Get an exclusive @Surfshark Black Friday deal! Enter promo code LAWBYMIKE to get up to 6 additional months for free at surfshark.deals/lawbymike
How was Taylor Swift able to re-record her albums and create "Taylor's Version" of her first 6 albums: Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, and Reputation?? -- ALL albums that she had originally recorded under Big Machine Record Label with Scott Borchetta and were then sold to Scooter Braun.
🔥 We'll be breaking down the legal battle between Taylor Swift, Scooter Braun, Big Machine Records and Scott Borchetta! 🚨
👉 If you enjoy our content and want to stay updated on the latest legal news and tips, don't forget to hit that subscribe button and turn on notifications!
🔔 Your support means the world to us, and it helps us continue to educate and empower our amazing community. Let's keep growing together! 🌟
⭐ Become a member of THE INNER CIRCLE to get exclusive perks⭐
kzhead.infojoin
CHAPTERS:
00:00 - 01:25 Intro
01:26 - 2:21 How Bad Were Taylor's Contracts?
02:22 - 3:34 What is a Master Recording?
03:35 - 5:38 AD - SurfShark
05:39 - 08:05 Historical Precedence of Record Labels Being Shady (Prince, TLC, JoJo, Beatles)
08:06 - 08: 25 Contract Law Tips
08:25 - 9:27 Taylor Swift Legal Contract vs Big Machine Record Label
9:27 - 10:15 How Scooter/Scott Try to TRICK TAYLOR!
10:15 - 11:00 Assignment Law
11:01 - 12:37 Scooter BUYS Taylor's Masters
12:38 - 14:13 Taylor Swift vs Scooter Braun
14:14 - 15:54 How Taylor can LEGALLY RE-RECORD (Contract Law)
15:55 - 16:15 How Taylor Swift Changed the Industry Forever
16:16 - 16:50 Final Legal Tips for Artists and Creatives
DISCLAIMER (Of course, I'd have one 😁)
Hey, you might think that this info makes me your lawyer, but it doesn’t and I’m not. Sorry, but I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER unless we have an engagement agreement. I am just providing public information here, like a library does, and am not providing you with legal advice about your situation. So, it would be totally unreasonable for you to conclude we have an attorney-client relationship just because you're viewing this information.
#taylorswift #taylorvsscooter #erastour #taylorvskanye #swift #swiftie #taylorsversion #taylorvsbigmachine #1989 #1989taylorsversion
Very well done video. Made me realize how corrupt the music business is, and how brilliant Taylor Swift is.
i guess
E
Y es muy bien😊
Hi
Companies screwed many musicians. James Brown, The Rolling Stones, The Motels, the late Eddie Money, the late Prince, Mariah Carey, Bryan Adams (receiving $1 and later screwed by his home 🏡 nation Canada 🇨🇦). Stevie Wonder, John Fogerty, Metallica, The Rolling Stones, Bryan Adams fought back! 💪 😃💪
Another good thing about her re-recordings is that IHeart Media (who own pretty much every radio station) have told Taylor that they will only play her new versions on all of their stations. Further making sure her original masters become obsolete.
it would also be an ill advised move, if you ever want to get the rights for any TS for a movie or a tv show, using her old recordings as she wouldn't let you use any new hit single she may release
It’s also noteworthy that Big Machine Records was literally nothing before Taylor. Scott Borchetta’s label was brand new and Taylor was the first person he signed to it. She trusted in him and made the label huge. The fact that they screwed her over after she built the label up is vile. This whole spiel is also proof that she writes her own music and lyrics. She couldn’t re record them if she didn’t.
True and wasn’t Taylor like 50% or more of their income?
The fact she’s a billionaire is proof. She wouldn’t be that rich if she were paying ghostwriters.
I think TS"s dad even invested into big machine to help get it started but I might be wrong
@@xzizytrue
@@kianna27080%
I don't really care about Taylor's music, but I will always admire this badass power move.
💪
I love her music but ur right about her BadAss attitude.
@@Gamingandreactinggirlsame
Yeah, it doesn’t matter how good or bad a person’s music is, companies shouldn’t be allowed to totally screw them over with contracts.
