John Hollihan

December 28, 2023

Note: This piece was reviewed by Michael Madison, copyright lawyer and law professor in the School of Law.

On October 30, 2023, Billboard published an article detailing recent interviews with music lawyers regarding labels updating the terms of newer artists’ contracts (1). These new terms included the length of time that would need to pass after a contract’s expiration for an artist to re-record their music, with some as long as thirty years (2). Many of these updated terms cited or alluded to the recent success of Taylor Swift’s re-recordings, each referred to as “Taylor’s Version,” as justification for inhibiting further or future re-recordings. Ownership of the publishing rights determines who profits from the songwriting; ownership of the master determines who profits from the recordings. The distinction between the two are essential for understanding the ways in which profits are divided within the music industry. In other words, it determines who profits from the labor of the singer, the songwriters, the producers, the audio engineers, and anyone else involved in the marketing and distribution of the music. These reports and the re-recordings of Swift clearly reflect a possible shift in the power dynamics of the music industry. However, they also raise interesting questions regarding labor ownership, artistic integrity, and media consumption. 

Let us begin with some recent music history. In April 2021, Taylor Swift began releasing re-recordings of her first six studio albums—Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, and Reputation. She began the process in 2019 after a dispute with her previous label, Big Machine Records. Big Machine was purchased by Scooter Braun, who did not allow Swift to simply buy the master recordings of her back catalog. They offered Swift a new contract in which she could receive ownership of her masters if she made more records for the label. Like many other recording contracts, Swift’s 2006 contract with Big Machine gave ownership of the master recordings to the label, not her. When Swift signed a new contract in 2018 with Republic Records, a division of Universal Music Group, she retained ownership of any master recordings she made. With the master recordings made under Republic Records, Swift would now have a division of the revenue generated from the recordings. Her songwriting automatically gives her rights to publishing under U.S. copyright law—this remained unchanged from her original contract with Big Machine. Although, under Republic Records she would receive a cut from the recordings. In doing so, she has also advocated for newer artists in the music industry to also own their master recordings. Swift’s advocacy for herself and for other, newer artists is interesting because of her class position. As she has recently crossed the threshold of billionaire status (3), Swift could easily survive without the revenue earned from her first six albums. Nevertheless, her desire for her and other artists to own their work speaks to the complicated dynamics of class and the complex social relationship between artist and fandom. 

Under current U.S. copyright law, there are two aspects of music ownership. The first is the lyrics and music themselves, which are owned by the songwriters. Any sort of original work “fixed in any tangible media of expression” (e.g., song lyrics written on paper) are owned by the authors (4). The second aspect is the studio recordings, often referred to as “master recordings.” These are the audio files that are put on streaming services, digital stores, and physical releases such as CDs, cassettes, and LPs. Similar to the ownership of songs’ copyright by their authors, recordings are also owned by their respective authors (i.e., audio engineers and producers). If the engineers and producers are employees of a record company, the latter automatically owns the copyright of the sound recording. The label’s ownership is codified in the Copyright Act and usually reflected in their contract with an artist. In the case of Swift, she did not own the original recordings in the first place. The transactional relationship between artist and label has traditionally allowed the artist to create their art with resources in order to document their music, such as access to producers and other songwriters, to recording studios, management, etc. These various businesses invest in an artist with the hope that the music will be consumed and will make money. The provisions of copyright law prioritize the art because the art is commodifiable—it is the thing that will generate profit for companies. Copyright law, labor (and copyright) exploitation, and class interact with each other constantly. There are complicated dynamics between them. Furthermore, their connections reflect the complicated class positions of celebrities. 

The commodification of music is a long, historical process but this piece will focus on the role of developing copyright law as the means for protecting the profits of people in music. What we now understand to be the “music industry” emerged at the crossroads of “copyright protection to the various nascent economic interests in music” (5). Furthermore, the emergence of an industry emphasizes the commercial activities and practices—here is the aforementioned in the context of music. The rise of a music industry incorporated “copyright exploitation” beyond the initial composition of music and further allowed the process of moving sound recordings through “publishers’ activities” (6). These copyright laws developed as a means of protecting profit as sound recordings became commodities on the music market over the course of the 20th century. The evolution of these practices during the mid- and late 20th century serve the recording companies as they use copyright law to generate profit on these sound recordings. 

