Swiftly Signed - Swift | Big Machine | Braun | 1989

1989 is the fifth studio album by Taylor Swift, released on October 27, 2014, by Big Machine Records. 1989 was a critical and commercial success, selling over 1.2 million copies in its first week of release and becoming the best-selling album of 2014 in the United States. 1989 spawned several hit singles, including "Shake It Off", "Blank Space", "Style", "Bad Blood", and "Wildest Dreams" (one of my favorites). 1989 helped to solidify Swift's status as one of the biggest pop stars in the world.

In October 2023, Swift re-released 1989 (Taylor's Version), a re-recorded version of the album that she owns the masters to. But why; and how does it relate to contracts?

In 2005 Taylor Swift signed a deal with Big Machine Records. The contract between Big Machine and Swift provided that the music originating from Taylor Swift would be owned by Big Machine so that every play or stream of the song the record label would receive royalties – or whoever the then owner of the music is (currently Scooter Braun/Ithaca Holdings/Shamrock Holdings). The contract signed in 2005 expired in 2018 and since then Taylor Swift has dedicated a significant amount of time to re-write and re-release her music, with the sole purpose to undermine the value of the ownership of her old music and to bring music ownership back to artists.

The decision to re-record and re-release the same music as “Taylor’s Version” is an aggressive and bold move though it opens Swift up to potential liability. Re-releasing has the clear purpose to circumvent the terms of the 2005 contract and to regain ownership of her songs. The owners of the previous versions of the same songs might bring a suit against Taylor. I haven’t read the contract between the two parties myself but it could also have a significant impact on the sale of the music from Big Machine to Scooter Braun. The agreement between Braun and Big Machine might include a warranty from Big Machine that the songs would not be re-released; and in the event they are, Big Machine might be liable for the damages, which Big Machine would then likely seek from Taylor Swift. But this is all speculation. Fortunately, the owners of the previous versions still receive royalties when the old versions are played, leaving a lot of power to the people and to the algorithms of music streaming services.

Swift may have never had to re-release her own music had she negotiated her original contract to include the points she had wanted. It’s easy to forget that Taylow Swift was once a nobody, though, and likely didn’t have the standing to negotiate with strength in 2005. Now that she has status and financial strength she is in a good position to undo the 2005 regret – nearly 20 years later.

The story is a reminder to all business owners to be mindful of the negotiation and execution of their contracts.

Shaunt Oozoonian

Oozoonian Law Corporation