Karma is a Copyright: Taylor Swift’s Impact on Musical Ownership

*Arissa Lewis

Taylor Swift is arguably the biggest figure in the modern-day music industry and recently has been coined the fifth most powerful woman in the world.¹ Despite her successful career, Swift fell victim to a record deal where she essentially signed away ownership of her music perpetually.² Swift, however, did not go down without a fight. After losing ownership of her first six albums, she set out on a journey to reclaim her music and inspire other artists in the industry to do so, too.³

In the United States, musical copyright takes two forms: publishing rights and masters.⁴ Publishing rights usually belong to the musician and cover the musical materials before they become a sound recording.⁵ This includes sheet music, melodies, arrangements, and the lyrics of a song.⁶ Publishing rights give the musician the right to reproduce, perform, distribute, and create derivative works of a piece.⁷ Publishing rights are meant to provide financial benefits to the musician.⁸ These rights are not the central issue of Swift’s case. 

Swift’s case instead focuses on her masters. A master is the original recording of a song and, most times, is held by the record label.⁹ The master recording is the source that all other copies of the song are made from.¹⁰ Masters not only include the song itself but also any cover artwork, packaging, and content that goes along with the song.¹¹ The owner of the masters has the final say on where and how the recording of a song is used, making it more powerful than publishing rights.¹² Swift’s case involves her fight to own the masters of her music, and thus have control beyond merely receiving financial benefits for her work. 

Swift’s saga starts with her original record label deal with Big Machine Records.¹³ Swift entered into this contract in 2005 when she was just 15 years old.¹⁴ The contract gave Big Machine Records the masters to Swift’s first six albums, “Taylor Swift,” “Fearless,” “Speak Now,” “Red,” “1989,” and “Reputation.”¹⁵ In 2018, Swift left Big Machine Records and signed a record deal with Universal Music Group. This new contract gave Swift the opportunity to own the masters of her music moving forward.¹⁶ Before leaving Big Machine Records, Swift “pleaded” with the label to obtain ownership of her music. They told her the only way to do so would be through a rewards-based system: for every new album Swift produced, she would “earn” the masters to one of her old albums.¹⁷ Swift dubbed this offer as “manipulative bullying” and set out to make re-recordings of her first six albums instead of continuing to play into the system.¹⁸ 

Swift now “has turned what started out as an extremely painful situation into one of the most fulfilling endeavors of her life.”¹⁹ “Fearless (Taylor’s Version),” “Red (Taylor’s Version),” and “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version)” all made it to the number one spot on the Billboard 200 chart and, in general, sold very well.²⁰ What at first seemed like an unthinkable risk for an artist to take soon turned Swift into a leading advocate for artists’ rights in music ownership.²¹

Not only has Swift garnered success for herself, but she has also inspired other artists to negotiate control of their own masters in their music. An example would be Olivia Rodrigo, who recently negotiated her masters with her record label after claiming to be inspired by Swift.²² Rodrigo, like Swift, considers herself a songwriter.²³ She did not want to sign away all of her music in order to make it to stardom.²⁴ Instead, she followed Swift’s lead. She successfully negotiated with her record label, and now owns the masters in all of her music.²⁵ 

Swift’s journey to owning her music led to both her own success, and to the success of others in the music industry.²⁶ Not only did she set out to make six successful re-recordings, but she also brought attention to the ongoing intellectual property battle that is plaguing artists in the music industry. Thanks to Swift, artists now have the footing to negotiate and retain ownership of their music and do not have to sign away their life’s work perpetually.

* Arissa Lewis, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2025 (Senior Editor).

1. Hannah Dailey, Taylor Swift Is Forbes’ 5th Most Powerful Woman in the World, Billboard (Dec. 5, 2023),
   https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-most-powerful-woman-in-the-world-2023-list-1235534184/ [https://perma.cc/3UE3-REJA]. ↩︎
2. Chrissy Callahan, Taylor Swift’s feud with Scooter Braun is the subject of a docuseries. A detailed timeline of what happened, TODAY (June 23, 2024, 4:00 PM), https://www.today.com/popculture/music/scooter-braun-taylor-swift-feud-rcna50205 [https://perma.cc/5NVN-2M8D]. ↩︎
3. Callie Ahlgrim, Olivia Rodrigo has full control of her masters because she paid attention to Taylor Swift’s battle over her own music, Business Insider (May 7, 2021, 1:09 PM), 
   https://www.businessinsider.com/olivia-rodrigo-owns-master-recordings-taylor-swift-battle-2021-5 [https://perma.cc/W3L6-8KF5]. ↩︎
4. Publishing Rights vs Master Rights: Understanding the Key Differences, Mogul (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.usemogul.com/post/publishing-rights-vs-master-rights-understanding-the-key-differences [https://perma.cc/QY9J-VLCZ]. ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. ↩︎
7. Id. ↩︎
8. Id. ↩︎
9. Id. ↩︎
10. Id. ↩︎
11. Id. ↩︎
12. Id. ↩︎
13. Hannah Dailey & Kirsten Spruch, Taylor Swift & Scooter Braun’s Feud: A Timeline, Billboard (Oct. 25, 2024),
    https://www.billboard.com/lists/taylor-swift-scooter-braun-feud-timeline/ [https://perma.cc/ZQ5Y-PLVP]. ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Callahan, supra note 2. ↩︎
16. Callahan, supra note 2. ↩︎
17. Callahan, supra note 2. ↩︎
18. Callahan, supra note 2. ↩︎
19. Callahan, supra note 2. ↩︎
20. Hugh McIntyre, Taylor Swift’s Re-Recorded Albums Are Huge Successes–But They Were A Real Risk, Forbes (July 27, 2023, 9:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2023/07/27/taylor-swifts-re-recorded-albums-are-huge-successesbut-they-were-a-real-risk/ [https://perma.cc/GEF5-RE9R]. ↩︎
21. Id. ↩︎
22. Ahlgrim, supra note 3. ↩︎
23. Ahlgrim, supra note 3. ↩︎
24. Ahlgrim, supra note 3. ↩︎
25. Ahlgrim, supra note 3. ↩︎
26. Ahlgrim, supra note 3. ↩︎