AusLeisure

With Taylor Swift’s re-recordings having impacted the music industry. University of Auckland copyright expert Dr Joshua Yuvaraj (pictured below) explores whether other artists can also reclaim their music.

Taylor Swift and her millions of fans may be disappointed by her 2025 Grammys ‘snub’, but the billionaire artist still has much to celebrate, most notably, her successful fight to take ownership of her music in an industry long dominated by influential record labels.

Dr Yuvaraj says Swift significantly impacted the industry when she re-recorded several of her albums after the rights to her music were sold from under her.

In his paper, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice and presented at the University of Melbourne’s Taylor Swift-themed academic conference, Swiftposium (held in February 2024), the senior law lecturer examines how re-recording can help artists gain control of their music. He compares this strategy with the primary mechanism available under US copyright law: statutory reversion.

Swiftposium was a hybrid academic conference for scholars to engage in critical dialogue about Swift's popularity and its profound implications for a range of issues including gender, fandom, popular culture, literature, the economy, the music industry, and more.

Dr Yuvaraj’s article looks at how reversion applies to sound recordings, focusing on the US copyright ‘termination’ provision, which lets creators reclaim copyright, typically after around 35 years. The size of the US recording market makes this scheme the most high-profile reversion system in the world. However, Yuvaraj argues that re-recording may offer a more accessible alternative to these legal processes.

“In theory, copyright reversion gives artists a second chance at controlling their recordings. But in practice, the US system has significant obstacles: a long waiting period, complex legal requirements, and uncertainty over whether sound recordings are even covered.”

Many artists simply don’t have the time or resources to navigate this legal quagmire, says  Dr Yuvaraj adding “there are considerable power imbalances between artists and record companies. For example, copyright is often assigned before the true value of a song is even known.”

Re-recording, as Swift did, allows artists to sidestep these legal barriers. While the copyright in an original sound recording remains with the label, a newly recorded version, if produced independently, is treated as a separate work under copyright law – as long as the artist retained control, or had a license to reproduce the song itself, which has a separate musical copyright to the recording.

“Taylor Swift’s success put re-recording in the spotlight as a way for artists to regain control over their music without waiting decades for copyright reversion laws to take effect,” says Dr Yuvaraj.

He says that unlike statutory reversion, re-recording requires much shorter waiting periods, allowing musicians to capitalise on market demand more quickly. There’s also less procedural complexity, and as long as artists comply with contractual waiting periods, they are unlikely to face legal action.

Despite Swift's success – her re-recorded albums were critically praised and financially lucrative – Dr Yuvaraj notes that re-recording isn’t a viable solution for everyone.

“It requires a strong fan base willing to embrace the new versions, and not all musicians have that level of market power,” he says.

And while Swift’s re-recording battle highlighted power imbalances in artist contracts, it also saw record labels tighten their grip. There are reports of extended re-recording restrictions in contracts from the standard three to seven years to 20 or 30 years, making re-recording a less accessible option for future artists.

Despite this roadblock, Dr Yuvaraj says Swift’s case sparked important conversations about artist rights, and some musicians are now negotiating deals that allow them to retain ownership of their master recordings from the outset, eliminating the need for re-recording altogether.

“Swift’s case brought re-recording into the public eye, but it doesn’t replace the need for fairer contracts and stronger copyright protections.”

Image top. Taylor Swift Credit: Shutterstock; Image below: Dr Joshua Yuvaraj

Related Articles

5th June 2024 - Taylor Swift, P!nk and Australian Grand Prix drive national economic growth in last quarter

8th April 2024 - Singapore Court jails Chinese national for sneaking another man into Taylor Swift concert

26th March 2024 - NAB data reveals Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour delivered $300 million for city economies

5th March 2024 - Singapore Prime Minister defends Taylor Swift concert deal

24th February 2024 - Taylor Swift’s Sydney concert impacted by storm event

22nd February 2024 - Sydney Olympic Park introduces new technology to deal with large crowds for Taylor Swift concerts

13th February 2024 - Ticketek hack sees ‘thousands’ of Australian Taylor Swift fans with fears over stolen tickets

4th January 2024 - Inspectors step in as scalpers mark up tickets for Taylor Swift Melbourne concerts by more than 400%

9th November 2023 - Ticketek set to release resale tickets for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour

30th June 2023 - Half a billion bots competing with consumers for Taylor Swift tickets

29th June 2023 - Promoters announce new Taylor Swift dates as NSW Fair Trading steps in on ticket resales

24th June 2023 - Taylor Swift tour to boost the economy and physical activity?

---

Support our industry news service
We hope that you value the news that we publish so while you're here can we ask for your support?

As an independent publisher, we need reader support for our industry news gathering so ask that - if you don't already do so - you back us by subscribing to the printed Australasian Leisure Management magazine and/or our online news.