Question of rights at stake: Standoff between Taylor Swift and her former record company (II)

After several years of fighting against his record company Warner Bros, of which he called himself the “slave”, he was finally freed from his contract in 1996.

“If you don't control your masters, they control you,” he told Rolling Stone magazine in 1996.

In many contracts, the producer is designated as the owner of the masters, in return for taking financial risk.

As in the case of Taylor Swift, who made her first commitment at 15 when she was unknown, the balance of power at the time of signing the contract is often favorable to the record company.

Some artists have nevertheless obtained control of their recordings, notably Rihanna, U2 or Jay-Z, often by buying them back at a high price once they have become famous.

Some young artists have also achieved this more recently, including rapper XXXTentacion, murdered in 2018.

“Signing and keeping the biggest artists in the world, or even a newcomer that the record companies are snapping up, has become much more expensive,” says Larry Miller, director of the music economics program at the New York University (NYU).

“Some houses are sometimes ready to do things contrary to the way their economic model works,” according to him.

The record companies nonetheless retain overall control, thanks to their ability to “make” a star.

If producing music is now accessible to everyone, recognizes Larry Miller, “there is a big difference between being a talent to be discovered and having an army of people working to make you the greatest artist.”