Authored By: Angel Onwubuya
Nottingham Trent University
Abstract
This article examines Taylor Swift’s strategic use of copyright and trademark law to reclaim and protect her creative works and commercial identity. Through a detailed exploration of her re-recording of master recordings (“Taylor’s Version”), registration of lyrical and compositional copyrights, and aggressive trademarking of her name, ‘Taylor Swift’, lyrics, and merchandise, this article highlights how Swift’s approach exemplifies modern artist empowerment within the entertainment industry. Her actions demonstrate how leveraging intellectual property frameworks can redefine ownership, branding, and creative control in the digital age- setting a transformative precedent for the future generation of musicians and creators.
Introduction
Taylor Swift stands as one of the most influential figures in contemporary music- not only for her artistry and cultural impact but also for her astute management of intellectual property. Beyond her lyrical storytelling and genre reinventions, Swift has become emblematic of a new generation of artists who actively assert control over their creative and commercial assets. Her approach to copyrighting and trademarking her songs, albums, lyrics, and even distinctive phrases demonstrates a deep understanding of how intellectual property can be leveraged to preserve both artistic integrity and brand identity.
In today’s rapidly evolving music industry- shaped by digital distribution, streaming platforms, and shifting contractual norms- ownership of creative works has become a central concern. Artists are increasingly aware that IP protection is not merely a legal safeguard but a form of economic and creative empowerment. Taylor Swift’s legal and business strategies vividly illustrate this shift.
Understanding the Legal Framework- The Swift Rise of Digital Streaming and Distribution and the need for Protection of these creative and digital works
The rise of streaming, digital distribution, and corporate recording contracts has made ownership of creative works more contested than ever. Under U.S. law, copyright- governed by the Copyright Act of 1976- vests initially in the “author” of a work once it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression (17 U.S.C. § 102). However, most recording artists sign contracts that transfer or license these rights to record labels. As such, despite being the creative source of their work, many musicians find themselves without control over how their recordings are used or monetized. Against this backdrop, Taylor Swift’s strategic use of copyright and trademark protections reflects a deliberate and highly public challenge to the traditional balance of power between artists and the music industry.
Taylor Swift’s Copyright Dispute & the Artiste’s Subsequent Strategy
The core of Swift’s legal strategy revolves around her response to the sale of her master recordings by Big Machine Label Group to Ithaca Holdings in 2019. Swift, who had signed with Big Machine as a teenager, did not own the master recordings of her first six studio albums. When the label and its founder, Scott Borchetta, sold her catalogue to talent manager Scooter Braun, Swift objected publicly, framing the transaction as a betrayal and as emblematic of systemic inequities faced by artists. Because copyright in a sound recording is distinct from copyright in the underlying musical composition (17 U.S.C. § 106), Swift still owned her songwriting rights but not the recordings themselves. To regain economic and artistic control, she announced plans to re-record those albums—effectively creating new master recordings in which she would own the copyright.
This manoeuvre was both legally innovative and commercially effective. Under U.S. law, a re-recorded version of a previously released work can qualify as a new copyrighted recording, provided it is not merely a duplication of the original. By re-recording her albums- each designated “Taylor’s Version”- Swift created new sound recordings in which she is the copyright owner, thereby reclaiming control over licensing, streaming, and synchronization uses. The re-recordings also undercut the market value of the original masters by redirecting consumer demand to versions she controls. As scholars have noted, this case demonstrates how the legal distinction between composition and recording can empower artists to reclaim ownership even after unfavourable contractual arrangements (see Rosenblatt, 2021, Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts).
Beyond re-recordings, Swift has aggressively managed her portfolio of copyrights and related IP. She registers her lyrics and compositions with the U.S. Copyright Office, ensuring protection for both the textual and musical elements of her songs. This has allowed her to control derivative uses- such as adaptations, sampling, and lyric merchandise- and to enforce rights against unauthorized reproductions. For example, in several instances, her legal team has issued takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent unlicensed reproductions of her work online. Copyright law thus functions not only as a mechanism of ownership but also as an instrument for narrative and brand control.
Trademarking the Taylor Swift Brand
Parallel to her copyright activity, Swift has built one of the most expansive trademark portfolios among contemporary musicians. Under the Lanham Act, a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs that identify and distinguish goods or services. For Swift, this means safeguarding not only her name and album titles but also lyrics and slogans that have entered popular culture. Public records from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) show filings for marks such as “Swifties,” “1989,” “This Sick Beat,” “Cause We Never Go Out of Style,” and “Fearless (Taylor’s Version).” Also, ‘Blank Space’, ‘Players gonna play’, ‘Shake it off’, ‘And I’ll write your name’, ‘A girl named girl’ (a novel Taylor penned when she was young), ‘T.S. 1989’, ‘The 1989 World Tour’ and ‘Party like it’s 1989’. Even the names of her cats – “Meredith & Olivia Swift”, “Meredith, Olivia & Benjamin Swift” have been successfully trademarked. These trademarks cover categories including clothing, jewellery, posters, and entertainment services.
