Can artists really take back their music like Swift?

Taylor Swift and her millions of fans may be disappointed by her 2025 Grammys ‘snub’, but the billionaire artist still has much to celebrate, most notably, her successful fight to take ownership of her music in an industry long dominated by influential record labels.

University of Auckland copyright expert Dr Joshua Yuvaraj says Swift significantly impacted the industry when she re-recorded several of her albums after the rights to her music were sold from under her.

In his paper, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice and presented at the University of Melbourne’s Taylor Swift-themed academic conference, Swiftposium, the senior law lecturer examines how re-recording can help artists gain control of their music. He compares this strategy with the primary mechanism available under US copyright law: statutory reversion.

His article looks at how reversion applies to sound recordings, focusing on the US copyright ‘termination’ provision, which lets creators reclaim copyright, typically after around 35 years. The size of the US recording market makes this scheme the most high-profile reversion system in the world. However, Yuvaraj argues that re-recording may offer a more accessible alternative to these legal processes.

“In theory, copyright reversion gives artists a second chance at controlling their recordings. But in practice, the US system has significant obstacles: a long waiting period, complex legal requirements, and uncertainty over whether sound recordings are even covered.”

Many artists simply don’t have the time or resources to navigate this legal quagmire, says Yuvaraj.

“There are considerable power imbalances between artists and record companies,” he says. “For example, copyright is often assigned before the true value of a song is even known.”

Re-recording, as Swift did, allows artists to sidestep these legal barriers. While the copyright in an original sound recording remains with the label, a newly recorded version, if produced independently, is treated as a separate work under copyright law – as long as the artist retained control, or had a license to reproduce the song itself, which has a separate musical copyright to the recording.

“Taylor Swift’s success put re-recording in the spotlight as a way for artists to regain control over their music without waiting decades for copyright reversion laws to take effect,” says Yuvaraj.

He says that unlike statutory reversion, re-recording requires much shorter waiting periods, allowing musicians to capitalise on market demand more quickly. There’s also less procedural complexity, and as long as artists comply with contractual waiting periods, they are unlikely to face legal action.

Despite Swift's success – her re-recorded albums were critically praised and financially lucrative - Yuvaraj notes that re-recording isn’t a viable solution for everyone.

“It requires a strong fan base willing to embrace the new versions, and not all musicians have that level of market power,” he says.

And while Swift’s re-recording battle highlighted power imbalances in artist contracts, it also saw record labels tighten their grip. There are reports of extended re-recording restrictions in contracts from the standard three to seven years to 20 or 30 years, making re-recording a less accessible option for future artists.

Despite this roadblock, Yuvaraj says Swift’s case sparked important conversations about artist rights, and some musicians are now negotiating deals that allow them to retain ownership of their master recordings from the outset, eliminating the need for re-recording altogether.

“Swift’s case brought re-recording into the public eye, but it doesn’t replace the need for fairer contracts and stronger copyright protections.”