Posts
The Taylor Swift Strategy
What Happens When Artists Reclaim Their Masters
Who Owns The Game? – Part 4 | February 11, 2026
Part 0: Who Owns The Catch? — The overview
Part 1: You're Not A Creator — Copyright law and athletic performances
Part 2: The Immaculate Theft — 50 years, $0 to Franco Harris
Part 3: The Residuals Gap — Why actors get paid forever
Part 4: The Taylor Swift Strategy ← YOU ARE HERE
Part 5: The Hidden Revenue — What the NFL won't disclose
Part 6: The Video Game Loophole — Why Madden pays but highlights don't
Part 7: The International Comparison — How other countries handle sports IP
Part 8: The Case Nobody Will File — The lawsuit that could change everything
How Musicians Own Their Work
Before we get to why athletes can't reclaim their performances, we need to understand how musicians can.
In the music industry, there are two separate copyrights for every song:
1. The Musical Composition (the "song")
This is the melody, lyrics, chord progression—the underlying creative work. The copyright is owned by the songwriter (or their publisher, if the songwriter assigned/licensed the rights).
2. The Sound Recording (the "master")
This is the specific recorded performance of the song—the actual audio file you hear on Spotify. The copyright is owned by whoever paid for the recording session—typically the record label (if the artist signed a traditional deal) or the artist themselves (if they self-financed the recording).
When Taylor Swift signed with Big Machine Records in 2005, she agreed to a standard record deal:
- She owned the compositions (she wrote the songs, so she owned the publishing rights).
- Big Machine owned the masters (the label paid for the recording sessions, so they owned the sound recordings under the "work made for hire" doctrine).
This meant:
- Swift earned songwriter royalties every time her songs were played, performed, or covered by other artists.
- Big Machine earned master recording royalties every time the original recordings were streamed, downloaded, or licensed.
When Braun bought Big Machine, he bought the masters—the right to earn money from the original recordings. But he didn't buy the compositions. Swift still owned those.
So when Swift re-recorded her albums, here's what happened:
- The compositions didn't change. She owns them. Same melodies, same lyrics.
- The masters are new. She recorded brand-new performances of the same songs. She paid for the sessions herself. So she owns the new masters.
Now there are two versions of every song:
- Original version (2006-2017): Master owned by Braun/investment fund. Swift earns songwriter royalties, Braun earns master royalties.
- Taylor's Version (2021-present): Master owned by Swift. She earns both songwriter royalties and master royalties.
Fans prefer Taylor's Version. Streaming platforms promote it. Swift licenses only the new versions for commercials, movies, and TV shows. The old masters still exist, but their value has plummeted because Swift redirected the revenue stream to her own recordings.
This is reclamation. She didn't challenge copyright law. She didn't sue. She just used her leverage—her fame, her songwriting ownership, her financial resources—to re-create the value and take control of it.
THE SETUP (2005-2019):
• Swift signs with Big Machine Records (standard deal)
• She owns compositions (songwriter), Big Machine owns masters (label paid for recording)
• Releases 6 albums: Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, Reputation
• Becomes global superstar, albums worth hundreds of millions
THE SALE (2019):
• Scooter Braun buys Big Machine for $300M, including Swift's masters
• Swift tried to buy masters herself; Big Machine refused unless she signed future albums too
• She walks away, loses ownership of original recordings
THE RECLAMATION (2021-PRESENT):
• Swift re-records all 6 albums note-for-note
• Releases as "Taylor's Version" — new masters, same compositions
• She pays for recording sessions → owns new masters
• She still owns compositions → earns both songwriter + master royalties on new versions
THE RESULT:
• Fans stream Taylor's Version instead of originals
• New versions chart higher, earn more, dominate playlists
• Swift licenses only new versions for commercials, films, TV
• Old masters (owned by Braun/investment fund) lose value
• Swift reclaimed control without challenging copyright law
ESTIMATED VALUE SHIFT:
• Original masters (2019): Worth $300M
• Original masters (2024): Worth $100-150M (declining as new versions replace them)
• Taylor's Version masters (2024): Worth $200-300M+ (and rising)
• Swift recaptured majority of value by re-creating it herself
The 35-Year Termination Right
Taylor Swift's strategy was voluntary—she chose to re-record because Braun wouldn't sell her the masters. But U.S. copyright law actually gives artists a statutory right to reclaim ownership after 35 years, even if they signed away their rights initially.
This is called the termination right, codified in Section 203 of the Copyright Act.
Here's how it works:
1. Artists can reclaim copyrights 35 years after publication. If you signed a record deal giving your label ownership of your masters, you can terminate that transfer after 35 years and reclaim the copyrights. This applies to any work created on or after January 1, 1978 (when the current Copyright Act took effect).
