Taylor Swift & the Master Revolution


Whether expressing her sentiments through her music or through public statements, Taylor Swift has never been one to hold back her viewpoint when she feels disrespected. This has become increasingly apparent in recent years, when Swift has clashed with individuals from the music industry head on. The most recent controversy comes after Swift made a public statement regarding her displeasure with the acquisition of her former record label and her master recordings that came with it. Deals like this will quickly remind artists in the industry about an underlying emphasis on the “business” part of the music business. Unfortunately, beyond their own public condemnation of the scenario, many artists will feel hopeless when dealing with situations like this. But how hopeless are artists actually? What legal options are there to protect artists and their masters?


Swift’s former record label, Big Machine Label Group, signed her back in 2006, when she was only fifteen years old. Big Machine was founded in Nashville, Tennessee by Scott Borchetta. Taylor Swift was their most successful artist by a wide margin, making her catalog somewhat of a prized possession. Swift claims she pleaded for the chance to own her own work for years but was always refused. Borchetta claimed that Swift “had every chance” to own her masters. But according to Swift, it was not until Swift’s contract expired, that Big Machine offered her to “earn” one old album back for every new album she turned in. In response, Swift announced her free agency – which was short-lived, unsurprisingly.

On November 19, 2018, Swift moved on to a global record company called Universal Music Group (UMG). Older, wiser, and much more influential than when she signed with her first label at fifteen, Swift made it very clear that this time around she will own her own masters. This crucial part of Swift’s new deal may have set the stage for the issues she was about to face with her old record deal. Despite UMG actively pursuing the purchase of Big Machine, Swift’s first six albums recorded with Big Machine remain essentially untouchable by her new label.

On June 30, 2019, the controversial Scooter Braun/Big Machine deal was announced. Taylor Swift made a public announcement of her own, posting on Tumblr that she “learned about Scooter Braun’s purchase of my masters as it was announced to the world” and that this deal was her “worst case scenario.” Without getting into the details, Swift’s displeasure originates from an on-going timeline of bad blood between Taylor Swift and Kanye West, one of Braun’s clients. The feud sparked when West infamously took the mic from Swift at the 2009 VMA awards and later blossomed into West mentioning Swift in rap song complete with a nude Taylor Swift look-alike in the music video – all of which she publicly condemned. Swift claims in her Tumblr post that throughout all of this turmoil, Scooter Braun both partook in the bullying and encouraged his clients (predominantly Kanye West and Justin Bieber) to bully her. Now the feud is set to continue as Braun owns a majority of Swift’s music, seemingly against her will.

Many famous clients, friends, and family came to social media to advocate for Scooter Braun after Swift’s expressed her disapproval – but the controversy itself opens the door to a much bigger issue within the music industry. Record labels have been outwitting artists in record deal negotiations since the beginning of their time. It is easy to see why labels have the upper hand in the record deal department; record labels are professional record deal negotiators while artists are professional music makers. However, the disconnect is not nearly as broad as it used to be. Record labels have lost some of their leverage now that technology has made getting your music out easier than ever. Many artists like Taylor Swift are getting smart, getting lawyers, and demanding fairer contracts. First on many artists’ agenda for this revolution – owning their own masters.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

What is a Master and Why Does it Matter?

A master is the original recording made in the studio; the controlling entity from which all copies are made. Any form of the recording released publicly (live performances do not fall under this umbrella) is licensed by the holder of the master. The person who owns the master financially benefits from and controls what is done with the song or album. If a record label is on the market, its ownership of masters is a controlling factor of its value. The masters are the steady moneymakers, and in Taylor Swift’s case, her masters were the powerhouse money makers for Big Machine. It would be nearly impossible to say, strictly from a business standpoint, that Scooter Braun did not consider the acquisition of Taylor Swift’s masters when he bought Big Machine.

It is not uncommon for record labels to own an artist’s master; in fact, it is pretty much the norm. Nonetheless, most artists will agree it seems unfair that they are not allowed to possess their own creation. The record company, on the other hand, sees owning the masters as collateral for the time and resources they spend on the artist – and the risk involved in doing so. There can be many enticing incentives for an artist to sign over their masters to a record company: advances on payment, higher royalty percentages, and just generally keeping the business/maintenance side of the music recordings out of the artist’s hair. Many labels will encourage artists to let them own the masters because it is a lot more efficient; it allows the label to take care of business without having to constantly check in with the artist. The downside to all of these perks – the label has control.

The label having control of an artist’s masters can be particularly problematic in Swift’s case; the artist has no control over who may buy out the label. In other words, who the artist originally agreed to owning the masters can change without their consent. Here, Scooter Braun could be hostile in owning Swift’s masters because he does not have to consult with her at all about what he does with her recordings. This became apparent when (not even a month after buying out Big Machine) Braun’s team released and advertised “exclusive” vinyls of some of Swift’s first albums. However, worse than simply profiting off of Swift, he could even associate her old music with something she doesn’t want to be associated with (politically, morally, etc.).

