Look What You Made Me Do: Taylor Swift’s Fight for Her Creative Legacy

If you’re a Taylor Swift fan or follow music industry news, you probably know that for the past two years, the pop star has been rereleasing her old songs, each time adding “Taylor’s Version” to the titles.

Artists releasing old music with new arrangements is nothing new. However, Swift’s strategy is not a savvy marketing move that gets her out of writing new songs. It’s an empowering story of artistic integrity—and a cautionary tale for creatives about intellectual property.

‘Is It Over Now?’

At the age of fifteen, Swift signed a contract with Big Machine Records. It granted the company ownership of master recordings for Swift’s first six albums (which did not yet exist). A master recording is the officially released version of a song, the one listeners stream on such platforms as Spotify, Tidal, and Apple Music. “Master rights” include the legal right to license the recordings to third parties such as the creators of TV shows, films, commercials, or artists who want to cover or sample the work—and the right to collect the proceeds.

When Swift’s contract with Big Machine expired in 2018, the company still owned the masters, whereas Swift retained what are called the “publishing rights” to the songs, which she wrote. Publishing rights are legally recognized rights to a musical composition, structure, and lyrics. They are generally owned by the original writer or composer of the song.

Later that same year, Swift signed a new record deal with Republic Records that enabled her to retain both the master and publishing rights for the material released under that deal. Nonetheless, Big Machine still owned the masters of her first six albums. According to Swift, she tried to purchase the master rights from Big Machine, but the company offered unfavorable terms.

For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and “earn” one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta [Big Machine’s president] would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future.¹

‘Bad Blood’

In 2019, Borchetta did indeed sell Big Machine for $300 million—and the master rights to Swift’s music went to the last person in the world she wanted to have them: Scooter Braun. Borchetta had long known Swift’s evaluation of the music tycoon. “Any time Scott has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to,” Swift wrote on Tumblr.² Braun, according to Swift, is an “incessant, manipulative bully” who has harassed her for years. For instance, Swift explains:

Kim Kardashian orchestrated an illegally recorded snippet of a phone call to be leaked and then Scooter got his two clients together to bully me online about it. [Likewise,] his client, Kanye West, organized a revenge porn music video [to his song “Famous”] which strips my body naked.³

Yet Borchetta apparently suffered from selective memory when it came to Swift’s evaluation of Braun. As she stated in her interview with CBS Sunday Morning, “I knew he would sell my music. I knew he would do that. I couldn’t believe who he sold it to, because we’ve had endless conversations about Scooter Braun. And he has 300 million reasons to conveniently forget those conversations.”

In a public statement, Swift described how both men attempted to block her from performing a medley of her songs at the 2019 American Music Awards, where she was being honored with the Artist of the Decade Award:

Borchetta told my team that they’ll allow me to use my music only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I’m both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun. I feel very strongly that sharing what is happening to me could change the awareness level for other artists and potentially help them avoid a similar fate. The message being sent to me is very clear. Basically, be a good little girl and shut up. Or you’ll be punished.⁴

“I don’t understand how a person who created music can’t perform it. This is beyond disgusting and disturbing,” said one fan in reply to Swift’s statement.⁵ Another, however, pointed out that Swift signed contracts that led to opportunities she profits from: “While your talent plays a role, there are plenty of talented artists that never had the investment these labels made in you. They took risks, and are now profiting. That’s business.”⁶

Of course, when Swift signed her first record deal at the age of fifteen, she was not yet a star. She was a potential star. As Bill Honaker, intellectual property and copyright law expert, observed:

Swift didn’t give her rights away for free. Her record label promoted her at great expense, paid her handsomely and took considerable risk. It can cost more than a million dollars to produce a single pop hit. . . . In the agreement that she and Big Machine signed, it stipulated what each party was going to do and what each party would get. It further likely detailed what Big Machine could do with what they now owned, that being the right to sell to another party, even if it was to Swift’s “worst nightmare.”⁷

Swift understood the legal reality of the decision she made when she signed the contract with Big Machine. Nonetheless, someone she doesn’t trust and who has bullied her for years was now in control of most of her music—and profiting from it. And the manner in which Braun and Borchetta threatened and attempted to block her from performing her songs was definitely unprofessional, unfair, and simply rude.

Perhaps they did not foresee that she would have the persistence and intelligence to undercut their treachery.

‘Look What You Made Me Do (Taylor’s Version)’

Rather than accept defeat, Swift chose to rerecord her albums and keep the master rights to the new recordings. Because she owned the publishing rights to her old songs, she could essentially cover them without Big Machine’s permission—perfectly in accord with both party’s rights. Although the company still will be able to profit from Taylor’s old recordings, it’s now up to listeners to decide whom to support.

And their verdict has been clear. So far Swift has rerecorded four of her previous albums, and many listeners have committed to boycotting the Big Machine versions.

Credit: Twitter:@swifferupdates

Taylor Swift fan accounts have flooded social media with infographics informing others about how to block the old versions of songs on streaming services and encouraging listeners instead to prioritize Taylor’s new versions. According to Billboard, “from sales to streams to radio play to chart performance, the commercial triumph of the re-recorded albums is undeniable.”⁸ The Fader reported that the rerecorded albums

outstreamed the originals in the first 26 weeks of 2023: Red (Taylor’s Version) surpassed the 2012 original by a [3:1] ratio, and Fearless (Taylor’s Version) bested its predecessor by [2:1]. In 2022, streams of the original Red dropped 41.0% (down 254.7 million from 432 million in 2021).⁹

What’s more, IHeartRadio, one of the largest broadcasters in the United States, has pledged to play only the remakes.

‘End Game’

The songs on Swift’s first six albums were deeply rooted in her personal experiences of love, heartbreak, and friendship. There’s not a single song on any of them that she did not either write or co-write. By rerecording them, she is making sure that she not only is rewarded for her work, but also that those who treated her unfairly are not.

Ultimately, through her hard work and persistence, Swift found her remedy—and some measure of justice against an immoral schemer attempting to profit off her work after having tried to stain her public image. Let this be a lesson to bullies, and an example to all that—even when one’s back is against the wall—resourceful, creative thinkers can often find a way out.

About Justyna Piątek-Pawłowska

Justyna is a social media manager at Objective Standard Institute. She holds a BA in American Studies and is the European Regional Director of Ladies of Liberty Alliance. In her spare time, she loves to sing, trains in karate, and is a shameless cat lady.

View all articles by Justyna Piątek-Pawłowska →