In an impassioned Tumblr post on Sunday, June 30, Taylor Swift reacted to the news that the master rights to her first six albums had been sold by her former label, Big Machine Label Group, to powerful music manager Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings LLC. Swift’s letter addressed the founder of the label, Scott Borchetta, as well as Braun, describing the acquisition as her “worst case scenario” following years of perceived “bullying” from Braun and his artists. She concluded by speaking directly to fellow musicians hoping to avoid this experience. “Hopefully,” Swift wrote, “Young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.”
Of course, Taylor Swift is not the first artist to take up this cause. While the music industry has seen numerous artists buying masters back from their respective labels—from Frank Ocean and Rihanna to Prince and JAY-Z—the majority of artists never reach this point. In the past, this has led to extensive lawsuits and legal quandaries from major acts over who maintains the rights to their work. So what does it mean to own your masters? And why don’t most artists own their masters? Here is a breakdown of the basics that led to this messy and frustratingly common situation.
What Are Master Recordings?
When an artist refers to their “master recordings,” they are referring to the original recordings of their music (as opposed to the composition itself). The owner of these master rights, along with the copyright owner, controls where the recording itself is licensed and earns money from it. Because the label often owns the master recordings, they are also responsible for maintaining them. (This issue has been in the news recently: Following the New York Times’ recent investigation of a 2008 fire at Universal Studios Hollywood that destroyed a massive amount of master recordings, numerous artists and estates filed a lawsuit against UMG for breaching their contractual obligation to protect their masters.)
Why Do Labels Own Master Recordings?
Labels often secure an artist’s master rights in exchange for promotion and support during the recording process. These deals allow the label to release an artist’s music and earn money through its distribution and licensing. They customarily arrange deals in which an artist receives royalties once they recoup the advance given by the label to record their music.
Writers generally maintain the copyright to their music, which affords them certain rights with how it is used. They often work in tandem with the label when the music is licensed elsewhere. For example, when a recording is licensed for a film or television series, the production needs both a synchronization license from the writer (the right to use the composition) and master rights from the label (the use of the recording). In 2014, Swift decided to keep her music off Spotify as a statement about the value of art: She likely maintains the same amount of control over where her music ends up.
Why Doesn’t Taylor Swift Own Her Masters?
Taylor Swift apparently signed away her masters when she signed to Big Machine in 2005, when she was a teenager. She released her first six records through Big Machine—2006’s Taylor Swift through 2017’s reputation. In late 2018, Swift announced that she had left Big Machine to sign with Universal Music Group/Republic. In her announcement, she wrote that the new label offered her the right to retain her future master recordings.
Swift wrote in her letter on Sunday that, upon leaving Big Machine, she opted out of a deal in which she would renew her contract with the label and earn the master rights one album at a time—that is, gaining the masters to a previous album for each new one she turned in. She claims that she chose not to do this, knowing that Borchetta would soon sell the company, “thereby selling me and my future.”
In his rebuttal, Scott Borchetta discussed more about the proposed deal, claiming that it was less about the amount of albums she turned in and more on the amount of time she worked. He added that it was the best he could offer, considering her status among the artists in his roster, which also includes Rascal Flatts, Sugarland, Reba McEntire, and others. (In 2018, Variety reported that Swift’s catalog constitutes 80% of Big Machine’s revenue.) “Taylor had every chance in the world to own not just her master recordings, but every video, photograph, everything associated to her career,” he wrote. “She chose to leave.”
Who Owns Swift’s Masters Now?
On Sunday, June 30, Big Machine announced that it was acquired by Ithaca Holdings LLC. The exact terms were not disclosed, but Braun’s purchase of the label group included all of Swift’s catalog. While Swift now presumably has no less control of her masters than she did before, when her masters were simply owned by Big Machine, she has claimed that the deal took place without her being notified or given a chance to purchase it herself. (Scott Borchetta rebutted Swift’s claim, contending that he had texted to let her know, and that her father—a Big Machine shareholder—had been notified.)
Why Does It Matter?
With her open letter and the high-profile back-and-forth, Swift is bringing visibility to one of the music industry’s longest standing issues. And while it’s not a new problem, Swift’s discussion of it was enough to encourage artists including Sky Ferreira and Halsey to come forward about their own difficulties with label deals and ownership. Swift is also so huge—not just an artist but a brand—that she can enact change by wielding the leverage of the reliability of her success. When she makes a statement, it’s financially lucrative for the industry to listen: In addition to owning her future masters, her new record deal asks that “any sale of [the label’s] Spotify shares result in a distribution of money to their artists, non-recoupable.” She wrote, “I see this as a sign that we are headed towards positive change for creators—a goal I’m never going to stop trying to help achieve, in whatever ways I can.”
