Twitter Thread: How Taylor Swift Cut Out Her Predatory Label

Author image for Eric Lund
Eric Lund
Apr 12, 2021 12:00 PM EDT

Whether you're a fan of Taylor Swift's music or not, it's interesting to learn about the long, long history of musicians signing horrible deals early in their careers and getting completely shafted later on when it comes to the rights of their own music. It's crazy to think that there are recording artists today don't own their own music, like we're still living in some old-timey Motown story of forgotten legends and cartoonishly evil businessmen. @ThatsMauvelous details the weird legal stunts Swift had to pull to get the rights to her music back from her old label.

Add as a preferred
source on Google
Advertisement
  • 01
    Plant - Thread Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Taylor Swift, intellectual property law, and due dilligence disasters In 2005, 13-year-old aspiring country singer Taylor Swift signed a record deal with 0-year-old aspiring label Big Machine Records. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 02
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Under this 2005 agreement, Swift conveyed the ownership rights for the recordings of her (yet-to-be- produced) first six albums to Big Machine. Swift produced these six albums between 2006 and 2017. The albums were wildly successful; Swift and Big Machine prospered together. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 03
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous At the conclusion of this six-album deal, Swift and Big Machine negotiated briefly but failed to establish a new deal for additional records. A rumored stumbling point in negotiations: Swift wanted to reacquire ownership of her six-album back catalog. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 04
    Rectangle - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous In 2019, Swift signed a new deal to release her future albums through Republic Records, leaving Big Machine in her rear view mirror. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 05
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Big Machine was a small label. Swift had been a v big fish in their small pond. Big Machine still owned Swift's first six album recordings in perpetuity, but without an ongoing deal with Swift, Big Machine was a small firm with a yuge mostly-passive asset on its balance sheet. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 06
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous In 2019, Big Machine Records was acquired by Ithaca Holdings, which is helmed by Scooter Braun, a music industry businessman. Financial backing for this transaction was provided by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm. The acquisition price was a reported $300 million. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 07
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous I'm not sure how much of this $300 million valuation can be attributed to the recording rights for Swift's first six albums. I've seen estimates in the $100m-$200m range; this seems plausible. (for comparison, the Beatles' recording rights are valued in the low ten figures.) 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 08
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous l'd love to know how the Carlyle Group thought about this transaction. What was their due diligence process? What risks did they identify w/r/t the value of the recordings of Swift's back catalog? Whatever their dd was, I suspect they were surprised by what happened next. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 09
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Swift immediately condemned the deal, suggesting that Big Machine's management had cruelly denied her the opportunity to reacquire her own back catalog. 1:25 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 10
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous I think unhappy words from the artist are par for the course in a situation like this. But Swift ventured further and began doing real damage: She began to block all use of her back catalog in films and commercials. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 11
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous But wait - if she doesn't own her old records, how can she block their use? Here's how: In order to use a recorded song in a film, a filmmaker must acquire two different kinds of licenses. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 12
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous First, a filmmaker must obtain a license to synchronize the song with visual imagery in the film - a "sync license". A sync license is not for a particular recording, but for the abstract idea of the song itself. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 13
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous A filmmaker needs a sync license even if the film isn't using a preexisting recording. A character in the film picks up a guitar and plays and sings a song themselves? Gotta get a sync license to put that song in the film. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 14
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Second, if a filmmaker wishes to use an existing recording of the song for which they have obtained sync rights, the filmmaker must obtain a "master use license" from the owner of the master/recording. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 15
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Master use rights originate with recording artists. Big Machine acquired Swift's rights as a recording artist, so they can grant master use licenses. However, sync rights originate with songwriters, NOT recording artists. So here's the big uh-oh for the Carlyle Group: 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 16
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Who is a songwriter on every song in Swift's first six albums? Yep, that's right: Taylor Swift. She doesn't own her old recordings, but she owns the abstract songs. And she has adopted a policy of saying "no" to all requests for sync licenses. 1:26 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 17
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous So - Swift has already inflicted notable economic damage on the owners of her old records. But she's going even further: Today, she released a completely new re-recording of her 2008 album "Fearless". Fearless (Taylor's Version) - Taylor Swift P open.spotify.com 1:42 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 18
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous She can do this without Big Machine's consent b/c she owns the rights to the abstract songs. And the new recordings of the old songs are being released by Republic Records under a deal in which she retains ultimate ownership of the new recordings. 1:42 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 19
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous (As a sidenote, the new version of the album is excellent. It preserves the spirit of the original, but offers a more mature and refined vocal performance by Swift. And the post-loudness-war mastering of the new version is MUCH improved.) 1:42 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 20
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Now Swift owns a recording of the Fearless album. When licensors come calling, she can offer both a sync license and a master use license for her new recording, cutting Big Machine out of the deal completely. 1:44 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 21
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous I can't help but ask myself - would someone *really* pay nine figures for a top tier artist's back catalog without wargaming this stuff out? But wait -- it might get even worse. 1:50 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 22
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous We've talked about how two licenses are required for use of a recording in a film. It's true elsewhere, too. When a song is made available on iTunes or Spotify, rights must be obtained (and royalties must flow) for both the songwriter and the record owner. 1:50 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 23
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous (a song license for film is called a "sync license", but a song license for vinyl, CD, or for spotify is called a 'mechanical license", because reasons) 1:50 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 24
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Now that Taylor has released a new version of Fearless, might she start refusing mechanical license rights for the public sale of the old version of the album, effectively removing it from the market completely? I see no reason she *can't* do this. 1:50 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 25
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous If Swift re-records all her old albums and exercises her songwriter rights to effectively remove the old versions from the market, that means someone's 9-figure investment in her back catalog is completely fi ked. 2:00 PM · Apr 9, 2021 - Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 26
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous And I just wanna know - what the hell happened here? It looks like the buyers failed to realize that their financial asset existed only at Swift's pleasure, so now she's exploiting their miscalculation, destroying the asset for fun and profit. I can't help but root for her. 2:00 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 27
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous Thank you for reading I am a law student. Follow me for puns, kitties, and occasional threads about law. Here's another one: Mauv @ThatsMauvelous - Oct 28, 2020 When I started law school, I discovered law is bullshit. I was not prepared for this. Show this thread 6:04 PM · Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter for Android
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 28
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous addendum - while Swift can refuse to licence her songs for some uses (such as sync), @sctweak and @rtushnet point out that Swift is required by law to license many other uses. So Swift cannot completely remove the old recordings from the market. Rebecca Tushnet O @rtushnet - 17h Replying to @SCtweak and @ThatsMauvelous This response to the thread is correct. Many standard uses of the musical work (not really the "abstract idea of the song,"
    via ThatsMauvelous
  • 29
    Font - Mauv @ThatsMauvelous Replying to @ThatsMauvelous She cannot force the old recordings out of the market altogether, but she can bar them from film/tv use, and she can release new recordings of those old songs to compete against them for other uses. The new Fearless is excellent, and I'm looking forward to more re-recordings 8:50 PM - Apr 9, 2021 · Twitter Web App
    via ThatsMauvelous

Want More? Follow Us and Add Us as a Preferred Source on Google.

Tags

crazy taylor swift Music wtf strange label business weird money
Scroll Down For The Next Article