On Monday night I saw Taylor Swift live at Wembley. I had hoped it would be one of the most important cultural moments of my life, and it did not disappoint. A country queen, pop icon, wholesome diva and genius lyricist, Taylor Swift is everything. She is also a billionaire, whose Eras Tour has been record-breaking on numerous fronts.
But I am a lawyer, and Taylor has had her fair share of legal troubles. Most notably, these included a long-running dispute over the ownership of her music with her former record label, Big Machine, and longtime nemesis, Scooter Braun (yes, they had Bad Blood). Scooter sold Big Machine to Shamrock Holdings for the not inconsiderable price of $420 million. As part of this deal, Shamrock now owns Taylor’s six original albums, including my favourites, Speak Now and 1989.
It is common knowledge that Taylor was not happy with not owning her own work, and that instead of letting her music go, she is in the process of re-recording these albums to ensure she has creative control. But this idea did not come from Taylor, or even some clever lawyer or agent advising her. It came from Kelly Clarkson (who gave us bangers like Since U Been Gone and Breakaway). Kelly found out about Taylor’s plight like the world did, and reached out to her on Twitter (now known as X), suggesting that she do just that.
Taylor was able to re-record because she writes her own songs and owns the publishing rights to them. There was a restriction in her contract with Big Machine, but this expired in November 2020, so all she had to do was update the cover art and add (Taylor’s Version) to differentiate it from the original release. The rest, as they say is history (Taylor’s Version).
Taylor is known for being generous, and apparently sends Kelly a gift every time she does a re-release. Which is lovely, but given the re-releases reportedly earn Taylor more than $8.5 million per month in streaming royalties alone, should Kelly be getting some of the credit?
Legally, my intellectual property colleagues will tell me, no. There is no property in an idea, without it having been developed into a concept which can be patented or registered. Kelly also just put the idea on Twitter, for all to see, indicating that there is no confidential quality to it to protect. Caution advised in future, though by all accounts Kelly seems very happy with the outcome.
And what about Olivia Rodrigo? Those pop-culture nerds will know that Olivia is a longtime Swiftie and was inspired by Taylor in a number of ways, including Cruel Summer influencing the bridge of Déjà vu, and 1 Step Forward, 3 Steps Back, interpolating Taylor’s New Year’s Day. Taylor and Jack Antonoff each have writing credits on that track, meaning they will get royalties.
But what about the concept of a song itself. I was thinking, as I often do, about Olivia’s “Get Him Back”, and Taylor’s “gettyouback”. Have a listen to both and see if you think there are enough similarities to warrant a credit. It may not be a novel idea to both want revenge on a man and also want him back, but using the double meaning seems quite close to home to me. Should Olivia get a credit?