Whose Song Is It Anyway? The Ongoing Battle for Music Ownership

The question of who should own master recordings is a constant issue in the music industry. The debate goes beyond business and legal principles. It touches on values like fairness, ownership, and recognizing contributions. Both sides have valid points, and understanding them is key to examining music contracts, artist advocacy, and the financial reality of building a music career.

The Label's Perspective: The Return on Investment

Historically, record labels have operated under the assumption that ownership of master recordings belongs to the one who finances the track. The model is rooted in the traditional system where companies invest significant amounts of money in their artists. This funding covers recording, marketing, tour support, and career development.

In the case of Taylor Swift, Big Machine Label Group took a huge financial risk by signing her at age 14, long before she became a superstar. They financed her creative vision, music videos, production costs, and promotions, all crucial for her rise to fame. From a business standpoint, labels feel justified in seeking a profit from their investment. Owning the masters allows them to earn revenue long term and recoup the upfront costs. Without this model, many labels would be less willing to invest in emerging talent, which could shrink the pipeline of new artists. People are unlikely to invest if they don't expect a return. The situation is comparable to a real estate investment: if someone finances half the purchase of a house, they naturally expect a share of the profits the property generates. Labels view masters as assets gained through their capital and expertise.

The Artist’s Perspective: The Creative Contribution

On the other hand, artists are increasingly advocating for control over their own catalogs. Their frustration comes from feeling powerless and excluded from the work they created. Even if a label provides the platform and funding, the songs, lyrics, and performances that define a record are the product of the artist's unique talent. Without the artist, there would be no music to monetize.

High profile artists like Taylor Swift have brought this issue to the forefront by publicly speaking out against long term label control of masters. Her dispute with her former label over the rights to her early catalog sparked a broader discussion about artists reclaiming their work. Many artists now believe that while labels should be compensated, it shouldn't be at the cost of an artist's long term control. The idea that an artist could spend years creating music only to have no say in how it's used or marketed is hard to reconcile with the concept of artistic integrity. Ownership of masters empowers artists to leverage their work for future projects, collaborations, or licensing opportunities, which is critical in a world where streaming revenue is king.

The Path Forward: Finding a Fair Solution

This is not a simple debate. Reducing it to a simple narrative of good versus evil underestimates the complexity. It's important to understand the investment labels make while also recognizing the artists' emotional and creative value. The solution may lie in new contract models. Rather than full ownership, a more equitable agreement could involve licenses that expire, revenue sharing structures, or options for artists to buy back their masters after a certain period.

The real question isn't whether labels should get paid, but how much and for how long. She also highlights the industry’s “black box” syndrome, where there's a lack of visibility into how careers are built. The public often sees a superstar's rise as "instant success" without realizing the long road of rejection, investment, and support behind it. Educating everyone involved on how the industry works could reduce friction and lead to more informed negotiations.

In conclusion, this debate is about aligning values and expectations. Labels take monetary risks, and artists bring unique talent. As the industry evolves with more independent distribution options, the traditional model is being challenged. Both sides need to be heard so that more transparent and fair negotiations can help artists and labels move forward together.

---

References

Passman, Donald S. All You Need to Know About the Music Business. 10th ed., Simon & Schuster, 2019.

Sodomsky, Sam. "Taylor Swift’s Music Ownership Controversy With Scooter Braun: What It Means and Why It Matters." Pitchfork, 1 July 2019, https://pitchfork.com/news/taylor-swifts-music-ownership-controversy-with-scooter-braun-what-itmeans-and-why-it-matters/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025.

"Should Record Labels Own the Masters?" Other Record Labels, https://www.otherrecordlabels.com/should-a-record-label-own-the-masters. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025.