The music Industry involves musicians who create various melodies that invoke emotions and capture the audience's attention, the copyright law protects these musical creations ensuring that the people or individuals involved in the creation of such music receive proper recognition and financial compensation.

This article will shed light on what is music copyrights, the rights of a copyrights holder and the ownership rights of different contributors to a song, this paper also explores Taylor Swift's highly publicized legal dispute over the ownership of her master recordings, which has ignited broader discussions about artist rights within the music industry. Using Taylor Swift's efforts to regain control of her music as a focal point, the study examines the intersection of copyright law, artist contracts, and moral rights in the modern era. Taylor Swift's decision to rerecord her albums to reclaim ownership underscores the shortcomings and gaps within current copyright laws.

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the legal intricacies surrounding her case, including the contractual provisions that enabled Big Machine Records to retain ownership of her masters, and considers the wider implications for other artists and the music industry as a whole.

Keywords: Music industry, Musical creations, Master recordings, Re-recording, Ownership Rights, Copyright Holder, Taylor Swift, Big Machine Records
 
Introduction
Music forms an integral portion of everyone's life, it helps a person to connect to the depths of their emotions. The enjoyment derived from our preferred music can persist throughout the day, encompassing genres such as energising pop tunes aiding strenuous workouts or melodies sung along car rides. Yet the viability of music industry hinges on the capacity of artists to protect their creations.

The Intellectual Property Rights afford musicians and music publishers the means to monetize their creations and securely put it out for the public to enjoy their creative works, thereby promoting the artists to continue creating such artistic masterpieces for the public to appreciate and enjoy while getting through tough phases in their hectic lives. The music industry in India is often viewed as a vibrant rainbow with a wide range of genres, languages, and traditions.

It plays a major role in the cultural development of our nation. Over the past few decades, the music industry in India has seen a tremendous change from tangible records to digital media. The global reach of this action has increased dramatically. However, this modification has also resulted in some challenging issues with copyright protection.

 Under these conditions, copyright laws protect the rights of all musicians, songwriters, and record companies by acting as the industry's sturdy foundation. These laws also protect the artists by saving them from shady contracts made by the record labels who lure the artists in agreeing to their terms and ultimately exploiting the artist's rights. These laws also uphold the economic credibility of the music industry.

Overview
All Original songs, lyrics, melodies, sound recordings, and other musical compositions are protected by music copyright laws of the respective countries. One owns the exclusive rights to their creations as the author, which include the ability to decide who may copy, distribute, perform, and alter their music. The nature of work determines how long copyright protection lasts for music. The duration of copyright for songs and other creative works is sixty years from the date of publication, or sixty years from the year of the author's death, whichever comes first. For sixty years following the year of publication, sound recordings are protected by copyright. The duration of a singer's performer's rights is fifty years from the year of the performance.

What Is Music Copyrights?

General copyright law grants creators of specific works the authority to dictate the permissible actions concerning their creations. In the realm of music copyright, artists possess the ability to prevent the unauthorized utilization of their songs. Upon the recording or transcription of a piece of music, copyright protection is automatically established. A song embodies two distinct copyright protections:

• Sound recording copyright: This pertains to a particular recording and vests ownership either with the artist responsible for its creation or the record label representing them.
• Musical composition copyright: Encompassing the music and lyrics of the song, this copyright is owned by the songwriter(s), often delegated to a music publisher representing the artist.

Every time a track is streamed on popular platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, a portion of compensation is remitted to the copyright holder. Similarly, royalties are disbursed whenever an artist's music airs on radio stations.
  Moreover, sound recording and musical composition copyrights shield musicians from unauthorized usage in mediums such as YouTube videos, commercials, TV shows, and movies. Typically, the use of a song requires a licensing fee paid to the copyright owner.
  Relevance Of The Study This study explores the critical issue of copyright ownership in the music industry, focusing on the legal frameworks that protect creators' rights. By analyzing Taylor Swift's high-profile battle to reclaim her master recordings, it highlights deficiencies in current copyright laws and contractual practices, especially regarding artist autonomy and fair compensation. Literature Review Copyright is the vehicle that drives the music business; essentially, the industry's value can be measured in copyright terms. Its role can be seen in attempts to restrict peer-to-peer file sharing — Carey and Wall (2001). Publishing or recording contracts are essentially about who can exploit intellectual property — Steve Greenfield and Guy Osborn (2004). Copyright governs the marketing of music, artist compensation, and licensing, and is a source of frequent conflict — Simon Frith and Lee Marshall (2004). Research Objectives

• Investigate ownership rights of various contributors to a song.
• Analyze Taylor Swift's success in the music industry.
• Assess the impact of the Taylor Swift case on the evolution of copyright law in the music industry.
   

