Major labels are reportedly “overhauling contracts” for newly signed artists, with some now restricting artists from re-recording their music no earlier than 10 years or more after leaving the label.
I’m really surprised their contracts didn’t already include giving the label full rights to the song. Like I would never have expected an artist to just be able to leave their label and re-record their songs like Swift has done.
Music copyright is split between composition and performance right? I thought labels would want to own both, not just the performance.
EDIT: I believe that Taylor already owned her catalog but she didn’t own her masters (the actual recordings). Therefore she was able to re-record her albums because she owns her songs, just not the original recordings.
I’m really surprised their contracts didn’t already include giving the label full rights to the song. Like I would never have expected an artist to just be able to leave their label and re-record their songs like Swift has done.
Music copyright is split between composition and performance right? I thought labels would want to own both, not just the performance.
There’s also publishing.
This video is basically an ad for a new venture but it explains rights and payment well.
https://youtu.be/-TM9foEQJ-Q?si=JekKRS0pyFs9SC7B
EDIT: I believe that Taylor already owned her catalog but she didn’t own her masters (the actual recordings). Therefore she was able to re-record her albums because she owns her songs, just not the original recordings.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: