Taylor was wronged from the sale of her music by label executive, Scooter Braun, and now Swifties
“Swifties” are familiar with their undevoted loyalty to household name singer, Taylor Swift, to look for the “(Taylor’s Version)” albums when listening or buying music to ensure that they are loyal to Swift herself. And last week was no different as Swift hit fans with yet another reimagined album, “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version),” her unfiltered take on her 2010 album originally released by the record label, Big Machine. The social media tsunami that populated everyone’s feed lays it all out: Taylor was wronged from the sale of her music by label executive, Scooter Braun, and now Swiftie revenge is oh so sweet. But what does it mean for other artists, and what are the true economic implications of re-recording an album that has already had success?
“Re-recording an album is every musician’s dream as these recordings are a way for artists to earn more money and have more control of the direction of their recordings,” said Dina LaPolt, the founder of LaPolt Law which represents some of the world’s top entertainer and entrepreneurs.
LaPolt explains that typically record label contracts require a minimum of seven years restricting re-recording rights that sometimes tolls from the last album ordered, which could result in decades restricting the re-record right. At the dealmaking stage, artists try to limit these recording restrictions and with more leverage, may try to take the position that the artist controls the recording and simply license those rights to the label.
