involvement from Big Machine.
Swift’s enormous popularity was key to propelling her re-recorded albums commercially. She framed it as taking back control of her work, mobilizing her fans.
This compelled fans to actively support “Taylor’s Versions” over streaming the originals still owned by her former label. Without legions of loyal listeners consciously making that choice, the success would’ve been difficult.
For other artists without Swift’s vast following, convincing fans to engage with re-recorded old content is an uphill battle. The average listener wants new music.
The current owners of Swift’s original Big Machine masters still earn royalties from sales and streams.
But now the re-records compete with and are overtaking the originals’ popularity. The numbers show fans gravitating to Swift’s newer versions.
Because Swift owns the re-records’ copyrights outright, she keeps all that revenue. The originals’ owners don’t share in her “Taylor’s Version” profits.
It’s a genius checkmate allowing Swift to out-earn and outperform the albums she lost control of years ago.
Is re-recording old music worth it for the average artist though? Probably not without Swift-level fan allegiance.
The process involves considerable time, effort, and expense. For most acts, fans would prefer that energy went towards new, original music.
But Swift’s very public feud over owning her catalog combined with her unmatched popularity made re-recording a shrewd financial decision. It paid off with her reclaimed albums now besting the originals commercially.
Still, artists with far smaller fanbases are unlikely to see the same success or recoup the costs. The Swift model only works for global superstars with dedicated supporters rallying behind their catalog crusade.
For the queen of pop herself, the move was a power play, proving her masters are replaceable and showing who her true fans will always support. Legally leveraging her song rights, Swift is rewriting industry rules and emerging more profitable than ever.
