Taylor Swift masters controversy

According to the U.S. copyright law, any music recording is subject to two distinct types of ownership: one that protects the specific sound recording, known as the master,[3] and the other protecting the musical work. The master is the first recording of the music, from which copies are made for sales and distribution. The owner of the master, therefore, owns all formats of the recording, such as digital versions for download or on streaming platforms, or physical versions available as CDs and vinyl records.[1] Anyone who wishes to use or reproduce a recording must obtain a copyright license authorized by the master-owner.[4] Before the emergence of digital music platforms, musicians relied on record labels to promote their music through means such as airplay or physical distributions to retailers. These labels would typically require artists to sign record deals which would give them the rights to their masters "in perpetuity".[5] On the other hand, owning the musical work is referred to as owning the publishing rights, which covers the lyrics of the musical work before it became a sound recording, its melodies, sheet music, composition, and instrumental arrangements. Songwriters generally own the publishing rights, and are referred to as "publishers" of the music.[3]

In 2005, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift participated in an industry showcase at Bluebird Café in Nashville, Tennessee, where she caught the attention of Scott Borchetta, a DreamWorks Records executive who had an idea of establishing his own independent record label.[6] Eventually, Swift signed a 13-year recording deal with Borchetta's new Nashville-based label, Big Machine Records, as their first recording artist. The contract gave Big Machine the ownership of the masters to Swift's first six albums in exchange for a cash advance.[1]

From 2006 to 2017, Swift released six studio albums with Big Machine: Taylor Swift (2006), Fearless (2008), Speak Now (2010), Red (2012), 1989 (2014), and Reputation (2017), all of which were commercially lucrative[7] and established Swift as one of the most successful artists ever.[8] Although Big Machine owned the masters, Swift retained the publishing rights to the six albums due to her role as the main songwriter of all of the songs she had released under Big Machine. This would allow her to re-record the songs in the future if she desired, as per the artist-label agreement that stipulates the artist cannot re-record a song for a fixed period of time; Swift would not have been able to re-record her musical work had she not been a songwriter.[9][3]

According to Billboard, Swift's management team and attorney Donald Passman proposed to Big Machine Label Group[note 4] in August 2018 that the masters be sold back to Swift as their contract was nearing expiry; the label group responded that it would happen only if she renewed her recording contract with the label, agreeing to create more albums under their label for the next 10 years. The two parties never arrived at an agreement.[11]

Ultimately, Swift's contract with Big Machine Records expired in November 2018, after which she left Big Machine and signed a new, global contract with Universal Music Group record label Republic Records. Variety reported that to that point Swift's catalog constituted around 80 percent of Big Machine's revenue.[12] Swift revealed a negotiation as part of her Republic Records contract which affected all artists signed to Universal: any sale of the company's shares in Spotify, which is the largest on-demand music streaming platform in the world, resulted in equity shares for all Universal artists on a non-recoupable basis.[7] The contract with Republic Records also allowed Swift to fully own the albums distributed by the label—both the masters and the publishing rights—starting with her seventh studio album, Lover (2019),[4] and as reported by Forbes, offered a royalty payment of 50 percent or more compared to the estimated 10 to 15 percent Swift "likely" had been receiving from Big Machine.[13]

Scooter Braun is an American media proprietor, talent manager and businessman known for managing the careers of music artists such as Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato and Kanye West, all of whom are signed to his media company, SB Projects.[4][15] In 2019, Braun's media holding company, Ithaca Holdings LLC., fully acquired Big Machine Label Group by purchasing it for an estimated $330 million—an amount that has been reported by sources but never been officially disclosed by the parties.[16][14] The acquisition encompassed all aspects of Big Machine's business, including its client roster, distribution deals, publishing rights and the music masters owned by the label group,[14] and was financed by American private equity companies such as the Carlyle Group, 23 Capital, and Soros Fund Management, all of whom own a stake in Ithaca.[note 5] Making a joint announcement, the companies claimed that the buyout "creates one of the most powerful label, management, streaming, publishing and media companies by combining complimentary services, artists, executives and expertise".[14] As part of the acquisition, the ownership of all of the masters and copyrights owned by Big Machine, including those of Swift's first six studio albums, were transferred to Braun.[4] Borchetta joined the Ithaca board of directors, acquiring a minority interest in Ithaca, and remained as the President and CEO of Big Machine.[14]

On June 30, 2019, Big Machine announced via social media that the label group had been acquired by Braun, following which Swift denounced the acquisition on Tumblr the same day. She stated that she had tried to buy her masters for years, but was not given a chance unless she signed another contract that would require her to create six more albums under the label in exchange of the masters of the first six, which she felt was "unacceptable". While she knew that Big Machine was for sale, she said she was unaware that Braun—whom she described as an "incessant, manipulative bully"—would be the buyer: "Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it".[1] She referred to Braun's involvement in the creation of Kanye West's music video for his 2016 single "Famous", which she described as "a revenge porn music video which strips [her] body naked".[4] Swift also claimed that Braun influenced Kim Kardashian to orchestrate an "illegally recorded" snippet of her phone call with West, and had "two of his clients" collude to bully her online, referring to a FaceTime screenshot of Justin Bieber, West and Braun, posted to Bieber's Instagram after Kardashian released the snippet.[18][19] She accused Borchetta of betraying her loyalty for selling the masters of her catalog to Braun despite being aware of his role in bullying Swift.[7] Passman argued that Borchetta never gave Swift "an opportunity to purchase her masters, or the label, outright with a check in the way he is now apparently doing for others".[20]

In response, Borchetta published a blog post titled "It's Time For Some Truth" on the Big Machine website.[7] On June 25, 2019, Big Machine shareholders and Braun's Ithaca Holdings held a phone call regarding the transaction. While Swift's father Scott was one of Big Machine's minority shareholders (4 percent),[1] he did not join the phone call due to a "very strict" non-disclosure agreement. A final call was held on June 28, when Scott Swift was represented by a lawyer from Swift's management company, 13 Management.[7]

Borchetta said he had texted Swift on June 29, thus challenging her claim that she had not been aware of Braun's transaction beforehand.[21] He denied that Swift had been hostile toward Braun, whom he described as a "good source of information".[22] He also posted a text message he alleged Swift had sent before signing to Republic Records; in the message, Swift said she would accept another seven-year contract with Big Machine on the condition that she took ownership of her audiovisual works. Borchetta agreed, but asked for a ten-year contract. The authenticity of the text message has not been verified as of April 2022.[7]

In October 2020, Braun sold the masters, videos and artworks to Shamrock Holdings,[note 8] an American private equity firm owned by the Disney estate,[note 3] for reportedly $300 million.[37] Swift stated that she attempted to negotiate with Braun, but that he offered her a chance to buy the masters back on the condition of signing an "ironclad" NDA which would only allow her to speak positively about Braun during the process; she refused to sign the NDA.[39][40] She also claimed that Braun mandated Shamrock not to notify the singer regarding the sale until after it was complete,[41] and that she further declined an offer by Shamrock to become an equity partner, on the grounds that Braun and Ithaca Holdings would continue to financially benefit from her work.[17] Swift upheld her original decision and began the re-recording process in November 2020.[42] In response, Shamrock released a statement: "We made this investment because we believe in the immense value and opportunity that comes with [Swift's] work. We fully respect and support her decision and, while we hoped to formally partner, we also knew [Swift's re-recording venture] was a possible outcome that we considered."[17]

Swift began releasing her re-recorded music in 2021. The re-recorded albums and songs are identified by the note "(Taylor's Version)" added to all of their titles, to distinguish them from the older recordings.[43]

In February 2021, Swift announced that she had finished re-recording her 2008 studio album Fearless and released "Love Story (Taylor's Version)", a re-recording of the album's lead single "Love Story", on February 12.[44] The re-recorded song was used in an advertisement produced by American actor Ryan Reynolds for the dating app Match.com.[13] She then released two other tracks of the album before the release of Fearless (Taylor's Version) on April 9. Fearless (Taylor's Version) received rave reviews from music critics, who also praised Swift's move to re-record her music, viewing it as an act of preservation of artists' rights.[45][46][47] The original Fearless was charting at number 157 on the US Billboard 200 chart before the impact of Fearless (Taylor's Version), after which the original recording dropped 19 percent in sales and fell off the chart completely, while the re-recording debuted at number one. Ben Sisario of The New York Times opined that Fearless (Taylor's Version) "accomplished what appeared to be one of Swift's goals: burying the original Fearless."[48][49]

A snippet of "Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)" was featured in the trailer for the 2021 animated film Spirit Untamed, released on March 12, 2021.[50] On September 15, following a viral TikTok trend involving "Wildest Dreams" (2015) that was gaining traction, the older recording of the song accumulated 735,000 plays on Spotify, marking the highest single-day streams ever for the song on the streaming platform. The next day, it reached a new peak at 750,000 plays. On September 17, Swift posted a snippet on her TikTok account, teasing the re-recorded song's bridge as part of the said trend, captioning it "if you guys want to use my version of wildest dreams for the slow zoom trend, here she is!". She also said "felt cute might drop the whole song later", hinting at the suspected release of the song's re-recording. "Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)" was subsequently released to streaming platforms an hour after the TikTok post. Swift stated via her social media accounts that she saw "Wildest Dreams" trending on TikTok and thought fans should have "[her] version" of the song.[51][52] In its first four hours of availability, "Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)" amassed 2,003,391 Spotify streams, easily breaking the record the older version of "Wildest Dreams" had set a few days prior.[53]

On November 12, 2021, Swift released Red (Taylor's Version), the re-recorded issue of her 2012 album Red, consisting of all 30 songs that were originally meant for the 2012 version.[54] The album broke several sales, streaming, and chart records,[55][56] and was met with widespread acclaim,[57] becoming her highest rated album by critics on Metacritic.[58] Its closing track, "All Too Well (10 Minute Version) (Taylor's Version) [From The Vault]", scored Swift the eighth Billboard Hot 100 number-one song of her career and garnered the Guinness World Record for the longest song of all time to top the chart.[59] The song's producer Jack Antonoff stated to Rolling Stone that a 10-minute-long song topping the Hot 100 teaches artists to "not listen" to what the industry has to say.[60]

On November 16, 2020, Variety journalist Shirley Halperin wrote that "some insiders speculate the value [of Swift's masters] could be as high as $450 million once certain earn-backs are factored in".[37] According to a report by Financial Times in November 2021, Braun believed that Swift was "just bluffing" about re-recording. The newspaper stated that, after purchasing Big Machine, Braun began searching for buyers for the masters of Swift's back catalog, and that he and co-investors told potential buyers that Swift would not actually re-record the albums, calling her announcement an "empty threat"; Braun also told the buyers that Swift's social media posts about the dispute would only generate more publicity, boosting streams and downloads of the albums. Financial Times further alleged that the deal between Braun and Shamrock included "a post-purchase earnout to Braun and Carlyle Group, if sales and streams hit specific targets".[61] On December 10, 2021, The New York Times published that the Carlyle Group contacted Braun and encouraged him to reach a ceasefire with Swift, such as a joint-venture partnership, to prevent her from re-recording, according to an undisclosed group of "four people close to the situation", three of whom said the firm was "unhappy to be dragged into the dispute in such a public way".[62]

Business Insider reporter Anna Silman released an investigation exclusive in March 2022. In the report, Silman said that one of Swift's many reasons to detest Braun's procurement of the masters is his poor handling of the relationship between Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez, the latter being one of Swift's closest friends and vice versa.[note 9] Silman further asserted that Braun controlled news stories of many publications and blogs. American rapper Lil Twist told Silman that Braun used tabloid websites such as TMZ and Page Six to plant negative stories about the rapper. Silman claimed that Braun refused to speak on the record, and that many others were afraid to go on record due to Braun's "rep for litigiousness". Additionally, she stated that Braun's lawyer, Marty Singer, threatened Business Insider several times over the investigation, claiming Silman is biased and has "deep ties to the Taylor Swift camp." Responding to Singer's claims of Swift being a friend of Braun in 2015, one of Swift's close friends enquired to Silman that if Braun is insinuating that they were friends, why did he not ask Swift if she "was okay with him buying her entire life's work".[64]

Swift's response and social media posts sparked support from many of her contemporaries. Musicians who supported her include Dionne Warwick,[67] Anne Murray,[68] Cher, Selena Gomez, Halsey, Iggy Azalea,[69] Sara Bareilles, Lily Allen, Tinashe, Ella Eyre, Hayley Kiyoko, Camila Cabello, Jordan Pruitt,[70] Brendon Urie,[71] Kelsea Ballerini, Jojo,[72] Azealia Banks,[73] The Regrettes, Echosmith,[74] Haim, Jack Antonoff, Alessia Cara, Allie X, Hrvy, Gretchen Peters, Iza, Katy Perry,[69] and Anita Baker,[75] who agreed with Swift that artists should rightfully own their music. American musician Sky Ferreira supported Swift and told about her own battle over her masters, "I signed contracts when I was 15 & I'm still paying the consequences for it. Every contract I have ever signed has always been set up to take advantage of me/my work in some way [...] The entertainment industry is filled with under qualified bullies & morons with way too much power for their own good."[76] When questioned about his stance, English singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran said "I have been speaking directly to [Swift], like I always do."[66] American singer Kelly Clarkson, in a tweet, urged Swift to re-record the albums.[77] Various other singers unfollowed Braun on their social media accounts.[78][79] Other than musicians, Cara Delevingne, Heidi Montag, Sara Sampaio,[69] Martha Hunt,[72] Gigi Hadid, Antoni Porowski, Bobby Berk, Ruby Rose, Jameela Jamil, Joseph Khan,[70] Mike Birbiglia,[74] and Mamrie Hart supported Swift via social media posts.[69]

A few musicians supported Braun, including Australian singer-songwriter Sia,[72] American singer Ty Dolla Sign, and Braun's clients Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato. Lovato and Sia said they believe Braun is a "good man" and that his actions were not personal.[4][80] American entertainer Todrick Hall, who was formerly a client of Braun, supported Swift and accused Braun of homophobia; Hall engaged in a back-and-forth argument with Lovato on Twitter. In an Instagram post, Bieber apologized to Swift for the FaceTime screenshot (with Braun and West) he posted in 2016 with a caption targeting her; however, Bieber defended Braun, saying Braun has supported Swift since she let Bieber be the opening act of her Fearless Tour and added "years have passed, we haven't crossed paths and gotten to communicate our differences, hurts or frustrations. So for you to take it to social media and get people to hate on Scooter isn't fair." Bieber's wife Hailey called him a "gentleman" under the post, which prompted Delevingne to criticize the Biebers for what she considered as insincere amity. Ariana Grande, also a client of Braun, posted an Instagram story congratulating Braun on purchasing Big Machine but deleted it after Swift posted her statement.[69] David Geffen, a music executive whom Braun has often described as a mentor, supported Braun but said "only time will tell who made the wise decision".[21]

US Democratic politicians Elizabeth Warren (pictured left) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (right) criticized the "predatory" purchases of creative businesses by private equity groups for harming the US economy.

On November 19, 2019, US senator Elizabeth Warren, who was one of the Democratic candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election, stated on Twitter that Swift is "one of many" whose work has been threatened by private equity firms, who keep "gobbling up more and more of our economy, costing jobs and crushing entire industries." Holding private equity firms accountable was a large part of Warren's presidential campaign.[81] US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also sided with Swift. She tweeted: "Private equity groups' predatory practices actively hurt millions of Americans. Their leveraged buyouts have destroyed the lives of retail workers across the country, scrapping 1+ million jobs. Now they're holding [Swift's] own music hostage. They need to be reigned in."[82]

American businessman Glenn Youngkin was the former co-CEO of the Carlyle Group, the major sponsor in Braun's acquisition of Big Machine and Swift's masters. Youngkin contested in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election as the Republican candidate for the office of the Governor of Virginia. On October 6, 2021, ahead of the election, then-incumbent governor and Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe launched a series of negative advertisements on Facebook, Instagram, and Google Search, tying Youngkin to Braun's purchase of Swift's masters. The ad included the slogan "#WeStandWithTaylor", a hashtag used by Swift's fans during the fallout of the dispute, and asked her supporters to vote for McAuliffe.[83][84] Youngkin's spokesperson, Christian Martinez, dismissed the advertisements as "pathetic" and stated "McAuliffe has reached the stage of desperation in his campaign where he's rolling out the most baseless attacks to see what sticks". Additionally, NPR highlighted a July 2021 report by Associated Press that claimed McAuliffe himself had invested a minimum of $690,000 in Carlyle between 2007 and 2016. McAuliffe's spokesperson, Renzo Olivari, confirmed that McAuliffe was a "passive" Carlyle investor by 2019, at the time of the sale of the masters, and as of November 2021, owns less than $5,000 in Carlyle stock.[83]

Jared Polis, the 43rd Governor of Colorado, mentioned Swift's re-recording venture as a highlight of 2021 in his annual gubernatorial address to the state on January 14, 2022, and sang the chorus of "22 (Taylor's Version)" in reference to the new year of 2022.[85][86]

Publications highlighted her public opposition to the acquisition of her masters as trailblazing: while the issue of master ownership and the conflicts between record labels and artists such as Prince, the Beatles, Janet Jackson, and Def Leppard have been prevalent, Swift was one of the few to make it public.[5][21][87][88]

Rolling Stone critics described the masters dispute as one of the 50 "most important moments" of the music industry in the 2010s: "While Braun and Borchetta vehemently contest [Swift's claims], the actual facts of the situation may not matter – as Swift is using every tool she's got, including pleading directly to a zealous fanbase for help, to establish herself as a self-made artist who calls her own shots."[89] Dominic Rushe of The Guardian said Swift's masters dispute hinted at a change in the digital music era, where artists are more informed of their ownership and would not rely on record labels for marketing as heavily as in the past.[88] Recognizing the visibility she brings to "one of the music industry's longest standing issues", Pitchfork journalist Sam Sodomsky said Swift "is also so huge—not just an artist but a brand—that she can enact change by wielding the leverage of the reliability of her success", and that when she makes a statement, it is "financially lucrative for the industry to listen".[87] The Evening Standard's Katie Rosseinsky wrote, "it is not just another celebrity feud, this could have wide-reaching repercussions for the music industry."[8]

The New York Times, The A.V. Club and MarketWatch felt Swift's criticisms were targeting private equity firms, highlighting her mention of the Carlyle Group in her social media posts.[90] The New York Times said, "at a time of public outrage over corporate greed and a heightened awareness of gender-based power dynamics, the 29-year-old Ms. Swift was able to turn a commercial dispute into a cause célèbre."[62] Meera Jagannathan of MarketWatch described the Carlyle Group as a "powerful and politically connected" firm based in Washington, D.C., whose investments constitute a global portfolio of 272 companies, including Supreme, Dunkin' Brands, and many aerospace and defense companies.[91]

Chris Willman of Variety wrote that Swift's highly publicized move to re-record her back catalog would inspire other artists to "further deputize or weaponize fans in their own business disputes", unlike the comparatively less successful attempts by contemporary artists to own their music.[92] The Atlantic writer Spencer Kornhaber wrote that the re-recordings have been "a dazzling victory lap" that seems to be inspiring other artists, disproving industry observers who had doubted Swift's move to re-record.[93] Elle's Fawzia Khan and The New Yorker's Carrie Battan hailed the "(Taylor's Version)" tag attached to the re-recorded music as genius re-branding of Swift's back catalog.[43][94] Charlotte Richards, writing for Money Marketing, said the situation helps understand "dangerous investing", such as Braun's.[95] The New Zealand Herald reporter Lydia Burgham dubbed Swift's move to re-record an "ultimate middle finger to the bureaucracy of the music industry", while revealing how "even someone of Swift's star power cannot hold on to the rights to her recorded work."[96] With the success of Red (Taylor's Version), Hannah Towey of Business Insider said "the Taylor's Version era is already sending shockwaves throughout the industry."[97]

Unlike most artists when faced with this kind of injustice, Swift actually had the ability to stand up for herself, and in doing so, invoke meaningful dialogue and inspire change within the notoriously slow-moving music industry [...] Re-recording a back catalogue of six full albums and respective secret bonus tracks, then developing a hugely successful campaign to drive loyal fans towards the new versions of their beloved albums—and away from the original master recordings, prompting a dip in streams that will be mimicked in the rights holders' income statement—is something only very, very few artists can do. Taylor Swift is, indeed, amongst that handful.

— Eilish Gilligan, Taylor Swift's Re-Recordings Expose The Music Industry's Chokehold On Intellectual Property, Refinery29[98]

As per The Wall Street Journal journalist Neil Shah, in case of usage of her back catalog in mass media, such as for commercials and movies, Swift can shut out Shamrock and Braun by directly lending the concerned song to the third party, authorizing the copyright license herself.[9] Kate Dwyer of Marie Claire said the re-recorded albums free Swift from the sexist tabloid scrutiny of her private life that overshadowed her past works, by re-introducing listeners and critics to the same songs but without "as much gender bias", and that the audiences who "didn't believe she was a feminist before (for whatever, sexist reason) can't deny the feminist undertones of becoming the industry spokesperson for artists' rights."[99]

Various lawyers, authors, and law firms have published their analyses and comments on the controversy. The majority stated the dispute lacks legal grounds and that a lawsuit is not possible, but opined that Swift's moves will bring about systemic changes in the music industry and artist-label relationships.[20][100][101] The controversy has also been a topic of academic study. On October 4, 2021, Rafael Landívar University in Guatemala hosted a conference on the topic "International Copyright Protection: Analyzing Taylor Swift's Case".[102] In January 2022, a spring semester course focusing on Swift's career and its cultural impact was launched at New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, with "copyright and ownership" as one of the topics covered by the syllabus.[103]

Susan H. Hilderley, music attorney at University of California's Los Angeles School of Law, told The Washington Post that Swift not owning her masters is "nothing out of the ordinary". Hilderley noted Swift was an unknown artist when she signed her record deal and that signing off the masters to the record label is the "kind of terms" usually followed in artist-label agreements.[100] In a similar response, Erin Jacobson, a music attorney specializing in artist-label negotiations, said on CBC News that "the structure of a label owning the master has been in place for such a long time that a lot of people are just used to that". Jacobson affirmed that Swift has no legal recourse on the contract but can effect change in the music industry and benefit all artists.[101]

The Hollywood Reporter consulted music lawyers Howard King and Derek Crownover regarding the controversy; King said Swift would not sue Braun or the label because of the "personal" nature of the dispute—her predicament being not the sale itself but that Braun is the buyer—having no legal recourse. In agreement, Crownover said: "from the satellite view, I don't see any legal ramifications that could come of this, unless there were restrictions on the sale of the masters to third parties."[20] James Jeffries-Chung of Norton Rose Fulbright asserted Shamrock cannot prevent Swift from re-recording her music by any legal measure since she is the publisher of her songs and that all they can hope is "listeners may be less interested in hearing modern takes of songs they enjoyed a decade ago and stick with the originals."[104]

Any time Taylor brings attention to an issue, it gets magnified [...] She has a very loud megaphone and she's not afraid to use it. She's had great success in effectuating change.

— James Sammataro, music attorney, The Hollywood Reporter[20]

Meredith Rose, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, wrote in her American Bar Association post that "if Swift—who is, without exaggeration, one of the biggest powerhouse pop stars of an entire generation—can't get her own masters back, who could? Turns out, almost nobody."[97] According to Tonya Butler, professor and chair of the Music Business Management Department at Berklee College of Music, also a former entertainment attorney and record company executive, "regardless of the reasons why [Swift is] re-recording, whether it's spite or good business, the fact she is bringing to attention the re-recording restriction agreement alone makes the whole controversy valuable."[3] McBrayer's Peter J. Rosene stated that each "Taylor's Version" album lowers the value of the master of its respective original held by Shamrock and predicted that the sales of the re-recordings "might, in fact, outperform the original albums."[105]

American author Steve Stoute said "you build it; we make you think that you own it; you act like you own it; but at the end of the day, we own it." He opined that Swift's dilemma is a painful illustration of the fundamental issue with the music business that has been following a "sharecropping" model.[21] Sonal Lalwani of National Law University felt that John Locke's labor theory of property applies to Swift,[note 10] who sells her songs and albums using her name as a brand—"a truly scarce product that nobody can reproduce." According to professor R. Polk Wagner of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Swift associating her lyrics with a range of goods and services through trademark applications represents her understanding that "she is bigger than the music". He added "it's more of a branding right, thinking of Taylor Swift as a conglomerate."[106] Doug McMahon of Irish firm McCann Fitzgerald LLP opined that Swift's situation demonstrates how "the bundle of related copyrights that exist in a piece of music can give rise to complex disputes" and upheld her move to re-record as a "relatively novel solution", in regards to the copyright legislations in Ireland.[107]