Hypothesis Taylor Swift's choice to rerecord her albums has greatly enhanced her control over her master recordings, showcasing a practical approach for artists aiming to reclaim ownership of their intellectual property in the music industry.
  Research Methodology This paper entails a comprehensive examination of Taylor Swift's efforts to regain her copyrights. The content was compiled through a detailed analysis of interviews, newspaper articles, and secondary sources including online legal publications, academic journals, and relevant books.
  Research AnalysisOwnership Rights in a Song A song is a collaborative effort involving several contributors. Each has specific rights:

• Copyright of the Lyricist: Retains rights over literary elements and public performances of lyrics.
• Copyright of the Composer: Holds rights over the musical composition, including performance and distribution.
• Performer's Rights of Singers: Has control over recording and protection from unauthorized use, in addition to respecting composer and lyricist rights.
• Producer's Copyright: Owns rights over the sound recording and its duplication, communication, and public access.
   

Intersections:

• Collaboration: Rights may be split based on individual contributions and reflected in split sheets or agreements.
• Licensing: Co-creators may license their rights for specific uses such as film or streaming.
• Royalties: Generated from use and disbursed according to contracts and performance data via collection agencies.

In Indian Performing Rights Society v. Aditya Pandey & Ors, the court held that authors of musical works included in sound recordings are entitled to equal royalty shares. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, it was ruled that moral rights stay with the author even after transferring ownership. However, decisions in Gramophone Co. v. Super Cassettes and Gramophone Co. v. Mars conflicted regarding the necessity of obtaining prior author consent for alterations. Taylor Swift's reclamation of her copyrights involves gaining ownership rights from publishers or record labels. For songs she wrote, this gives her full control over licensing and distribution. In collaborative works, ownership becomes complex and depends on the specific agreements between contributors.

How Taylor Swift Regained Her Performance Rights Through Rerecording

Taylor Swift's battle for her master recordings has reshaped how artists reclaim rights. Her decision to rerecord albums as "Taylor's Version" encouraged other artists to fight for ownership.

Understanding Performance Rights and Master Recordings

Performance rights allow public performances, including streaming or radio. Master rights relate to the sound recording. Swift's original masters were sold without her consent. However, she retained composition rights due to her songwriting contributions.
 

Rerecording "Taylor's Version" and Regaining Control

Her contract with BMLG didn't grant her master rights and prevented re-recording for two years post-contract. After this period lapsed in 2020, she re-recorded her old albums under Section 114(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act, which allows new recordings of the same song.
  Her strategy resulted in:

• New Masters: Full ownership of re-recorded versions, along with their licensing and royalties.
• Dilution of Old Masters' Value: Fans and platforms favor "Taylor's Version," reducing value and relevance of the old recordings.

Prince's Fight for Ownership: The fight is almost as famous as Prince's own fight with Warner Bros. over ownership of his master recordings. His case that he famously embodied by changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol is the first example of a challenger to the industry norms. Swift's case recalls Prince's legacy and reopens the debate on the fairness of the relationship between artists and labels.
 
Taylor Swift decision to rerecord her albums as "Taylor's Version," made it a milestone in the music industry of artists exerting control over their property. Swinging under the provision of U.S. Copyright Act by law, Swift recovered performance and master rights to her work, thus playing a powerful precedent for the recovery of ownership of her work on the part of artists. She has stirred recognition and appreciation of performance and master rights, inspiring artists to take a stronger position in pushing for improved contracts, thus also enacting reforms in the industry that would be beneficial for generations to come.
  
Impact of Taylor Swift's copyright case on the evolution of copyright law within the music industry, and how has it shaped the legal landscape for artists and creators

Taylor Swift
American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift gained success in the mid-2000s because of her distinctive pop-country blend. Born on December 13, 1989, to parents in Pennsylvania, Swift moved to Nashville, Tennessee, at age 14 to chase her dream of becoming a country music artist. In 2006, she signed up with Big Machine Records and cut a few singles into the music world: "Tim McGraw" and "Teardrops on My Guitar."

