By Sugandha Mukherjee
When 14-time Grammy winner Taylor Swift started re-recording her first six albums in 2021, the move was seen as a creative journey to revisit and refresh her early work. But, beneath the new vocals and crisper production was a strategic business move that challenged the West’s music industry tradition — the ownership of master recordings. This legal and commercial battle has long been a defining element of artiste-label relationship, and with Swift’s bold move, it has shaken norms that were once considered unchangeable.
But, what are masters?
At the centre of the music business is the concept of ‘master’, which is the original recorded version of the song, or album in Swift’s case. Whoever controls the masters, has the power to decide how and where the music is used, and ultimately who profits from it. Traditionally, record labels have signed fresh artists to contracts that effectively cede this control. In exchange, the record labels would smoothen their career launchpads, provide marketing muscle and upfront advances. Swift’s early work, starting in 2006 till 2017, came with such a deal under Big Machine Records (BMR).
However, when BMR was sold to Scooter Braun’s holding company Ithaca Holdings, her master recordings were also transferred, without her consent. Later in 2020, they were sold to Shamrock Holdings, placing the lucrative ownership firmly out of Swift’s hands. What followed was extraordinary in the business. The singer began to re-record these albums and adding additional compositions, encouraging Swifties to stream and buy “Taylor’s Versions” instead of the originals. This was a massive dent to label’s asset as fans responded by supporting the re-recordings and significantly reducing the value of original masters.
“All I’ve ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy,” Swift wrote in a letter to her fans announcing the ownership.
The industry impact
Swift is not the first to dispute master ownership. Prince’s conflict with Warner Bros in the 1990s is one example of master rights struggles. Feeling stifled by a contract that limited his creative freedom and ownership, Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol and wrote ‘slave’ on his face in protest. He eventually regained some control by releasing music independently.
Olivia Rodrigo, a more recent phenomenon in the streaming era, secured deals with Geffen Records that allowed her to retain greater control over two of her master recordings. Her success reflects an industry gradually moving towards more artiste-friendly contracts, particularly as streaming platforms have altered revenue models.
Simultaneously, the broader artiste community is gaining literacy on the importance of masters, publishing rights, and revenue splits. Artists today are more likely to scrutinise deals, retain partial ownership, or explore independent releases altogether. The narrative of waiting to be ‘discovered’ by an agent and signed by a major label is giving way to a DIY ethos powered by social media and direct fan engagement.
Yet, according to a Billboard article in 2023, labels are now inserting clauses to restrict or delay artiste re-recordings, sometimes for 25 to 30 years.
Exploitation to empowerment
Historically, whether it’s Madonna or Britney Spears, female pop stars have often been commodified, their image and songs controlled often by labels and management. Taylor Swift’s business move shows the shift toward viewing artists as entrepreneurs who build their own intellectual property portfolios. This extends beyond music to merchandising, touring, and content rights.
In India, the conversation around music ownership is evolving along different trajectories but with similar concerns. The Copyright Act of 1957 and subsequent amendments have strengthened performers’ rights, creating frameworks for artists and composers to claim royalties on public performances, broadcasts, and digital streams. Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), headed by Javed Akhtar, facilitates royalty collections for music creators, reflecting rights in the local industry.
Swift’s master recordings saga is symbolic of a wider transformation, even though her financial stature makes her an anomaly capable of absorbing the costs of re-recording an entire catalogue. As of 2025, Swift’s net worth is estimated at $1.6 billion, making her the richest female musician, surpassing Rihanna at $1 billion.
Nevertheless, the mainstreaming of master ownership debates marks progress. New artists, fans, and industry stakeholders are much aware that music is not just art but an asset. This is the new landscape in which artists like Swift, Rodrigo, and the legacy of icons like Prince coexist, shaping the future of music rights across the world.