After years of contractual entanglements, public disputes and strategic reinvention, Taylor Swift has achieved something few global recording artists have: She now owns the master recordings of her entire musical catalog.
On May 30, 2025, Swift announced that she had acquired the copyrights in her original masters from Shamrock Capital—the private equity firm that purchased them from Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in 2020. With this move, Swift not only concluded a protracted rights battle, but also marked a broader shift in how creators, investors and record labels are approaching intellectual property ownership and leverage in the music business.
The Story of Her Masters: Assignment, Re-recordings and Control
Swift’s conflict began in 2019, when Ithaca Holdings acquired Big Machine Label Group—along with the master recordings of Swift’s first six albums—without her knowledge or consent. Despite Swift’s attempts to regain ownership, the rights were sold again to Shamrock, a firm Swift declined to partner with due to Braun’s continued financial stake.
These transactions raise the often-overlooked consequences of assignment clauses in legacy recording contracts. While artists typically retain ownership in their compositions, most record deals transfer ownership of the copyrights in the master recordings to the label and permit the label to further transfer those rights without the artist’s consent, leaving creators without recourse. From a legal standpoint, this highlights the importance for artists of including artist-friendly provisions—such as consent rights, rights of first refusal or carveouts for critical IP—in master recording agreements.
Unable to unwind the rights transfer, Swift leveraged a key provision of U.S. copyright law: copyright in a sound recording protects only the specific, original fixation—not subsequent recordings of the same compositions. This allowed her to lawfully re-record and release new versions of her earlier songs, each labeled as “Taylor’s Version.” While re-recording clauses in artist contracts typically restrict this right for a limited time, Swift’s compliance with those timelines gave her a narrow but effective path to regain commercial and creative control.
Taylor’s Version of Acquiring Ownership
Swift’s “Taylor’s Version” initiative became a landmark example of how artists can use contractual provisions, market influence and legal tools to reshape their rights. The re-recorded albums, often released alongside unreleased “vault” tracks, frequently outperformed the originals. Fearless (Taylor’s Version), for example, sold over one million equivalent album units in its first year—far surpassing the original’s performance in the same timeframe.
Taylor’s Versions are not just a creative project—they are strategic commercial assets. By shifting licensing and fan engagement toward the new recordings, Swift materially devalued the originals. That market pressure, combined with her public messaging, created leverage that ultimately led to her acquisition of the original masters on terms she described as offering “no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy.”
The Last Time(s): All of the Artists Who Came Before
Swift’s reclamation of her masters stands out, but she is not the first artist to challenge the prevailing ownership structure in the music industry.
Paul McCartney’s efforts to reclaim rights in the Beatles’ songwriting catalog after it was acquired and later sold without his involvement reflect a long-standing issue in music copyright. McCartney spent decades attempting to regain control over his share of the Beatles’ publishing rights—a struggle that began long before he was famously outbid by Michael Jackson for the catalog in 1985. In 2017, McCartney invoked the termination provisions of the Copyright Act, filing suit against Sony, then the catalog’s owner, under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c). That provision allows authors to terminate prior copyright transfers between 56 and 61 years after registration. The case settled confidentially, and McCartney regained ownership of many of the Beatles’ most iconic works.
While McCartney does not own the Beatles’ master recordings, other artists have successfully regained control over theirs. In 2014, Prince—who famously said, “If you don’t own your masters, your master owns you.”—reached an agreement with Warner Bros. to reclaim ownership of his early masters following a highly publicized dispute. His symbolic name change and broader campaign for artistic control had a lasting impact on the industry. In 2004, Jay-Z negotiated ownership of his masters as part of his agreement to serve as president of Def Jam. And Metallica regained control of their catalog in 2012, following the expiration of their contract with Warner Music.
While each of these efforts was significant, Swift’s approach—combining commercial strategy, contractual and statutory compliance, fan engagement, and eventual acquisition—marks a unique convergence of law, leverage and public influence.
The Prophecy: Legal Implications for Artists and Advisors
Swift’s story is more than a celebrity anecdote or high-profile dispute. It illustrates critical lessons for attorneys advising recording artists, rights holders and investors in content IP:
- Assignment Provisions: The unqualified assignment of the master recordings in Swift’s original contract enabled the sale of her catalog without notice or consent. Artists and their advisors should consider negotiating such assignment clauses to include consent requirements or rights of first refusal, particularly for high-value IP like master recordings. It is also possible to negotiate a deal where the artist retains ownership of the masters or enter into a licensing deal rather than a traditional assignment. This would avoid the problem that Swift was faced with altogether. While these artist-friendly structures are still not the default, they are becoming more common, especially with newer label models and DIY platforms.
- Re-Recording Clauses: Swift’s re-recordings were released after the expiration of a six-year contractual re-recording restriction—standard in many industry agreements. Labels are reportedly now extending the duration of these clauses and adding disincentives, and Swift’s successful “Taylor’s Version” strategy likely will make it harder to avoid extended restrictions unless the artist has significant negotiating leverage. Attorneys on both sides should ensure clarity and fairness, especially when those clauses may affect future creative autonomy.
- Marketing Strategy Over Legal Remedies: Swift’s use of economic and reputational pressure demonstrates that commercial tactics can complement or substitute for litigation. Her case suggests that influence over fans and licensees may, in some circumstances, alter the commercial value of contested assets.
- Ownership as Negotiation Leverage: Swift’s model has already influenced newer artists, some of whom now negotiate for alternative IP structures from the outset. Her experience is actively reshaping how recording agreements are drafted and what rights creators seek to retain. Pop singer JoJo credited Swift for the idea to re-record her first two albums in 2018 after her label refused to release them digitally.
End Game
Taylor Swift’s acquisition of her masters is a modern case study in rights recovery. It illustrates the interaction between copyright law, contract structure and strategic positioning. More broadly, it signals that legacy contract terms—if not thoughtfully drafted—can produce significant downstream implications for creators, rights holders and the industry at large. For legal professionals advising artists, labels or investors, Swift’s path offers both a cautionary tale and a strategic blueprint for aligning creative control with ownership.
For more insight into entertainment contracts, copyright strategies, and music law, contact Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
#Mastermind #Ownership #Internet #Social #Media #Law #Blog #June