[ad_1]
When Scooter Braun's $ 300 million deal with the acquisition of Scott Borchetta's Big Label Label Group was announced in late June, Taylor Swift did not hide his dismay. It had been the label's biggest draw for 13 years, while concurrently competing with one of Braun's casual customers, Kanye West. Swift wrote in a long post on Tumblr that this deal looked like a massive betrayal, especially since it meant that Braun would now own his masters.
Swift, however, found the perfect revenge, announcing in an interview with CBS this morning that she intends to re-record her first six albums. At an appearance on Hello AmericaShe further revealed that she could start recording after November 2020, presumably after the expiry of her contract with Big Machine. But many wondered whether it would be really feasible or desirable for Swift to re-record all albums, especially since his first six albums already exist on streaming services and continue to garner large volumes.
Swift's comment on readiness for action in 2020 suggests that there are contractual terms that are waiting for it – but it's still unclear what the specific conditions are in his case. "Recording contracts almost always prevent artists from re-recording music compositions embedded in the label's recordings for several years after the recording contract expires," said music attorney Rachel Stilwell. Rolling stone. "But all re-registration restrictions are not identical and we do not know what the previous agreement between Swift and Big Machine was concluded." (A Swift representative declined to comment on this story, a Big Machine representative has not yet done so, send back a request for comment.)
Stilwell states that many contracts stipulate that re-recording of these songs is prohibited "until the last few years after the expiration of the agreement or five years after the commercial release". If this common language was present in Swift's contract, the only album that will not be fair game in the near future will be 2017 Reputation. Everything up to his 2014 album 1989 could be reissued by Swift either independently or through its new agreement with Republic and Universal at the end of 2020.
"While an aggressive re-registration effort would be motivated by principle and not by money, there are still economic considerations," says music lawyer James Sammataro Rolling stone. "There is the cost of production – certainly, a drop of water in the bucket. But if Swift were to create identical versions of her earlier works, she would essentially compete, herself, two identical works competing for the same listeners. "
according to TMZHowever, Swift may have another hurdle: an "original production clause", under which Swift could not directly copy the original versions of the Big Machine songs. Stilwell states that such a clause is common in many contracts.
In addition to any language or clause that may affect how she produces her new recordings, Swift is the main writer since her first self-titled album, which means that copyrights on the publishing side will no longer be difficult. According to an industry insider, she will not have to ask permission from co-authors and producers such as Liz Rose and Nathan Chapman. However, she will have to pay license fees.
Although she needed to ask for permission, many of her first collaborators expressed their enthusiasm in her decision to take back her music. "I think it's fantastic," said Robert Ellis Orrall, co-author of the song "A Perfect World" on Swift's debut album. Rolling stone. "I hope she adds bonus pieces; his fans speak a lot of favorite new songs. They may finally hear the Holy Grail: the unpublished "Dark Blue Tennessee". "
Additional report by Jonathan Bernstein
[ad_2]
Source link