I’m so confused. My sister was telling me about how Taylor swift is re recording her old music because scooter Braun owns her old music and she wants to have sole ownership over it.

So how can she release similar or exact copies of songs she doesn’t own but other artist constantly have legal battles for having songs that have some similarities to it? Like Ice Ice Baby for example. Is she not violating copy right laws by doing this?

Edit: good news. I get it now!

    • FancyGUI
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Can I just take a moment to appreciate how nuts this whole thing is?! Great that she’s able to get back and record her musics once more!

  • Lunyan
    link
    fedilink
    361 year ago

    So when it comes to copyright music can actually be divided into two things: the song itself (the lyrics and melodies) and the performance of a song (the recording). I don’t know the entire situation but I’m guessing Taylor Swift owns the rights of the songs themselves, but not the rights to the recordings of the songs that were made, so she’s in her right to make her own recordings of the songs and then she would have full ownership of those. (Sidenote: I study composing for media and though copyright is part of my study, I’m not an expert)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    351 year ago

    In not a lawyer, but I think the recordings are what is owned by the label. As long as she wrote the song, she can re-record and release the new recordings.

    • @moon_crush
      link
      221 year ago

      Best TL;DR yet!

      A finer detail is that Swift was contractually prohibited from new recordings for two years after original contract ended — that time has now passed.

    • Slartibartfast
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      I’ve done a bit of this for TV/film stuff, and yeah there’s basically two copyrights on a piece of music - there’s the rights to the song in general, and the performance rights. That’s why you’ve got to be careful with public domain recordings and check the date of the performance - if you use a song that’s old enough to be public domain but a more recent recording of it that isn’t, you can be in trouble.

      I’m pretty sure that’s also why so many trailers have weird covers of famous songs on them (usually a woman doing a slow acoustic version of a rock song for some reason) - that way they can pay for the song rights, and get some aspiring singer to record it for next to nothing so they don’t have to also pay the performance rights for it.

  • @Sanctus
    link
    161 year ago

    Vanilla Ice is actually why “Soundalikes” are legal. Thats right, if it wasn’t for Ice Ice Baby we might not be able to freely make recordings that sound similar to other songs. Shit, the whole EDM industry might have never happened. Of course, people were doing this in hip-hop since the dawn of time. But Ice Ice Baby is what gave it legal precedent.

    • @AwkwardTurtle
      link
      21 year ago

      Care to provide any more backstory on this? That’s absolutely fascinating haha, never would’ve thought that from Ice Ice Baby

      • @Sanctus
        link
        11 year ago

        I am not looking this up. It came up during a study at a trade achool like 10 years ago. But IIRC he got sued for it sounding like Under Pressure and he had to prove he remade the sound and didn’t rip it from the recording directly. This is important becsuse you get to dip out on royalties.

  • blazera
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    God thats a depressing question. How can artist play music they created.

    • @MaverickWolfOP
      link
      51 year ago

      Lol yeah I hate it too. I just know how cut throat the business is. Love that she took back her own music though. Hope this is more of a trend with other artist out there. Fuck these greedy ass music labels

    • @MaverickWolfOP
      link
      21 year ago

      So she has to pay Scooter Bruan to re record her songs?

      • HobbitFoot
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Scooter Bruan only owns the copyright to the recordings; Taylor owns the copyright to her songs. So, Taylor just has to pay herself.

  • CarlsIII
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m curious as to what the fan response is. Artists recording newer versions of their songs is not often received well, if for no reason other than that fans tend to still prefer the originals.

    • gk99
      link
      101 year ago

      According to the article @moon_crush linked, she broke a popularity record previously held by The Beatles with them.

    • Dandroid
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Well, what’s nice about it is that the old versions aren’t going anywhere. If you prefer the old one, great! You can listen to the old one. And if these new ones get played on the radio more due to them being new, well she gets that money now rather than some guy who didn’t write the song just because he had money when she needed it.

      Personally, I prefer the old versions, especially for her older songs. I think she wasn’t quite yet so jaded, and she believed in the love fantasies she was singing about. I’m specifically think of the song Love Story. She doesn’t sound as excited in the rerecording of that one, and I can obviously only speculate that it is because she just doesn’t believe in that fantasy anymore due to all of her life experiences.

      I’m very curious to hear the rerecording Ours, because you can actually hear her smiling in some lines with the way she pronounces the words in the original. I’m skeptical that she can recapture the magic of what I consider one of her best performances from her early career.

      • HobbitFoot
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        From reading between the lines of what Taylor has said, it seems like the new ones get played because IHeartRadio would prefer to keep Taylor happy than some skeevy music producer. Why would a major radio or streaming service want to alienate one of the most popular artists to save some money on streaming rights?

        Also, a lot of Taylor’s fans are ride or die. I could see them actively choosing their streaming services or radio stations based on what version gets played by default.

        • @ABCDE
          link
          21 year ago

          She may feel more settled with Alonso?

    • @SomeoneElse
      link
      61 year ago

      Her fans are overwhelmingly supportive of her rereleases. Her former manager or whatever he was, made $250m profit from buying and then selling the master rights against her knowledge/wishes. It was a completely legal but shitty move and Taylor made the dispute very public. It wasn’t just her fans who supported her re-recording and rereleasing her albums though, a huge number of artists, music industry people, journalists and even politicians supported her.

    • dumples
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Everyone loves the new versions. The new 10 minute version of all too well is amazing. She plays it at her eras concert every night and everyone knows the lyrics by heart

      • CarlsIII
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Were those re-recordings? I thought they were just longer edits.

        • dumples
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Rerecording and cut verses. Since she owns the sheet and not the recording she had to remake the whole thing.

  • Rev
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    I guess it may depend on the rights of scooter. He may only have rights to the recordings themselves and not the lyrics.