Yeah she's a boss. But her music is actually fantastic, her radio songs aren't anywhere near her best. I know people claim that all the time about artists and most of the time is bs but genuinely, if you check her albums out you will definitely find songs you like. KZhead is full of videos of reacters being turned from taylor swift haters into fans lol RedTV, 1989TV, Lover and Folklore are all amazing albums start to finish
In 2019´s was Taylor´s net worth around 400M dollars. At the beginning of 2023 her net worth was over 700M dollars. She made over 300M dollars in 4 years just from streams, sales and publishing, NO TOURING. As of late 2023 Taylor´s net worth is stated to be over 1B dollars and her current The Eras Tour is predicted to gross almost 2B dollars. This shows how much money you can make when you own your masters. Big Machine Records are complete losers, they made the worst possible enemy in Taylor. Taylor makes million and even billions of dollars while they get nothing. They could get so much money if they just let her do what she wanted.
Yup independent artists can literally be richer than some big names in the industry bc they didn’t sign their life away!
This. BMR really is greedy. I'm glad we all support Taylor for her re-recording albums. Artists should own their work.
The fact Taylor was worth $400m by 2019 suggests she wasn’t ripped off that badly by Big Machine.
@@IMAC1776 you can’t really say that without seeing how much they made off of her. Which was probably a lot considering she was with them for like over a decade.
don't discount that A lot of that extra income came from non-musical streams. I just hope it wasn't Bitcoin! And Big Machine wouldn't have gotten any of her touring income.
The fact that this happens to a lot of artist but they were unheard of is sad. At least Taylor showed the industry's exploitive acts.
Tori Amos had a 10 record deal, she started doing double albums and cover albums to get out quicker. At my advice she also started producing her own albums, producers get the same 10% as composers or ALL performers. Yep, she pretty much doubled her cut. She is a better engineer anyway.
I'm not a fan of Taylor Swift, but god damn I support her. Hopefully this makes the legal environment better for all musicians.
It has made ppl aware of this issue thankfully, but a Billboard article recently came out and it said that labels have extended the wait time to re-record music. From a regular 5 to 10 years (the one Taylor had), to even going up to 30 years. So it’s a double edged sword.
When Taylor signed under UMG for 10 year in 2018-19 , she made UMG change there contract of all the artists signed under them where a artist will only take the earning from streaming platforms , not the label . She has also made streaming giants change there rules for benefit of small artists in past.
@kay0tica -"...I'm not a fan of Taylor Swift..." I am now.
@@carlosasan2604Honestly the government should jump in and make certain terms illegal to add to these contracts or young artists will continue to be taken advantage of.
Without them Taylor swift would be a no name. Without money it’s hard to become famous when if you’re a good singer
Music business is extremely rough, but it is great that most artists are recognizing what needs to be done to protect their future. People like Scooter Braun are those I do hope would go bankrupt over their poor treatment of rising stars.
Part of the goal of Taylor rerecording her first 6 albums & then some is not just ownership of her masters & future, it's so Scooter's initial purchase would be reduced to a tax write-off...he did sell the label & masters to another company for what he paid, $300 million, but he must have realized the heat he was under, so he got out of it...I hope he goes bankrupt or something karma-ish...
"I don't start sh*t, but I can tell you how it ends Don't get sad! Get even!"
Good thing my dad is a Lawyer, I make him go through any contract thag I have to sign and that man comes up with best loop holes (for me to use) and counter points to keep me safe.
With major contracts, if he's not specializing in contract law on the different locations it could be handled in, it might still be worth seeing a specialist in it, especially with some variations of it
@@AzraelThanatos Thats true.... thats what he does. When I had to sign a contract with an American Company, he looked for an American Lawyer and went through American Law related to that particular field and after some amendments I signed it.
Oops, you put a comma, changes the meaning, depending on what the definition of definition is, hereby referred to as D.
Good!
I was raised the same. It was sick how many creatives get screwed and a certain event behind scenes happen to ignite a long overdue pivot. It is funny though how the industry still never learns, they continue to false report for potential suits with too many creatives selling out feeling they can risk getting away with another type of unethical abuse or their own version of bullying/ discrimination.... but appear claiming to fight these very things. When the entire truth is out about the industry... many will be shocked no doubt. It is always certain people behind scenes who know the whole truth. Timing is everything. It is a complicated journey to navigate transitions but the best in every role are being purged/ to hopefully help each other for better goals and transparency that will support a better system for the future.