2. The right is inalienable. You can't waive it. Even if your contract says "you agree never to exercise termination rights," that clause is unenforceable. Congress wrote this protection into federal law specifically to prevent labels from forcing artists to sign away their reclamation rights.
3. You must give notice. To exercise termination, you must notify the copyright holder (the label) between 2 and 10 years before the 35-year mark. So if your album was released in 1990, you can reclaim the masters in 2025—but you must give notice between 2023 and 2015. (Many artists miss this window because they don't know the law.)
4. It only applies to U.S. copyrights. Termination rights are a feature of U.S. law. They don't apply to international copyrights, so artists who reclaim their U.S. masters may still have to negotiate with labels for international rights.
5. Works made for hire are exempt. If the recording was created as a "work made for hire" (where the artist was an employee of the label, not an independent contractor), termination rights don't apply. But most recording contracts classify artists as independent contractors, so this exemption rarely applies.
This law was passed in 1976 specifically to protect musicians from predatory record deals. In the 1950s-1970s, labels routinely signed young artists to terrible contracts—paying tiny advances, taking ownership of all recordings, and profiting massively when the artists became stars. Artists had no recourse. They were locked in for life.
Congress said: "We're giving artists a second chance. After 35 years, you can reclaim your work."
Starting in 2013 (35 years after the 1978 Copyright Act took effect), artists began exercising termination rights en masse. Major examples:
- Bob Dylan: Reclaimed masters from Columbia Records for pre-1978 recordings (under a separate provision for older works).
- Sting: Reclaimed ownership of songs from his time with The Police.
- Tom Petty (estate): Reclaimed masters after his death (termination rights pass to heirs).
- Thousands of lesser-known artists: Quietly reclaiming masters and re-licensing them at higher rates or self-releasing.
The music industry tried to fight termination rights. Labels argued they should be exempt because modern recording contracts are "works made for hire." Courts rejected this argument in most cases. Termination rights stand.
Athletes have no equivalent. There is no "35-year termination right" for athletic performances because athletic performances aren't copyrightable in the first place. You can't reclaim something you never owned.
WHAT IT IS:
Federal law allowing artists to reclaim copyrights 35 years after publication, even if
they initially signed away their rights to a label or publisher.
HOW IT WORKS:
• Artist signs record deal in 1990, gives label ownership of masters
• In 2025 (35 years later), artist can terminate the transfer
• Artist must give notice 2-10 years in advance (between 2023-2015 for 2025 termination)
• Once terminated, copyright reverts to artist
• Artist now owns masters, can re-license or self-release
KEY PROTECTIONS:
• Right is inalienable — can't be waived in contract
• Applies to works created after Jan 1, 1978
• Protects artists from predatory lifetime deals
• Gives artists "second bite at the apple" after they know value of their work
EXEMPTIONS:
• Works made for hire (rare in music, artist must be employee not contractor)
• Only applies to U.S. copyrights (international rights must be negotiated separately)
WHO'S USED IT:
• Bob Dylan (reclaimed Columbia masters)
• Sting (reclaimed Police recordings)
• Tom Petty estate (reclaimed masters after death)
• Thousands of artists since 2013 (when first terminations became available)
WHY CONGRESS CREATED IT:
In 1950s-1970s, labels signed young artists to lifetime deals for tiny advances. Artists
had no bargaining power. They'd become stars, but labels owned everything. Congress
said: after 35 years, artist gets a second chance to negotiate from position of strength.
WHY ATHLETES DON'T HAVE THIS:
Termination rights only apply to copyrighted works. Musicians own sound recordings
(copyrightable). Athletes don't own performances (not copyrightable). You can't
reclaim what you never owned.
Could Athletes Re-Enact Their Performances?
Let's imagine Franco Harris, in 2007 (35 years after the Immaculate Reception), decides to "re-enact" the play and film it himself. He sets up cameras. He hires actors to play the other players. He recreates the moment—catching the deflected ball, running 60 yards, scoring the touchdown.
He releases "The Immaculate Reception: Franco's Version."
Can he claim ownership of this new footage and license it instead of the NFL's original?
No. And here's why it fails at every level:
Problem 1: The Re-Enactment Isn't the Original Performance
Taylor Swift's re-recordings work because the compositions are identical. She owns the songs (melody, lyrics). She can record new performances of those same songs, and the new recordings are just as valuable as the originals—because what fans want is the song, not necessarily the specific 2008 recording.
Athletic performances don't work this way. What makes the Immaculate Reception valuable isn't Franco Harris catching a deflected pass in a game. It's Franco Harris catching that specific deflected pass in that specific game in 1972.
