Talk:Taylor Swift masters dispute

Profit drop from master recordings
There should be some information on how re-recording all her albums will affect scooter financially and that because she is the writer of all her songs she will decline requests to use the master recordings and instead will offer the re-recordings and this will see a major drop in profits for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:44FE:D711:91F5:5C96:D322:F2A2 (talk)
 * This would require a source. I'm not sure it's true that a songwriter can block use of masters they do not own. -- Calidum  01:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * here’s the source that explains this - https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-is-blocking-sync-uses-of-her-masters-now-theyre-owned-by-scooter-braun/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.249.65 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That source does explain why she can "block" use of her original recordings, but it doesn't address the impact on profits of her doing so. I'll keep my eye out for a good source on this Dizzyflamingo (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, This article is perhaps a better source for publishing vs recording copyright https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/we-compared-taylors-version-songs-with-the-original-taylor-swift-albums-11636383601  Dizzyflamingo (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this WSJ source is already used in the article. Ronherry (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022
There is a typo in the On the re-recordings section. "Elle's Fawzia Khan nd The New Yorker's Carrie Battan" should be changed to "Elle's Fawzia Khan and The New Yorker's Carrie Battan". 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:F4BF:BDF9:3CA9:D747 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re-recording rights?
The article says, "Although Big Machine owned the masters, Swift retained the publishing rights to the six albums due to her role as the main songwriter of all of the songs she had released under Big Machine. This would allow her to re-record the songs in the future if she desired, as per the artist-label agreement that stipulates the artist cannot re-record a song for a fixed period of time; Swift would not have been able to re-record her musical work had she not been a songwriter." This is cited to two Wall Street Journal articles which are both behind paywalls, so I can't see the explanation in the sources.

I don't understand what Swift being a songwriter has to do with her right to re-record the songs. Let's take an example of an artist who was not a songwriter and recorded for several different labels over his career, Frank Sinatra. Presumably when Sinatra was with Columbia and then Capitol Records, his contract would have prohibited him from recording songs he had already recorded for that label, for another record company later, at least not for a given period of time and without the earlier record company's permission. (With Reprise Records the situation might have been different, because Sinatra founded Reprise and naturally would have had the most favorable contract possible.) Why? Because Columbia or Capitol wouldn't have wanted newer Sinatra recordings of the same songs to compete with the older recordings that they would continue to sell even if he left the label and signed with a new record company.

So the question is, why would Big Machine Records' contract with Swift have been different? It's foreseeable that any artist might later sign with a new record company, and the possibility of a new recording competing with the older recording would always exist. In fact, the Righteous Brothers once did compete with themselves on the Hot 100, when they had both a new and an old recording of Unchained Melody (on different record labels) in the top 20 in 1990.

This seems to be completely different from the issue of compulsory licenses and mechanical licenses for artists to record songs. If I want to record a version of "All Along the Watchtower", I don't need Bob Dylan's approval; he couldn't turn me down from recording it if he didn't like me, because copyright law specifically provides that anyone can record a song that has been previously recorded and released with the song copyright owner's authorization. I would just have to pay the mandatory songwriting royalty rate to Dylan and his publishing company. For that matter, Ryan Adams didn't even need Swift's permission to record all the songs from 1989 (see 1989 (Ryan Adams album)), for the same reason. Obviously, Taylor Swift as a songwriter could authorize herself to record any of her older songs, but if her Big Machine Records contract prohibited her from recording the songs again, then she couldn't do so. And if the Big Machine contract had expired ... well, in that case she could have recorded the same songs over without having been a songwriter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article seems to help a little. Swift wrote in 2019, "Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun have now said that I’m not allowed to perform my old songs on television because they claim that would be re-recording my music before I’m allowed to next year." So, okay, that means that Swift's Big Machine contract prohibited her from re-recording the same songs until 2020. But then, why would her being a songwriter matter? Even some singer-songwriters occasionally record songs by outside writers. Would James Taylor's record company have been fine with him re-recording "Fire and Rain" and "Your Smiling Face" for other labels because he wrote them, but not "You've Got a Friend" and "Handy Man" because he didn't write them? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OR ST (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OR ST (cropped).jpg

Censored SZA quote
Why is the quote by SZA censored? What does that even achieve? - Rooiratel (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. But that's how it is given in the cited source I believe.  ℛonherry  ☘  11:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

New article
Music Business Worldwide have recently published a new, quite in-depth article about the controversy (focused more on the business and economics aspect of the deals) here. I wonder if you've had a chance to read this? Might be some possible additions for the article with updated information. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter! Yes, thank you, I've read it. It's a really insightful source. I used it in a few articles.  ℛonherry  ☘  08:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes! It can be used in this article too if there's anything in the source that's not already covered in the article!  ℛonherry  ☘  08:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay awesome, really well done across all the TS articles btw, they're all so brilliant! — Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2023
1989 to be released October 2023 73.210.152.180 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We already have "On August 9, at the tour's sixth and last Los Angeles show, Swift announced her next release, on October 27, 2023, will be 1989 (Taylor's Version), a re-recording of 1989.[75]" in the article. Cannolis (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023
The spelling of Joseph Kahn. In the page his surname is written as Khan, which is incorrect. 49.204.162.158 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Rename
Should we use controversy in the name of this article? See WP:NOCRIT. Maybe rename it to dispute or something else? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jtbobwaysf I came here to ask this as well. I would support a rename to Taylor Swift masters dispute. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am supportive of that change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Requested below. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Was original deal unfavourable in the short term to the record company?
I can't find anything about it, but I think I remember an interview with Scott where he said that the terms were that a percentage of ALL sales of ALL performers had to be spent on promoting Swift. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023
2601:40E:4000:14B0:1818:E8F5:C5C8:FC8C (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Empty request. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift masters controversy → Taylor Swift masters dispute – Following the discussion above, I think this is a more accurate name for this article. The article is about the dispute between Swift and the record company over her masters, not any particular "controversy" surrounding the case. The facts of the case are not in question, nor does public/personal opinion factor in any major way, so I don't think it meets the lay definition of "controversy" in my book. People certainly have opinions about it, but they didn't affect the outcome of the case. WP:NOCRIT is also a consideration here. "Taylor Swift masters ownership dispute" is another option I'd consider, but it's wordier without a commensurate benefit to clarity/specificity (i.e. there are no other Taylor Swift masters disputes to disambiguate against). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the current title is fine and accurate, but I would not oppose re-titling it as "dispute" either.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per NOCRIT policy, dispute is better. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed title is sensible. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above  Brachy 08  (Talk) 07:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023
 1. EDIT DESCRIPTION :for accuracy and to improve readability a correction is needed to the wording used to describe the entities listed

 2. CHANGE X to Y IN LEGACY SECTION 

(change X):


 * Brands and organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Football League (NFL)

(to Y):


 * Government agencies and corporations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Football League (NFL)

 3. SOURCES 

The citations immediately following the current version of the sentence to be edited support this change

Pimprncess (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reduced to simply "Organizations..." for simplicity. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023
A sentence has been (inadvertently?) repeated twice. Removing the repetition would improve the reading flow.

Under the Recognition heading in the Legacy section:

104.178.164.136 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023
Incorrect formatting characters (Markdown?) have caused album titles to be formatted improperly.

Under the Financial impact heading in the Legacy section:

104.178.164.136 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
Misleading sentence. It heavily implies that she has already gained ownership of her music when she has not. change "the issue led Swift to release the re-recorded albums—Fearless (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version), Speak Now (Taylor's Version), and 1989 (Taylor's Version)—from 2021 through 2023 to gain complete ownership of her music." to "the issue led Swift to begin re-recording her first six albums. From 2021 through 2023 she released the re-recorded albums-Fearless (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version), Speak Now (Taylor's Version), and 1989 (Taylor's Version) to gain ownership of her music." Owenlikescats124 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I neither see what's wrong with the current phrasing nor how your proposed changes would make a difference in how the sentence is interpreted. Could you elaborate a little more on the issue you're seeing here? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)