When Taylor Swift penned a Tumblr post about her horror of learning that her back catalogue had been sold to music manager Scooter Braun, she drew metaphorical battle lines right down the middle of the music industry.
And since then, stars have been jumping to make their side clear.
First, here’s a quick refresher:
Swift learned that her long-time manager Scott Borchetta, who she parted ways with in 2018 after 12 years, sold his label Big Machine Records to Scooter Braun, the controversial manager of Justin Bieber and she was very unhappy about it.
Borchetta owned the rights to her music, which means Braun now stands to make millions off of Swift’s past releases.
This was especially problematic to her due to what she described as the “incessant, manipulative bullying” she had dealt with from Braun for years.
At the heart of the war is the issue of an artists’ rights to their music, but it’s been well and truly overshadowed by a game of celebrity he-said, she-said.
With so many names and accusations flying about it’s all a bit confusing, but we’ve done you a solid and made lists of everyone who has said something, and who’s side they’re on.
Team Taylor Swift.
Sure, the squad may have disbanded, but Swift remains a popular (and powerful) person in the music biz. Since speaking out about her “worst nightmare”, she’s had more than just her fans rally behind her.
Top Comments
Can anyone explain what it means to own the rights to the back catalogue? Does that mean that he earns the royaltys when her music is played on the radio or used in film/commercials etc? I'm just confused about what the actual problem is with someone else owning the rights.
I’m in no way an expert, but as I understand it owning the back catalogue - the copyright - on her songs means (in part) that he can license them for use by other parties. So, in movies or tv shows, for example. Can become a problem when they are used in ways the artist doesn’t approve of, like a KFC ad when the singer is a vegan, or for a political campaign when the singer supports the opposition. The royalties (again, as I understand it) go to the songwriter/s - in Taylor’s case, that’s her, but not always. Lots of singers record songs that are entirely written by other people. (Also, I would imagine it would cause quite a bit of conflict if you were a band member who *wasn’t* the songwriter, seeing a band mate earn more money than you!) So, I’d say she’ll still make money from the royalties, but won’t have control over how her music is used. (I’m sure someone with better knowledge of the music business will correct me if I’m wrong!)
This is really nothing new in the music industry. Remember when Michael Jackson bought the rights to The Beatles back catalogue?
Most popular artists trade away their rights to the master recordings in exchange for their first music deal.
Also as has been reported, at the time of the deal there was a NDA in place and Swift was offered to purchases the masters in the first instance and refused. I think she’s just pissed at who ended up buying them.
It sounds like both the guys involved might be kind of shitty people, but yeah, I don’t think Taylor is as hard done by as she would have us believe.