Photo by Headway on Unsplash

What Legal Options Do Artists Have?

Regardless of who owns the masters, artists may not be completely hopeless when it comes to the control of their music. For instance, if the artist is credited as a writer, they would still hold the copyrights, which would give them leverage on what is done with the music in some situations. Taylor Swift is credited as a writer/co-writer on most of her songs so that is somewhat of a silver lining for her. Unfortunately, the rights that each particular artist have are very dependent on the terms of their contract and can sometimes get pretty murky. This is why it is important to fully understand the terms and effects of your contract before agreeing to it.

If you are an artist who wants control over your masters in a record deal there are some negotiating points that you may be able to utilize, but it will not be a walk in the park. It is considerably harder for starving artists to negotiate owning their own masters than it is for the Forbes world’s highest-paid celebrity. Taylor Swift’s numbers don’t lie, and both sides of the table knew that coming into her negotiations. This gave her a major advantage that not many start-up artists will have – money and undeniable value. Many record labels will bring monetary relief and opportunity to the table, and most artists have been looking for both for quite some time because musical career paths can be slow to success and equally slow to profit. So what should the artist bring to the table?

An artist will not get very far in negotiations if they simply demand to own their masters or “no deal.”  You want to try to minimize the risk and cost the record label might suffer in its deal with you. You can do this a variety of ways: pay for your own recording sessions, offer them a higher percentage of the revenue, showcase your past profit to predict your future profit. If all else fails, you can try to work in a deal to revert the master recording rights back to you after a certain period of time or after a certain amount of money is made back. Master rights reversion is somewhat of a compromise so the record label can have the masters during the debut years of the music’s “buzz”, yet the artist will still ultimately be the owner.


The future is optimistic for artists owning their own masters, but it will take more than just a couple of A-list celebrity deals to completely shift the status quo. Above all else, for every artist, it is important to get an attorney experienced in music law to protect and advocate for your rights walking into these negotiations to make sure you don’t get taken advantage of. Read up, ask your attorney any questions you have, and do not be afraid to be firm about what you want in a record deal, or else you could end up in your “worst case scenario” like Taylor Swift.

Works Cited

Dwinell, Johnny, and Brent Baxter. “Should I Copyright My Song? The CLIMB.” Disc Makers Blog, 24 Apr. 2019, https://blog.discmakers.com/2019/04/should-i-copyright-my-song/.

Flanagan, Andrew, and Anastasia Tsioulcas. “Taylor Swift’s Former Label Big Machine Is Sold, Rankling The Star.” NPR.Org, 1 July 2019, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737613627/taylor-swifts-former-label-big-machine-is-sold-rankling-the-star.

Hatscheck, Keith. “Owning Your Master Rights | Retaining Music Master Recording Rights.” Disc Makers Blog, 16 Apr. 2013, https://blog.discmakers.com/2013/04/retaining-your-master-rights-smart-business/.

Lewis, Randy. “Taylor Swift’s Former Record Label Draws Criticism for Repackaging Her Catalog.” Los Angeles Times, 10 July 2019, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-taylor-swift-big-machine-scooter-braun-forbes-wealth-20190710-story.html.

Mercuri, Monica. Taylor Swift Is The World’s Highest-Paid Celebrity With $185 Million In 2019. 10 July 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/monicamercuri/2019/07/10/taylor-swift-is-the-worlds-highest-paid-celebrity-with-185-million-in-2019/#241b9e286c9d.

Newman, Melinda. “Taylor Swift Leaves Big Machine, Signs New Deal With Universal Music Group.” Billboard, 19 Nov. 2018, https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8485629/taylor-swift-leaves-big-machine-signs-new-label-deal-universal-music.

Prahl, Amanda. “This Is Exactly Why Owning Your Masters Is a Really Big Deal in the Music Industry.” POPSUGAR Entertainment, 1 July 2019, https://www.popsugar.com/node/46337890.

Sodomsky, Sam. “Taylor Swift Slams Scooter Braun’s Acquisition of Her Back Catalog, Accuses Him of ‘Bullying.’” Pitchfork, 30 June 2019, https://pitchfork.com/news/taylor-swift-slams-scooter-brauns-acquisition-of-her-back-catalog-accuses-him-of-bullying/.

—“Taylor Swift’s Music Ownership Controversy With Scooter Braun: What It Means and Why It Matters.” Pitchfork, 1 July 2019, https://pitchfork.com/news/taylor-swifts-music-ownership-controversy-with-scooter-braun-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/.

Leave a reply:

Your email address will not be published.

Site Footer