The rationale is clear: by trademarking her most recognizable phrases, Swift ensures she can control their use on merchandise and prevent dilution or unauthorized commercial exploitation. Trademark law grants exclusive rights to use a mark in commerce and to prevent others from using confusingly similar marks (15 U.S.C. § 1114). This is particularly vital for celebrities whose public personas function as brands. Swift’s legal strategy reflects an understanding that her lyrics and album titles are not only artistic expressions but also economic assets capable of generating substantial secondary market revenue.
Swift’s trademark enforcement has occasionally sparked controversy. In 2015, for example, her company, TAS Rights Management LLC, filed multiple trademark applications covering common phrases from her album 1989. Critics accused her of overreaching, arguing that phrases such as “Nice to Meet You, Where You Been?” were too generic to warrant trademark protection. Nonetheless, the USPTO accepted several of these registrations, recognizing that their distinct association with Swift’s brand met the threshold of acquired distinctiveness. This episode underscores a recurring tension in trademark law between protecting creativity and preventing monopolization of common language.
Broader Implications and Legal Significance
Legally and economically, Swift’s strategy demonstrates how intellectual property can serve as both a mechanism of creative control and a driver of market success. By re-recording her albums and registering ownership of the new masters, she leveraged copyright law to regain control over licensing and distribution while simultaneously increasing the economic value of her personal catalogue. Her trademark filings, meanwhile, consolidated her brand identity across merchandise and entertainment ventures, transforming reputation into a durable commercial asset. The commercial triumph of Fearless (Taylor’s Version) and subsequent re-recordings- outperforming the original versions- underscores how aligning legal ownership with ethical branding can yield both cultural legitimacy and financial reward. In essence, Swift’s integration of copyright and trademark law exemplifies a hybrid model of legal entrepreneurship, where ownership of one’s narrative translates directly into sustainable economic empowerment.
Conclusion
In doing so, Swift has set a precedent that extends far beyond music. Her case challenges outdated assumptions about the passivity of artists within corporate systems and demonstrates how knowledge of legal frameworks can translate into tangible control. As new technologies continue to disrupt the creation and consumption of art- from AI-generated music to NFTs-the principles embodied in Swift’s strategy will remain vital. Ownership, authorship, and authenticity are no longer abstract legal categories; they are the instruments through which artists like Taylor Swift compose their lasting legacy.
Moving Forward- Lesson for other Popstars
By recognizing the power of trademark law, Taylor Swift demonstrates a clear understanding of how vital it is to safeguard her brand identity and public image. Her approach serves as a model for other musicians, who can benefit from securing trademarks for distinctive lyrics, album titles, or phrases associated with their work. Although Swift’s global success may render trademarks less critical to her financial standing, emerging and mid-level artists especially need to understand their intellectual property rights to preserve the integrity of their brand and protect the commercial value of their merchandise.
Bibliography
Codes, Statutes and Regulations
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810 (2023).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1332 (2023).
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141n (2023).
Cases
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017).
Secondary Sources
Emily Baker, Taylor Swift’s Trademark Empire: Lessons in Brand Management for Modern Musicians, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 451 (2021).
Jennifer Jenkins, Copyright, Re-Recording, and the Taylor Swift Effect, 44 Colum. J.L. & Arts 289 (2021).
Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1687 (2006).
Kate Darling, Who Owns the Music? Artistic Control and Copyright in the Streaming Era, 12 Harv. J. Sports & Ent. L. 75 (2022).
Mary LaFrance, Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Problem, 2 Nev. L.J. 5 (2001).
Nancy Kim, Moral Rights and Music Ownership: The Reclamation of Creative Identity, 38 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 215 (2018).
Peter DiCola, Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives, 55 Ariz. L. Rev. 301 (2013).
Rosenblatt, Bill, Taylor Swift’s Re-Recordings and the Future of Master Rights, Colum. J.L. & Arts Online (2021), available at https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts
Sarah Jeong, Taylor Swift’s Legal Genius: Reclaiming Ownership in the Digital Age, The Verge (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.theverge.com/
Government and Administrative Sources
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/.
U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 56: Copyright Registration of Sound Recordings (2023), https://copyright.gov/circs/.
News and Commentary
Joe Coscarelli, Taylor Swift Reclaims Her Masters, One Album at a Time, N.Y. Times, Nov. 12, 2021.
Rolling Stone Staff, Inside Taylor Swift’s “Taylor’s Version” Project, Rolling Stone, Apr. 10, 2023.
Variety Staff, How Taylor Swift’s Trademark Strategy Reinvented Music Branding, Variety, Aug. 24, 2022.