A re-enactment has no value. It's staged. It's not the real moment. Fans don't want to watch a recreation—they want to watch the original footage of the actual play as it happened.
So even if Harris owned the re-enactment footage, it wouldn't replace the original. The NFL would still license the 1972 footage, and Harris's version would be worthless.
Problem 2: He Doesn't Own the "Composition"
Musicians can re-record because they own the underlying composition. The song exists independently of any specific recording.
Athletic performances have no equivalent. There's no "underlying work" that exists separately from the specific instance of the performance. The Immaculate Reception is the December 23, 1972 play. There's no abstract "Immaculate Reception composition" that Harris owns and can re-perform.
In copyright terms: musicians own the musical work (composition) even if they don't own the sound recording (master). Athletes own neither—there's no "performance work" separate from the footage, and they don't own the footage either.
Problem 3: Copyright Law Doesn't Protect the Re-Enactment
Even if Harris filmed a re-enactment, that footage would be a derivative work based on the original 1972 broadcast. Under copyright law, creating a derivative work requires permission from the original copyright holder.
The NFL owns the copyright to the 1972 broadcast. If Harris creates a re-enactment that closely mimics the original footage (same camera angles, same play, same context), the NFL could argue it's an unauthorized derivative work and sue for infringement.
Harris would respond: "I'm re-creating my own performance, not copying your footage." But courts might rule that the concept of the play—the specific sequence of events, the dramatic context, the iconic nature of the moment—is so tied to the NFL's original broadcast that a re-enactment infringes on the league's copyright.
This is untested legal territory, but the risk is real. Musicians don't face this problem because they own the compositions. Athletes don't own anything.
Problem 4: No Market for Re-Enactments
Even if Harris could legally film a re-enactment, who would buy it?
Networks want the real footage—the grainy 1972 film of the actual play. That's what has value. A staged recreation has no commercial market.
Taylor Swift's re-recordings work because fans don't care which specific recording they listen to—they just want to hear "Love Story" or "Shake It Off." The new version sounds nearly identical to the old one, so fans stream it instead.
Sports fans absolutely care which specific footage they watch. They want the real thing. A re-enactment is worthless.
So even if Harris could create Franco's Version, there'd be no revenue stream. The strategy fails commercially, not just legally.
TAYLOR SWIFT'S RECLAMATION WORKS BECAUSE:
• She owns the compositions (underlying songs)
• She can re-record the same songs with new masters
• Fans want the song, not necessarily the specific 2008 recording
• New recordings have commercial value equal to (or exceeding) originals
• She controls licensing, redirects revenue to new versions
FRANCO HARRIS'S HYPOTHETICAL RE-ENACTMENT FAILS BECAUSE:
PROBLEM 1: NO UNDERLYING "COMPOSITION"
• Musicians own the song separately from the recording
• Athletes don't own the "play" separately from the footage
• Immaculate Reception = the specific Dec 23, 1972 instance
• No abstract "play" exists that Harris can re-perform
PROBLEM 2: RE-ENACTMENT ISN'T THE ORIGINAL
• Fans want the real 1972 footage, not a recreation
• Staged performance has no value (it's not the actual moment)
• Taylor's Version works because songs sound identical
• Franco's Version fails because the play is unrepeatable
PROBLEM 3: DERIVATIVE WORK INFRINGEMENT RISK
• NFL owns copyright to 1972 broadcast
• Re-enactment might be unauthorized derivative work
• Harris would need NFL permission to recreate the play on film
• Legal risk makes re-enactment strategy untenable
PROBLEM 4: NO COMMERCIAL MARKET
• Even if legal, who would buy Franco's Version?
• Networks want real footage, not staged recreations
• No revenue stream = strategy fails commercially
CONCLUSION:
Musicians can reclaim value because they own the underlying work (composition) and
can re-create equivalent recordings. Athletes own nothing — no underlying work, no
ability to recreate value, no commercial market for re-enactments. The Taylor Swift
strategy doesn't translate to sports. At all.
What About Trademarks or Publicity Rights?
If copyright law doesn't help athletes reclaim their performances, what about other forms of intellectual property?
Trademarks
A trademark protects brand names, logos, and slogans used in commerce. Could Franco Harris trademark "The Immaculate Reception" and demand licensing fees every time it's used?
Potentially—but it wouldn't help much.
Trademarks protect commercial use of names/phrases, not the underlying content. If Harris trademarked "The Immaculate Reception," he could stop people from using that phrase to sell merchandise (T-shirts, posters, etc.) without his permission. But he couldn't stop the NFL from showing the footage itself—because the footage is copyrighted, and copyright trumps trademark when it comes to media content.