BMR control the *master recording* but Taylor is the songwriter and composer of every song so she has control over the *publishing rights* so the answer is no, they cant sue the creator. But if something like this would ever happen to another big artist who doesn't have any actually involvement in the creation of their discography then they cannot complain or do anything about it.
I'm an extreme swiftie but I never knew if it was legal (her rerecordings) but thanks to you I know Taylor won't be sued! Thanks Mike! Can't wait for reputation TV!!!
I'm not an extreme Swiftie and I know she won't be sued.
@@Sleepflowrr That's cause you know the law
she won't get sued cuz she wrote all of her own songs and honored all of her contracts!
How is someone called scooter a bully I thought he would’ve been bullied with a name like that.
Boy oh boy I wish I had this video five years ago. I got screwed over like this when I was an audio engineer, making patches and sounds with analog modular synths and DJing in my free time. I was just a kid, so I had no real money to get a lawyer to oversee all the paperwork, so I just went along with everything. I got to 10 thousand streams on spotify pretty quick, and I really think it would have worked out for me if I had kept going like that. I would have, but my label suddenly pulled out and took all my stuff down from spotify and stopped me from ever making music under my old name, in fact I don't even think I can associate it with my new persona or it'd be breaching contract even still. I started from rock bottom recently after years of local club DJing and I'm trying to relearn music production after like four years. Its crazy how little big companies care about you, even if it is your livelihood at stake. This was really helpful Mike, you've got yourself a new subscriber! I just wish could have seen this when I really needed it most.
This re-recording (Taylor's Version) will leave a brilliant legacy in the history of music and will be studied by generations to come because of how massive, powerful, and successful it was.
The really really bad part was BMR sold it to someone else on purpose instead of selling it back to her. David Bowie is another really smart artists that manipulated the record companies to take back his music.
All this is true. Jojo had issues with her record company. They refused to release her 3rd album so she, before taylor, re-recorded all her old songs and released that 3rd album as she owned songwriting credits. It's all fd up.
I trust this dude more than saul goodman, the fact he is a lawyer is crazy
as you should, at least Slipping Kimmy got away
There really should be laws to protect artists
I live in India and it has been my dream to go to America and I've finally decided I'm coming to America and be a lawyer you are my inspiration thank you for helping me choosing my dream
Indian bhaiii be my lawyer :) @danzen6246
@@danzen6246that's not your choice after they turn 18
Good luck on your journey and achieving your dreams!! Stay safe🤗
@@newme4462 thanks man
Law by Danzen.
Ive heard that record studios are changing clauses in contracts now because of this incident and makes it even harder for artists to own their music. Taylor really shook the whole industry by doing this move and it scared the hell out of em. Out of all the existing artists rn she's probably one of the few who have complete control of her art.
So Taylor Swift basically pulled the legal equivalent of an Uno Reverse card..... Alright that is some badass stuff, well done Tay Tay! And thank you Mike for explaining how she got herself out of that mess!
Great video. Scares the hell out of us, even if we aren't performers.
There is a difference between re-releasing them and re-recording them.
As a Swiftie and a law student, this was very interesting and helpful. Thank you, Law By Mike, love your content and I'm subscribed!!
Loser
Hi Mike, I am a foreign lawyer considering to take the bar exam and I am confused between (NY, Cali and Florida). I don't know whether I will practice in the USA one day or not. I am just expanding my chances in the future. Would you give me your advice which bar exam to take and why from your opinion? Thanks in advance
Let's see how many likes we can get this too :). I'm not a lawyer, but best of luck! Congrats!
Let's get Mike's attention! Like this!
Which one allows you to wave in to the most states?
NY and Cali are the hardest states to pass the bar.
I hope this will be noticed but I have a question. Fact: Scooter sold the masters to Shamrock sometime in 2020. I am assuming it was a 100 per cent sale, meaning he no longer owns it. But despite being sold to another party, Scooter still shares in the future profits of such masters. My question now is that he allowed to make such provisions when he sold off the masters to another entity?
i’m no lawyer but i think legally he can rly do what he wants with the master recordings, since he was the owner.
