Swift’s success at re-recording not so simple for others - Dr Joshua Yuvaraj

Taylor Swift has had an interesting last few weeks; not winning any Grammys and being on the losing side as Travis Kelce’s Kansas City Chiefs were humbled in the Super Bowl.

But as a recording artist she’s been laughing all the way to the bank.

Swift has been wildly successful in recent years by re-recording all her music. Executive Scooter Braun bought the record company which owned all her recordings, and no deal could be reached for Swift to repurchase the rights to those recordings. Incensed, Swift decided to re-record all her albums as a way of reasserting ownership over her music. Those new recordings have generated millions in royalties, with no end in sight as fans rally around their idol.

Swift’s success has shone a spotlight on how the record industry often treats musicians. It also raises a question: can other musicians, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, re-record their songs to generate new revenue, make their music more available, build new fanbases and stick it to inflexible record companies?

The short answer is yes, but there are many things to think about before going down that path.

First, copyright law protects the song itself and the recording of the song separately. The crucial difference is that you won’t typically infringe copyright in a recording if you make another recording that sounds similar, as long as it’s not an exact copy. That’s why Swift could make re-recordings that sound, in some cases, very similar to her originals.It’s likely, though, that you will infringe copyright in a song if you make something that sounds quite similar without authorisation. Musicians need to ensure they either own the rights to their songs or, if they’ve licensed those rights to a music publishing company like Kiwi icon Lorde did in 2013 for US$2.5m, that they have appropriate permissions to reproduce those songs.

Second, re-recordings will likely compete against the originals for market share. The dedication of Swift’s fanbase was likely one reason for the success of her re-recordings, but not all fans might be the same. With Spotify, Apple Music and other streaming services making it easy to access content from years gone by, an artist will need to make a compelling case to fans to consume the new recordings rather than the old.

Third, record companies are beginning to fight back. There have been reports of the three major record companies (Universal, Warner, and Sony) increasing their “non-competes” to 30 years – meaning musicians signed to those companies can’t re-record for that long a time. It’s not clear how the courts will respond to these increased non-competes. If they don’t strike them down or call them unfair, musicians may well find re-recordings not worth the effort or cost.

In short, whether re-recordings are viable for Kiwi musicians depends on the facts. Swift may have generated millions in new revenue, increased her popularity and reasserted her ownership over songs she wrote. But most other musicians still need to consider the impact of copyright law, the market, and the behaviour of their record companies before going down that route.

—
Article details: This article was first published in The Post on 27 February 2025 and is reproduced with permission.

The full academic article was published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice in 2024, and is freely available here.