The NFL could call it "Franco Harris's game-winning touchdown catch, 1972 AFC Divisional Playoff" instead of "The Immaculate Reception," show the exact same footage, and Harris would have no claim.
Trademarks don't solve the ownership problem.
Right of Publicity
State laws protect individuals' right of publicity—the right to control commercial use of your name, image, and likeness. Could Harris use publicity rights to demand payment every time the footage is shown?
No—because copyright preempts publicity rights.
This was settled in Dryer v. NFL (2016). Retired players sued, arguing the NFL violated their publicity rights by using game footage in documentaries without compensation. The 8th Circuit ruled that federal copyright law preempts state publicity claims when the use involves a copyrighted work (the game broadcast).
So even if Harris's image appears in the footage, he can't claim publicity rights override the NFL's copyright. The league owns the broadcast. Using the broadcast is an exercise of copyright. Publicity rights don't apply.
Game over.
The One Path That Might Work (But Won't Happen)
There is one theoretical path for athletes to reclaim value from their performances:
Congress could create a statutory termination right for athletes, similar to the 35-year rule for musicians.
Here's how it would work:
Congress amends the Copyright Act to say:
"Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, athletes whose performances are captured in audiovisual works (including but not limited to game broadcasts, highlight packages, and documentary footage) may terminate any transfer of rights to use their image, likeness, or performance 35 years after the date of the original broadcast. Upon termination, the athlete (or their estate) shall have the right to license their performance separately from the underlying broadcast, and any use of such performance for commercial purposes shall require the athlete's consent and compensation."
If this law existed, Franco Harris (or his estate) could have terminated the NFL's exclusive right to license his image in the Immaculate Reception footage starting in 2007 (35 years after 1972). The NFL would still own the broadcast copyright, but they'd need Harris's permission (and would have to pay him) every time they licensed the footage for commercial use.
This would functionally create residuals for athletes—not through negotiation, but through federal statute.
Why this will never happen:
1. No political will. Congress has no incentive to take on the NFL, NBA, MLB, and every major sports league. These organizations lobby heavily. Athletes, as individuals, have no comparable political power.
2. Opposition from media companies. Networks and streaming platforms would fight this aggressively. It would complicate licensing, increase costs, and reduce the value of archived sports content.
3. The NFLPA isn't pushing for it. The players' union has never lobbied Congress for copyright reform. It's not on their agenda.
4. It would be unprecedented. Congress created termination rights for musicians because the music industry had a documented history of exploitative contracts in the 1950s-1970s. There's no similar "record" of exploitation in sports (even though the extraction is just as real) because athletes are paid millions in salary. It's harder to argue they're being exploited when Tom Brady earned $330 million in career salary.
So this path exists in theory but not in reality. Congress won't act. Athletes won't get a termination right. And they'll remain the only major category of performers who can't reclaim their work.
THE PROPOSAL:
Congress amends Copyright Act to create statutory termination right for athletes,
similar to 35-year rule for musicians (17 U.S.C. § 203).
HOW IT WOULD WORK:
• Athletes could terminate NFL's exclusive right to license their image 35 years after broadcast
• NFL still owns footage copyright, but needs athlete consent for commercial use
• Athletes (or estates) negotiate separate licensing fees for their performance
• Functionally creates residuals without changing copyright ownership of footage
EXAMPLE — FRANCO HARRIS:
• Immaculate Reception broadcast: Dec 23, 1972
• Termination available: 2007 (35 years later)
• Harris (or estate after 2022) can say: "NFL owns footage, but you need my permission to license it"
• NFL Films wants to use play in documentary → must pay Harris estate licensing fee
• ESPN wants to show play in highlight package → must pay Harris estate
• Result: Athletes get ongoing compensation for footage reuse
WHY IT WON'T HAPPEN:
NO POLITICAL WILL:
• Congress has no incentive to challenge NFL, NBA, MLB
• Leagues lobby heavily ($15M+/year NFL alone)
• Athletes have no comparable political organization
INDUSTRY OPPOSITION:
• Networks, streaming platforms would fight aggressively
• Complicates licensing, increases costs
• Reduces value of archived sports content
NFLPA NOT PUSHING:
• Union has never lobbied for copyright reform
• Not on agenda, not a priority
• Focus remains on salary, benefits, health (all important, but leaves IP unaddressed)
PRECEDENT WEAK:
• Congress created music termination rights because of documented exploitation (1950s-70s)
• Harder to argue athletes are exploited when Brady earned $330M salary
• Even though extraction is real, optics make political case difficult
CONCLUSION:
Path exists in theory. Congress could create athlete termination rights tomorrow.
