������Ƶ

If you’ve ever scrolled through Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube and wondered why some Taylor Swift songs appear twice—identical titles, but one stamped with “Taylor’s Version”—you’re not alone. The label isn’t a bonus track or a branding gimmick. The reason has to do with a copyright dispute that exposed imbalances in the music industry and sparked a rare artist-led workaround.

Before 2025, Taylor Swift had only owned the composition of her first six albums, and she did not have any rights to her masters, the actual sound recordings streamed on platforms. These were owned by her former label, Big Machine Records, pursuant to an agreement she signed in 2005. However, when the contract expired, Swift declined to renew and instead signed with Republic Records and Universal Music Group—this time securing ownership of all future masters.

In 2019, Swift announced that she was being blocked from performing any songs from her old albums by Big Machine Records because it exclusively owned the rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works from, and publicly perform Taylor Swift’s earlier sound recordings. These rights were granted under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Swift’s inability to purchase or reclaim her masters following Big Machine’s sale to a third party further underscored the limits of contractual freedom for artists who sign early-career recording agreements. Although Swift was one of the most commercially successful musicians in the world, the legal framework governing copyright ownership and contract enforcement left her with little recourse. Rather than pursuing litigation, Swift adopted a novel strategy: re-recording her albums to regain practical and economic control over her music. By releasing “Taylor’s Version” recordings, she leveraged copyright law to compete directly with the original masters, effectively shifting consumer demand toward versions she owned.

Some may question how she was able to do this without the songs being considered infringements of the original songs. If you have heard any of her re-recorded songs, they all sound very similar to her older music. According to Section 114 (b) of the Copyright Act, she was able to do so because it states, “The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.” (17 U.S.C.A & 114 (b)) In other words, Taylor Swift was legally allowed to recreate a previous song that is almost identical to previous songs if it was an entirely new recording of the song. 

This point is important because Taylor Swift owned the composition (lyrics, melody, music structure) of her old songs, meaning she was completely allowed to re-record her old music. She would add “Taylor’s Version” and then end of each re-recording, not only so that fans could distinguish the difference, but also so that she would avoid any trademark issues of having the same title as her old songs. These re-recordings were a huge success, and many fans completely transformed to only listening to the song recordings she owned. Even though Taylor Swift’s re-recordings were widely successful, she still sought ownership of her original master recordings.

 In 2019, Big Machine Records sold Swift’s masters to Scooter Braun for an estimated $300 million. This transaction was legally adequate because Big Machine, as the rightful owner of the masters under Swift’s original recording contract, had full authority to sell them without her consent or involvement. Swift was not allowed to purchase her recordings herself, highlighting how artists can be excluded from decisions concerning their own work once ownership is contractually assigned. In 2020, Braun sold the masters again to Shamrock Holdings, further reinforcing the treatment of master recordings as transferable commercial assets rather than personal creative property.

On May 30, 2025, Taylor Swift formally repurchased her original master recordings from Shamrock Holdings, reuniting ownership of both the sound recordings and the underlying musical compositions for her first six albums. This transaction demonstrated the conclusion of a dispute rooted not in unlawful conduct, but in legally enforceable contractual and copyright principles that permitted the unrestricted transfer of master recordings without artist consent. Swift’s ability to buy back her masters was made possible largely by her re-recording strategy, which lawfully diminished the commercial value of the original recordings and altered the negotiating leverage between the parties. While this outcome restored Swift’s artistic and economic autonomy, it also illustrates a significant limitation of the current legal framework: copyright and contract law provide mechanisms for reclaiming ownership only to those artists with extraordinary market influence. As streaming continues to dominate music distribution, Swift’s experience underscores the need to reconsider how the law allocates ownership and bargaining power between artists and record labels.

Sources:

     Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1401 (2022).

     Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C., Taylor’s Swift (Taylor’s Version) & Copyright Law Explained (Dec. 8, 2025),
.

     Kylee Neeranjan, You Belong with Me: The Battle for Taylor Swift’s Masters and Artist Autonomy in the Age of Streaming Services, 33 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 3 (2023).

This article is for educational purposes only.