Taylor Swift purchases her Masters

Swifties will be familiar with the saga of Taylor Swift’s masters, which escalated in 2018 and was finally resolved in 2025. This saga saw the re-recording of Swift’s early hit albums, 'Fearless', 'Speak Now’, ‘Red’ and ‘1989’. In this post, we explain the role of copyright in this battle for ownership, and what happens now that Swift owns the originalr ecorded versions as well as the newer re-recorded ‘Taylor’s Versions’.

What is a master recording?

A master recording is the first sound recording of a song. This is protected by copyright as an entrepreneurial work. Unlike authorial music works that require originality to be protected by copyright, entrepreneurial works are protected by copyright once they are fixated. The copyright in the master recording is distinct from the copyright in the underlying musical composition and lyrics that is featured on the sound recording. In Swift’s case, her master recordings were initially owned by her first record label, Big Machine, and then purchased by Scooter Braun in 2018, who then sold to Shamrock Holdings in 2020.

How was Taylor Swift able to re-record her albums if she did not own the masters?

Swift retained ownership of the underlying musical composition and lyrics in her songs. Without this ownership, the re-recording would not have been possible. It is notable that Swift had to wait three years before re-recording despite her ownership of the underlying copyright works as she was contractually prohibited from re-recording before this time (read more here). Furthermore, it must be noted that a re-recording will not infringe the copyright in the original sound recording because infringement is limited to actual copying of the physical sound recording as opposed to the underlying works embodied in the recording.

What can an owner of a masters recording do?

The owner of a masters recording can license the recording for sync deals for movies and television shows, and can distribute on streaming platforms.  However, these deals can be hamstrung by the copyright owner of the underlying music. That being said, the underlying music is often licensed to a music publisher or collective management organisation that often transacts on behalf of the musician/composer. In record deals, the label may have a license to the music as without this, the potential financial returns of the sound recording would be severely limited. The earlier versions of Swift’s songs continued to be available on streaming platforms throughout the duration of the dispute.

Who was making money from the masters, and who will make money now?

Each time the master recording is played, money is made by the owner of the sound recording. The copyright owner of the lyrics and the composition will also earn royalties. When Taylor Swift re-recorded her masters, plays of ‘Taylor’s Version’ allowed all the revenue streams to be received by Swift. Now, playing either Taylor’s Version or the earlier recordings will have the same end result for Swift financially. Swift now also has greater control in determining how her music is licensed and distributed.

Music copyright ownership and licensing can be complex, but at Clover®, We Make IP Accessible®. Contact us today for a consultation to understand your rights and to learn how we can help you manage your music.