But won't happen. No pressure, no leverage, no movement. Athletes remain only
major performer category unable to reclaim their work.
The Prince Precedent: Dying to Own Your Work
There's one more musician story worth examining: Prince.
In the 1990s, Prince famously fought with Warner Bros. Records over ownership of his master recordings. The label owned his masters under a traditional record deal. Prince wanted them back. Warner refused.
So Prince did something radical:
- He changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol (to get out of his contract, which required him to deliver albums under the name "Prince").
- He wrote "SLAVE" on his face in public appearances to protest the label's ownership of his work.
- He stopped recording new music for Warner and instead released albums independently once his contract expired.
- He spent decades advocating for artist ownership, calling record deals "slavery" and urging younger artists to own their masters from the start.
When Prince died in 2016, he still didn't own many of his early masters. But his estate later negotiated a deal with Warner to reclaim them.
The lesson: Even one of the most powerful musicians in history, with decades of leverage and fame, couldn't reclaim his masters during his lifetime. He had to die, and his estate had to negotiate, to finally get ownership.
If Prince couldn't reclaim his work while alive, what chance do athletes have?
The difference: Prince at least had legal pathways (termination rights, contract renegotiation). Athletes have none. The law doesn't even recognize them as creators.
What This Means for Athletes
Taylor Swift reclaimed her masters. Bob Dylan reclaimed his. Thousands of musicians are doing the same under the 35-year termination right.
Athletes can't.
Not because they lack talent. Not because their work isn't valuable. But because:
- Copyright law doesn't protect athletic performances. You can't reclaim what you never owned.
- There's no "underlying work" to own. Musicians own compositions. Athletes have no equivalent.
- Re-enactments have no commercial value. Fans want the original footage, not recreations.
- Publicity rights are preempted by copyright. Even your own image doesn't override the league's ownership of footage.
- Congress won't create athlete-specific termination rights. No political will, no lobbying push, no movement.
So the Taylor Swift strategy—reclaim your work, re-create the value, take control—doesn't translate to sports. At all.
Musicians can fight back and win. Athletes can't.
The system is designed to keep it that way.
In Part 5, we'll look at exactly how much money is hidden in the system—the revenue the NFL earns from highlights, documentaries, and archival footage that it refuses to disclose publicly. If we can't see the numbers, we can't fight for a fair share. And that's exactly how the league wants it.
RESEARCH APPROACH:
Randy directed focus: Can athletes use the Taylor Swift re-recording strategy to reclaim their performances? Claude researched music industry ownership structures (composition vs. master recordings), Taylor Swift's Big Machine/re-recording timeline, 17 U.S.C. § 203 (35-year termination rights), artist reclamation cases (Bob Dylan, Sting, Tom Petty), Prince's Warner Bros. battle, trademark/publicity rights limitations, and Dryer v. NFL (copyright preemption). All legal analysis sourced to Copyright Act provisions and case law.
FINDINGS:
• Musicians can reclaim masters because they own underlying compositions (separate copyright)
• Taylor Swift re-recorded 6 albums, owns new masters, redirected $200-300M+ in value
• 35-year termination right (17 U.S.C. § 203) allows artists to reclaim copyrights; inalienable, can't be waived
• Athletes can't reclaim because: (1) no underlying "composition" to own, (2) re-enactments have no value, (3) copyright preempts publicity rights (Dryer), (4) no statutory termination right exists
• Congress could create athlete termination right but won't (no political will, industry opposition, NFLPA not pushing)
• Result: Musicians can fight and win reclamation battles; athletes have no legal pathway
WHAT THIS MEANS:
The Taylor Swift strategy requires owning the underlying creative work (composition) and having commercial value in recreations. Athletes have neither. They can't re-enact iconic plays and claim ownership. They can't use publicity rights (preempted by copyright). They have no statutory termination rights. The only path is Congressional action, which isn't happening. So musicians reclaim billions in value, athletes reclaim nothing.
NEXT IN SERIES:
Part 5 investigates the hidden revenue: how much does the NFL actually earn from highlights, documentaries, and archival footage? Why won't they disclose these numbers? What can we piece together from public filings? The opacity isn't accidental—it's structural.
Sources: 17 U.S.C. § 203 (termination rights); Taylor Swift re-recording timeline (public reporting, Billboard, Variety); Big Machine sale documents (public filings); music industry ownership structures (Copyright Act §§ 101, 114); Dryer v. NFL, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016); Prince/Warner Bros. dispute (public reporting, artist statements); artist reclamation cases (Dylan, Sting, Petty estate). Full citations available on request.
Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment