Last Friday, Taylor Swift topped the Irish charts with “Fearless (Taylor`s version),” a re-recorded version of her 2008 album “Fearless.” The release is the first of a six-part project for Swift, who plans to re-record each of her first six studio albums after a dispute with her former record company over ownership of the original recordings of those albums. In this briefing, we look at the copyright issues raised by music recordings and the state of Irish law. Taylor Swift may become the most prominent artist to re-record her own records, but she won`t be the first. In late 2018, singer Joanna “JoJo” Levesque released new versions of her first two albums, “JoJo” (2004) and “The High Road” (2006), after a long legal battle with her former label Blackground Records, which owned the masters of both albums. The label had removed her from streaming services, and JoJo felt like she was being held hostage. The re-recording of her albums means that she will create new masters that she will fully own. This decision in no way guarantees that the original versions of their albums owned by Shamrock Holdings will cease to exist. It also doesn`t mean their relationship with Scooter, Braun and Shamrock Holdings is out of reach. Shamrock Holdings will continue to own, use, and earn revenue from these songs, among many other apps that do not require dubbing licenses. In the event that Swift refuses the use of her newly recorded music, individuals are willing to contact Shamrock Holdings to use their masters. However, what the newly recorded albums have accomplished and will continue to achieve, as Swift admits, is to “diminish the value of their former masters.” For one, Swift`s team should be able to exert some control over their original songs.

Remember Dylan`s example: a licensee should grant him a license for the song (for the song) and the Hendrix estate (for the actual recording). In this scenario, Swift could effectively control which version of the song is licensed, old or new. The difference between this topic and the trial behind “Shake It Off” goes beyond the timing of their submissions. Since OnePlus only registered the trademark last year, the marketing of “Speak Now: Taylor`s Version” is threatened by consumer confusion between products. This problem would be exacerbated if Swift were to release technology-related goods such as phone cases or stands. Since the brand is sought after by both parties, OnePlus was invited by the USPTO to submit an argument as to why they should be the ones claiming the term “Speak Now.” The company has until July 26 to respond to Swift`s team, after which Swift could file another appeal for trademark rights. With no word from OnePlus on the horizon, it looks like fans will have to wait for Swift to acquire the rights to “Speak Now” before receiving any crumbs of their version of the album. In March 2021, she released her new recording “Taylor`s Version” of her debut album Fearless. It contains 20 previously released tracks and seven previously unreleased tracks. By April 2021, the album reportedly sold 500,000 copies worldwide. Their album Red – Taylor`s Version was recently released on November 12 and was rated five stars by Rolling Stone. How does Swift benefit from the new version of “Red”? While there is always room for a long court battle in America, Taylor Swift has found a loophole that can only be described as “Look what you did to me.” She decided to re-record her old music.

Most contracts limit artists to do so, but according to the contract, this clause ends as soon as a certain amount of time has elapsed after the end of the contract. According to Swift and her legal counsel, she was able to begin her readmission in November 2020. The completed complaint, entitled Fearless (Taylor`s Version), was published on April 9, 2021. For this reason, in a perhaps unprecedented move by Ithaca Holdings and Shamrock Holdings, Swift was able to block the use of their songs for all projects requiring a “dubbing license.” This license is also the reason why Swift is legally allowed to re-record her masters without being sued by Shamrock Holdings for copyright infringement, even for her songs. In addition to this dubbing license, it proved advantageous to Swift that the clause preventing him from re-recording his songs in his 2005 contract with Big Machine Records would also have expired. Since her contract with Big Machine Records in 2015, Taylor Swift has developed a strong “intellectual property portfolio”. Not only did she exercise her rights to trademark titles and famous phrases (“This Sick Beat” and “Shake It Off”), a practice followed by the most famous artists; But has also protected other key elements that are an integral part of its brand and personality, such as, funnily, the names of its three famous cats.