@@jamesssharpe Depends on what the meaning of was was
Like a lot of other people here not a huge Swifty. But I do respect how she is trying to take back what is hers and change the trend for musicians everywhere. Musicians have been cheated out of the money they deserve for far to long. It’s good see someone fighting back.
Laws made by criminal tyrants for the criminal tyrants.
And much wider than just music
welcome to the government!
Her eras tour was so cool and fun to watch
I want to see the movie.
Scooter and BMR not only were evil but also made a bad decision themselves. As the video stated, if someone tried to license her music, she can deny unless they use the rerecording lmao.
this is soo well done! your explanation is soo detail and clear.
Back with another longform video love it keep up the great work mike
Taylor: "I have more money than God, I want to buy back my masters and resign with you. Together we will continue to rule the music industry." BMR: "Umm.... no." *Taylor will remember this.*
You’re writing like Darth Vader
Literally, Taylor would have happily paid up hundreds of millions of dollars to own art that she made herself and then CONTINUED to make BMR tons of money with new stuff. But, because they were greedy assholes, they refused to sell to her unless she gave them her whole future in exchange. They deserve everything bad in their lives for that bs.
@@lorenagagamonsterI heard she mostly wouldn’t agree to the contract because part of the clause was she couldn’t talk bad about the record company or reveal any of their shady acts
@@harmony8623 I'm sure that was included as well, but I think the real deal breaker was her having to make new albuns she wouldn't own in order to get her older ones.
GOOD job mike i want to become a lawyer too
incredible video which rly goes into detail about the situation
Thanks for putting this out for our understanding. I wondered if you could cover our creative rights (IP) and ownership of story concept laws in the film and television industry, ie, if you have some samples you can go with there would be so helpful.
Artists should write something into the contract to where they have an opportunity to purchase their masters back within X years, or for $$$. Or if the label is trying to sell the masters, the artist gets first dibs on buying them.
It is called right of first acceptance and cam be written into several forms, it is most common in real estate law which also has a right of first refusal. One is made before a listing occurs and the other after an offer is made, you can match the highest offer and it is sold to you. One guarantees the sale if accepted the other allows you to not lose money, say you own real estate whose current fair market value is $1.2 million, you can ask $1.3 million and they can accept and the deal closes but you can also ask $1.6 million and the deal fails, now you list, maybe the highest offer is $1.5 million so in the second option, if signed, you can still get it for $1.5 million but if offered $1.7 million they will need to pay more. Personally, I recommend you get both but if you think you are bad as estimating values each has a risk.
Amazing video, I don’t even like Taylor Swift but this makes it so interesting and honestly brings more awareness as I’m glad she’s not screwed over.
Love the video. Glad I stumbled on this. Good work.
Put Taylor Swift in the thumbnail and open up with holding a cat? I like!
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. I've been wondering all these questions! Good for her for finding a legal way to take back her music!
Well created video, can't imagine how such video with laws information could have been made which is not boring and engaging 😀
as someone who plans on having a music carreer one day, one thing that stuck to my mind was when, in one interview, Ritchie Blackmore said how important it was for new musicians to pay attention to what they're signing in the contract. after seeing what Jimi Hendrix went through with his first producer, that was ripping him off, i realized how corrupt the music business can be. i didn't know Taylor Swift went through this (never really listened to her music) so now, if i ever get to sign a contract with a label, i will be 100x more aware than before. i hope that when the time comes i can get a lawyer as good as you!
Well done video... Fast paced... Kudos to Mike
Very informative, thanks Mike!
The 1989 on 11:24 is the rerecorded version, not the old one. 😁
A master is the (usually) 2 track mix down of the multitrack recording that has been sonically enhanced by a mastering engineer, often in the form of 1/2” or 1/4” analog reel to reel, most often recorded at 15 ips. Ampex ATR102 machines from the 1980’s are still considered the best.
Great video! Do you think there is any way the first sales could have happened without her knowing? 1. Her dad shared in big machine. 2. Speaking to Taylor, the artist should be part of the DD? I’m finding it hard to believe she didn’t know beforehand.
Mike makes me want to learn
Shhhh. Peasants are supposed to not be smart
@@luvyatubers you don't tell anyone to shhhhhh boy
How is she legally allowed to sign a contract at 15?