Understanding music commodification reveals the intricate networks of ownership, class position, and how labor interacts with these trends. When analyzing the work and practices of artists like Swift, there is a clear tension between labor output, exploitation, and profit incentives. Her situation is interesting because of the massive ways in which she has benefitted from re-recording her work.The initial understanding of labor dynamics complicates as artists control their copyright and profit incentives. As a singer-songwriter and producer, Swift is actively involved in the labor of her artistry. However, it is important to remember that she is still not the only person involved in the labor of her albums. There is the energy and labor output of writing music and lyrics, recording them, and producing them. One could also recognize the labor output of performances and concert tours. Under copyright law, she did not own the master recordings and thus did not earn the full value of labor. Marx, and his following economists, understands labor exploitation as the phenomenon of not receiving the full fruits of one’s labor (7). In the Marxist sense, each song of Swift’s is not solely hers because she is not the only person involved in the labor of their creation. 

Artists are workers, given their relationship to the means of production. Many singers and/or songwriters do not have ready access to recording studios, marketing executives, or management teams. Although this analysis of class prioritizes relationships to the means of production rather than income, it is necessary to recognize how they interact. If one controls the means by which profit is generated—such as the master recordings of a song—more than likely, they will receive a majority of the surplus. A Marxist analysis of copyright demonstrates how it is inherently capitalistic. The law allows record companies to extract surplus value from the labor of their artists, producers, and engineers. With Big Machine Records, was some of that surplus value extracted from Swift herself? Sure. But, it is important to remember that she could also generate profit from the songs since she always controlled the publishing rights as a songwriter. With her new recording contract, Swift owns all new recordings that she makes. Furthermore, her re-recordings solve Swift’s two primary issues: the desire to own her work and to retain ownership of all her master recordings. Complications arise, though, when we consider the profit incentives of the master recordings.

One could argue that Swift did not need to promote the re-recordings as if they were a new album. She could have easily re-recorded them, uploaded them to streaming services, possibly released physical copies, and her main issue is solved. She now owns all of her work. However, her actual process of re-releasing music is much more complicated. Each re-release is treated like a new album: there is an announcement, new merchandise, and the inclusion of previously unreleased tracks (subtitled “From The Vault”), with some even becoming radio singles. In essence, these are brand new albums because Swift is technically covering herself and releasing and promoting new songs. Furthermore, there is a general understanding amongst Swift’s fans that it is unethical to listen to the original recordings of albums. After all, if someone supports or enjoys an artist, they should not contribute to the extraction and exploitation of their labor, right? Possibly, one or many fans could wonder how much damage they actually do to an artist like Swift who, financially, is now a part of the ‘one percent.’ Economists could forever speculate about the financial prospects of Swift if she never re-recorded and re-released her music, but no one can deny that if she did not, her financial situation would have been fine. Even before her contract expired, Swift was a multi-millionaire, with a net worth estimated at $320 million in 2018 (8). In this way, the exploitation has evolved. Swift now has a larger say in how the profits from the recordings are distributed; she now has a larger share of the exploitative processes within the music industry.

Clearly, Swift disrupted the process of copyright and labor exploitation by re-recording, re-releasing, and guaranteeing the ownership of her master recordings, but there are a few important details to remember. Firstly, the general public does not know the details of Swift’s 2018 contract with Republic Records. Since it is a legal document of a private entity, the details do not need to be disclosed to the public. In essence, there is no way to know if Swift actually receives the full value of her labor. Secondly, it would be irresponsible to not discuss the impact of Swift’s ongoing concert tour: The Eras Tour. Many economists have described the tour as an example of trickle-down economics, the theory in which “the prosperity of high-income individuals trickles down to benefit various sectors of society” (9). Another example of the trickle-down nature of the tour is Swift’s increased bonuses for the tour’s truck drivers and stage builders. However, this economic model remains unsustainable and requires “the need for comprehensive, long-term economic strategies” (10). Swift has not changed the fundamental economic structures and labor practices of capitalism. Rather, her tour has given local economies a quick post-pandemic surge. I briefly mention the economics of Swift and the Eras Tour because, although her re-recordings have exposed and defied some of the exploitative practices within the music industry, it is important to remember, what is my third consideration, that she is now a billionaire. One must consider the moral and ethical implications of billionaire status and what one must do in order to achieve this status. 

The circumstances by which an individual becomes a millionaire, let alone a billionaire should be understood as simply luck. The lack of market regulations allows for “the luck of inheriting very unequal circumstances” (11). Furthermore, factors such as housing, taxation in tandem with school districts, and access to various resources creates an inherent unequal dynamic within the market. People with more money have more ready access to resources necessary for higher incomes. Swift herself grew up with two parents who worked as stockbrokers. Also, Swift was one of Big Machine’s first artists with Swift’s father, Scott, becoming a major investor in the company. The circumstances that enable billionaires are extremely exploitative, practices in which Swift directly or indirectly participates. Here, exploitation has evolved. The general public may not know the explicit business ventures and practices of Swift as an individual. Still, her management teams, of which she is a decision-maker, participate within these exploitative labor practices that allow such wealth to be in the hands of one individual.

We have seen Swift defy the practices of labor and copyright exploitation. Although, it is imperative to remember that her status as a billionaire should be regarded as a result of labor exploitation. Both of these things can be true. I find it necessary to have a critical approach to art and the consumption of it. Due to the nature of capitalism and consumerism, many artists defy typical understandings of class. Sometimes, they can even directly participate in the exploitative practices from which they suffer. One’s moral compass ought not be reduced to their consumption of particular things (e.g. art). Of course, art is not simply created as something for consumption. However, it seems necessary to approach this art with a critical lens of how it is created and how it informs the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism. 

Image by iHeartRadioCA via Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons 3.0 BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Swift_at_the_2023_MTV_Video_Music_Awards_(3).png

1. Steve Knopper. 2023. “Labels Want to Prevent ‘Taylor’s Version’-Like Re-Recordings From Ever Happening Again.” Billboard. October 30. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor-swift-re-recordings-labels-change-contracts/.
2. Ibid. 
3. Devon Pendleton, Claire Ballentine, Marie Patino, Chloe Whiteaker, and Diana Li. 2023. “Taylor Swift Hits Billionaire Status as Net Worth Surges With Eras Tour Success.” Bloomberg. October 26. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-taylor-swift-net-worth-billionaire/?embedded-checkout=true.
4. U.S. Code 17 (1947), § 102 et seq. Accessed November 3, 2023.  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17&edition=prelim. 
5. Jenny Kanellopoulou. 2021. “The copyright story of a business model.” In Competition Policy and the Music Industries: A Business Model Perspective , by Jenny Kanellopoulou, 36. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429281419.
6. Ibid., 36.
7. Jon Elster. 1978. “Exploring Exploitation.” Journal of Peace Research XV (1): 3.
8. Zack O’Malley Gallagher. 2018. “Taylor Swift’s Net Worth: $320 Million in 2018.” Forbes. July 11. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2018/07/11/taylor-swifts-net-worth-320-million-in-2018/?sh=38c65245233f. 
9. Maria Psyllou. 2023. “Taylor Swift’s Eras tour: A harmonious overture of the trickle-down effect on local economics.” University of Birmingham. August 18. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/taylor-swifts-eras-tour-a-harmonious-overture-of-the-trickle-down-effect-on-local-economies.
10. Ibid.
11. Tom Malleson. 2023. Against Inequality: The Practical and Ethical Case for Abolishing the Superrich, 138. New York: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197670392.003.0005.