Swift's maturity in music style, including its creativity, was depicted in her following albums such as "Fearless" in 2008, "Speak Now" in 2010, and "Red" in 2012, all of which achieved significant success both critically and commercially. During that time, some of the most memorable songs had been produced including "Love Story," "You Belong with Me," and "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together."

With the "1989" album she released in 2014, Swift made a musical shift to the pop genre, giving hits such as "Shake It Off," "Blank Space," and "Bad Blood." This marked a huge divergence from country, and further a huge fan base. With this album Swift continued experimenting with her music and the following years featured albums such as "Reputation" (2017) and "Lover" (2019), whose themes again had been issues of love, fame, and personal growth, which received critical acclaim along with record companies.

In addition to her music, Swift is recognized for her activism, charity work, and candid opinions on social and political issues. She has broken numerous Guinness World Records and accumulated many other awards, including multiple Grammys. Therefore, influence is seen not only within the music industry but as far as to confirm the fact that she finds her place in being one of the most influential and impactful figures in her generation.

Taylor Swift- Quest to Re-claim her Copyrights

Background

• Like any aspiring musician, Taylor had the money to launch her career on her own and lacked thorough legal knowledge.
• In 2005, she inked a 13-year recording contract with Big Machine Record Labels to create six albums:
  • Taylor Swift
  • 1989
  • Fearless
  • Speak Now
  • Red
  • Reputation
     

Facts

• Big Machine acquired perpetual master ownership in exchange for funding and resources to produce and release albums.
• At the time, Taylor was a young, undiscovered musician with little negotiating power.
• By 2018, Taylor had become one of the biggest artists in the industry, with her catalog worth hundreds of millions.
• She intended to buy back her old masters and secure ownership over future recordings.
   

Master

This is the song's most authentic supersonic rendition.

Why is Masters important?

• Every time songs are:
  • Put on a disc
  • Streamed
  • Downloaded
  • Licensed for TV, movies, or live events
  the master owner earns the highest profit.
• Example: Masters are like a dream house one builds—though the record label provides the materials and funding, the artist pours in the work, but doesn't own the house unless they own the master.
• Without master ownership, labels take a huge cut from profits.
• Owning masters allows control over licensing and increases the label's net worth and estate.
   

Relevant Case Laws

1. Prince vs. Warner Bros. Records Inc.: Prince battled for control over his music and name, even changing his name to a symbol in protest. This case highlighted the issue of artistic control.
2. Eminem's Lawsuit Against Universal Music Group: Concerning digital royalties, the court ruled in Eminem's favor, recognizing downloads as licenses rather than sales.
3. George Michael vs. Sony BMG Music Entertainment: Michael won the right to his master recordings after arguing that his contract had expired.
4. The Beatles' Legal Battle with EMI/Capitol Records: Paul McCartney succeeded in efforts to reclaim the rights to the Beatles' catalogue.

 
Taylor Swift, quoted "It's about taking back what is rightfully mine"[10]

But instead she was asked to sign a new contract with Big Machine Records, they consented to her earning back one of her previous albums for every new album she turns in. The Big Machine Record Label promised Taylor Swift the ownership of her masters only if she signed with them for 10 years.

The contract said nothing about the release of her new albums. Also the contract mentioned that Taylor Swift only had the right to exploit the new masters but not own them as long as she agrees not to make any re- recordings of them ever. The Big Machine Record Label also has the right to sell the contract to anyone Taylor Swift, quoted "I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future"[11]

This could be possible by assignment law which gives the right to transfer the contract to someone else. Soon after Taylor Swift refused to sign a contract with Big Machines Record Labels and signed with Universal, Scott Borchetta let the entire company be acquired by Scooter Braun owner of Ithica Holdings for over $300 million.

The acquisition included rights and masters to Taylor's entire catalogue of record breaking hits. But Taylor's past albums were still owned and controlled by Ithica Holdings (Scooter Braun)

Taylor Swift quoted "When I left my masters in Scott's hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter…Controlling a woman who did not want to be associated with them, in perpetuity that means forever"[12]

Often transfers and other clauses can survive contract termination. Thereby aiding Scott Borchetta to transfer the contract to Scooter Braun when the record label was acquired by Ithica Holdings.

So Original contract with Big Machine Record Labels contained a termination date, but exception to the ownership of her masters that extended to perpetuity.

In 2019, Taylor Swift was honored with the "Artist of the Decade" award at the AMA's where she had planned to perform some of her biggest hits from earlier, but Scooter Braun and Big Machine Record Labels were legally bullying her from not performing the songs that they own, out of spite for not signing the contract with them.

Taylor Swift quoted "… Not allowed to perform my old songs on Television because they claimed that it would be re- recording my music before I am allowed to next year"

Now how can Taylor Swift legally re- record her old songs?
Basically in Copyrights Law, There are 2 types of Copyrights:

• Musical Composition Copyrights (Music/ Lyrics to a song)
• Sound Recording Copyright (recorded performance of a song)
   

Taylor owned the music composition license, however, she signed a contract that she would not re-record these songs until 5 years after their release, or 2 years after the expiration of the contract. But according to Section 114(b) of the US Copyright Act:

"…Limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are re-arranged, required or otherwise altered in sequence or quality."

So it allows Taylor Swift to make a re-creation of a previous song, that is virtually identical, as long as she makes a new recording of that song. This is why every new song has "Taylor's Version" annotated at the end of every song title to show it's a new recording of a previously recorded song. It is not an infringement, no matter how close she comes to sounding like the original. Taylor Swift's contract with Big Machine Record Label gave her the right to re-record the songs from November 2020. Another key factor is that Taylor Swift writes all her own songs and owns publishing rights to them. This allows her to cover her old songs without having to touch the masters. Because she owns the publishing rights, if someone wanted to license Swift's music for a movie or a commercial, she could deny the request unless they used her re-recorded version.

Why is this case of Taylor Swift's rivalry with Hollywood so significant? [13]
In order to defend the rights of artists, action must be taken that is both effective and, occasionally, theatrical. An independent artist in India could certainly never dream of doing what Taylor Swift did. The depressing amount of money made is only one example of how bad things are for musicians and artists in general. For artists, there is no social security benefit, and the rate of copyright compliance, particularly in relation to publishing earnings, is still a pitiful 1.2%. In order to generate cash from publishing, copyright compliance requires paying a licensing fee for the authorized publication and streaming of protected content.

Conclusion
This paper provides an instance of a situation in which the artist, Taylor Swift, experienced difficulties as a result of the modern music industry framework. The rerecording approach employed was not only an apparent manifestation of artist's quest for independence over their work but also exhibited weakness in existing copyright law. Thus finally requiring modifications in the control of ownership and contract rights, particularly with regards to contemporary agreements and moral rights of the artists.
Taylor Swift's case brings her journey back in the spotlight and, beyond this, also forms a point of discussion regarding how to empower creators, protect their intellectual property, and where copyright law is moving in the future, offering crucial insights for established and emerging musicians in the music industry.

End Notes:

1. Music and Copyright 2nd Edition, Edited by Simon Smith and Lee Marshall, by Routledge, Published in USA and Canada, 2004
2. Music and Copyright 2nd Edition, Chapter 5 Copyright Law and Power in Music Industry, Steve Greenfield and Guy Osborn, 2004
3. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 117(2005)DLT717
4. Gramophone Co. v. Super Cassettes and Gramophone Co. v. Mars AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2885
5. Taylor Swift's Battle for Her Masters Reshapes Artist Rights, Billboard, Jason Lipshutz, December 1, 2020
6. Prince v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., 953 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1991)
7. F.B.T. Productions, LLC, et al. v. Aftermath Records, et al. 621 F.3d 958
8. George Michael v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 02 Civ. 8290 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2004)
9. Apple v. Capitol Records 137 A.D.2d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
10. CBS Sunday Morning, Taylor Swift, Interview by Tracy Smith, CBS News, August 23, 2021
11. Zane Lowe Interviews Taylor Swift, Apple Music, October 25, 2021, URL: www.apple.com/music/interview/taylor-swift
12. Taylor's Tumblr post, URL: www.taylorswift.tumblr.com/post
13. India: Music Industry And Copyright Compliance: Shake It Off?, by Vijay Chawla, Pioneer Legal, 29 February 2024