I don’t know about the laws in America, but her parents probably signed it alongside her.
“Now back to tailor” reminded me of the pbs kids show Author that the show said “now back to author
This was both funny and very educational! Great job.
11:22 why did you show Fearless (TV) and 1989 (TV)?
Great explanation. Maybe include Dave Clark of the Dave Clark Five in a future discussion? Was he the only one smart enough to own his masters in the sixties?
As in aside, love the cats! Who is the man that plays all your side guys such as the cameraman and the thief, who are the same person, going by the voice.
I think it's also important to note the fact that the artist owning the master recordings is actually a rare occurrence. Most big artists do not own them, their label does which they use to generate profit. This is like the industry standard. Is it kinda unethical? You could say so but a label is a business after all so they should profit somehow.
Agreed that a business should be profitable. However they do not need to own the masters in perpetuity to do so. In Taylor's case for example, if BMR had just agreed to sign a new contract giving her back her masters but keeping her signed for 10yrs they would have made way more than the move they decided to do.
the label would make money regardless from royalties.
Several artists have insisted, many formed the own label.
How'd You Like The Video? Get an exclusive Surfshark Black Friday deal! Enter promo code LAWBYMIKE to get up to 6 additional months for free at surfshark.deals/lawbymike
it was a good video, this is why i’m subscribed
not good, 😯 GREAT 👍
Is using surfshark to bypass georestrictions legal? Has any online content distribution service been sued due to distributing content to Geographic regions they were contractually prohibited from doing so due to a customer's VPN usage?
interesting and useful topic
Taylor Swift is a Genius, She Truly Has 160iq If Scooter Braun has Taylor's Master then Taylor Swift has the Copyright Since She was the one Who wrote the song in the first place she can just redo it again
... and she is so beautiful outside too
Record labels try not to literally own people challenge: Impossible
I'M DEFINITELY WATCHING THIS VID WITH DINNER FOOD
Thinking of Mike as a swiftie is so funny
The masters ownership is at the core of why she is not performing off of her debut currently. I think we will know when her re-record is done for debut by her performing from it. I think her proverbial Easter eggs will be out even before it is announced and I think we saw some of that for Speak Now and 1989. She released some recordings early as part of advertising for shows and whatnot pre tour so they could be set list songs. As long as she licensed her Taylor's version of the song it took power away from Big Machine Records. I am sure there is language somewhere that her surprise songs she plays acoustic on the piano or with the guitar are "covers" or it might be she is playing them acoustic that protects her. As she needs permission to perform anything that they own.
Great video! Thank you! 🙏
You and Doctor Mike NEED to do a collab 🎉
7:00 Damn, MJ sounding like a real twist villian
Mike can i legally lock lactose intolerant people in a room with a humidifier full of milk
No. Also, based PFP.
no
I was hoping you would explain what those re-recordings now mean to the Shamrock Group or whichever investment firm now owns her first six masters. How has it impacted the value of the original masters and the loss, if any, to the investment group that now owns them? Would it not benefit them to sell them to Talyor directly? Her re-records sound so much better, and her voice is more potent and purer, as is the music; I don't see anyone wanting the old albums over her new work.
I believe it was stated that, because she technically owns the property, she can block anyone using her og music (she gets a vote) but she owns her re-recordings entirely therefore those can be approved immediately by her. Meaning, companies/studios/etc are pretty much going to use Taylor's Version instead of the old versions because she can block og version and completely approve Taylor's Version. This is the reason why they tried to stop her from re-recording and why the new company tried to make a deal with her (but failed since Scooter would still make money off them). So this is why re-recordings make the og version less valuable, it's due to Taylor Swift owning the lyrics, the music etc since she wrote it and created it herself and gets participate on any licensing of the og stuff.
her orignal masters have been devalued by the re-records meaning that they are worth less now than they were. Taylor ideally wants them to become worthless and financially invaluable for anyone to own except her.
@@wickywicky3811it’s less valuable because she has got her fans to buy and stream exclusively the re records, most people who would consider themselves a fan will only listen to the re recordings, meaning that they are streaming her version and not the originals whcih in turn means that less royalties will come to scooter and shamrock
General rule of contracts… whoever writes the actual contract holds all the power.
Holding the white cat was lit and explained mostly, Mike!
Prince called the glyph the love symbol. He chose not to re-record, though he tried initially. Creating new music with new people was more important to him. He championed artists that fought for their masters. I hope he's cheering somewhere looking at Taylor now. When she yanked her music off spotify back in 2014, Prince did the same. Go Taylor.
2:20 Is it just me or does that sound like the glitches usually associated with Shorts Wars/the clones from Shorts Wars?
Finally he made a video again🥳🥳
Hey Mike could you do a video on porch pirates?
Mike you should do a copyright video on publishers that take advantage of authors
And it is extremely important to use the right type of lawyer. You want a contract lawyer and one who has worked contracts with music contracts. Mike, of course, is all knowing but you can't depend on a trial lawyer real estate lawyer to know about contracts.
Wrong, real estate law is all contracts.
I was scrolling KZhead shorts and I came across a tiktok ad with you video
Where can i get that better call mike mug.
Yeah, still there are distributors. If back in the day label got a lion share of profit, now distributors do. Average spotify artist get literally pennies for streamings of his songs
Thanks for thid law by mike
someone please tell me the source of taylor in the thumbnail 🙏🙏
So many artists know that pain but have been unable to (for many reasons) obtain ownership of their own work- in a way to preserve their integrity or capital gains or both
To quote an oldie, but a goodie “You Go, Girl“!
who owns the publishing rights to the first 6 albums? Taylor or Ithaca? what does the ownership of the masters actually do for Ithaca? say im at store that has a physical CD of the original CD on the shelf for $15. since ithacha owns the master for the CD. how much do they earn for the Cd when it sold?
Good on you Taylor!!
I want to know from Taylor's fans if the new versions sound any different from the originals, either better or worse. Some of my favorite artists have re-recorded their music in years past, with varying results. Famously Def Leppard did this for digital versions of their biggest hits about 10 years ago. They were okay, but lacked some of the fire of the originals. Other bands changed the keys or tempos of the original songs.
"Today Was A Fairytale" sounds more country than the version I'm used to but generally the same. That's the one I can say for sure about.
She’s doing a great job!!
Generally, the instrumental will sound different from the original, and generally her voice will have been more matured, so in a way, it still sounds the same, but you can really tell how much she's grown over the past years.
Fearless taylor’s version sounds amazing, red tv is ok, speak now tv sounds very computer generated, and there’s a weird buzz in 1989 taylor’s version that’s extremely annoying
I’m a newer fan and to my ears they sound about the same as the originals. Her voice is more mature and definitely improved. The instrumentals sound different. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. Obviously the emotion behind a lot of the songs has changed because she’s in a different place mentally then she was when recording the originals.
It’s me, hi I’m a swiftie and I hope she doesn’t get sued
I think one of Frank Sinatra's advices he gave to Nancy Sinatra was owning all the masters to her records. I think something similar happened to him in the 40's and 50's before he started his own label Reprise Records.
See that's why Taylor’s Version of the songs should somehow SOMEHOW sound different but the same. Some swifties don't understand
So is owning the masters like owning the way the sounds were shaped? Like if a producer were to use the same ideas from another producer in shaping the sounds, could they get in legal trouble?
the part 0:01 I love the start
Very interesting video mike!
🙏
copyright sucks change my mind
Mike’s cat would never be outsmarted
🤓🐈
I like the plush, decor and live cats. Do you have merch?
I’m a Swiftie and I love her ❤ and I can’t wait for Reputation Taylor’s version
i’m not a huge taylor swift fan
@@WAHOOOOOO-nn7jr”i like peanut butter” “WELL I DONT LIKE PEANUT BUTTER!! HISS!”
I hate swifties
@@glosticcsxwho cares they are just stating their opinion
a bad opinion
Wait this seems exactly like the legal eagle video from two years ago :/
Do musicians have a Union like the actors do? Young upcoming musicians don’t have money to hire lawyers and some are young and don’t know how to read contracts. Maybe a musicians Union could ppay for lawyers for new artists.
She can afford excellent attorneys. Good for her!! I hope the men who tried to exploit her talent loose every dime they made off of artists.
i love that i’m seeing this 13 days after it’s release
I played this game a lot during college breaks with classmates! The good times!