--- description: Taylor Swift has raised public awareness about the intricacies of copyright law and the value of artists' work. title: The History of Music Copyright—Before (Taylor's Version) image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt3069f4581f6da7dc/6998c72a1500fbd350aa6513/Taylor-Swift-attends-Grammys.jpg?branch=production&width=2400&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  * [Ideas](/section/ideas/) ## Ideas Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close * [Made by History](/tag/made-by-history/) ## Made by History Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close # The History of Music Copyright—Before (Taylor's Version) by [Jason Lee Guthrie / Made by History](/author/made-by-history/) ## Jason Lee Guthrie / Made by History Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Jun 5, 2025 10:15 AM CUT  Taylor Swift attends the 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards on February 02, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Taylor Swift attends the 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards on February 02, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.Matt Winkelmeyer—The Recording Academy/Getty Images by [Jason Lee Guthrie / Made by History](/author/made-by-history/) ## Jason Lee Guthrie / Made by History Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Jun 5, 2025 10:15 AM CUT On May 30, 2025, [Taylor Swift](https://time.com/6342806/person-of-the-year-2023-taylor-swift/ "undefined") [wrote a letter](https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-buys-back-her-masters-letter-1235985835/ "undefined") to her fans announcing that she had finally secured ownership of the original master recordings for her entire catalog. It’s the culmination of her efforts to gain full control of the copyright in her work. Rights to her catalog—including hugely successful albums like _Fearless_, _Red_, and [_1989_](https://time.com/3583129/power-of-taylor-swift-cover/ "undefined")—were purchased by a music industry mogul without her consent in June 2019\. Although her legal team was unable to stop the sale, Swift won the high ground in the court of public opinion by [arguing](https://pitchfork.com/news/taylor-swifts-music-ownership-controversy-with-scooter-braun-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/ "undefined") that such an action was morally wrong. In the process, she has achieved something unique in the history of American popular music. The pop star’s efforts to control her master recordings has been an element of her [ongoing advocacy](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jun/09/shaken-it-off-taylor-swift-ends-spotify-spat "undefined") for artist rights. The intricacies of publishing, licensing, and rights ownership in the modern music industry are [quite complex](https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/what-does-mean-own-your-masters-music-46337890 "undefined"). Though copyright may be _law_ in one sense, public perception and popular opinion effect how the law is enforced in practice. The history of American popular music shows that the degree of agency an unsigned artist has to negotiate terms with industry representation can be profoundly affected by their [class, race, and gender](https://www.meiea.org/Journal/Vol22/Guthrie "undefined"). Very few artists will ever reach the level of popularity and profitability that Swift enjoys, but by raising public discourse about music copyright she has helped to reinvigorate conversations about the value of music. Copyright protection for “Authors and Inventors” is enshrined in the [U.S. Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ "undefined"), which highlights the importance the framers placed upon encouraging creativity and innovation. Congress passed the first [copyright act in 1790](https://copyright.gov/about/1790-copyright-act.html "undefined") protecting any “map, chart, book, or books,” which allowed authors the sole right to profit from the sale of their work for a limited time after which it would enter the public domain. Congress expanded copyright in 1802 to account for new [advances](https://www.militaryimagesmagazine-digital.com/2019/12/01/entered-according-to-act-of-congress-winter-2020/?t "undefined") in print technology and visual mediums. Interestingly, sheet music, which had existed for centuries, was not added to the list of protectable mediums until [1831](https://copyrightalliance.org/history-music-copyright/#:~:text=As%20a%20part%20of%20the,Norton. "undefined"). **_Read More:_** [_Taylor Swift's Fight Over Her Catalog Is Just the Latest Example of Artists Struggling to Own Their Work_](https://time.com/5618336/taylor-swift-scooter-braun-masters/ "undefined") In truth, there was relatively little music generating revenue for copyright to protect in early America. That began to change when a 20-year-old Stephen Foster composed “Oh! Susanna” in the late 1840s. The song was an unprecedented hit, selling well over 100,000 copies in multiple editions. Foster failed to properly register and protect his interests and made next to nothing off the song. Despite enjoying numerous fair and favorable contracts throughout his career, Foster [never learned](https://www.meiea.org/Journal/Vol19/Guthrie "undefined") how to capitalize financially on the public success of his songs and he died penniless in 1864. The popularity of Foster’s songs demonstrated that there was money to be made in American music, and publishing houses observed how songwriters could be easily taken advantage of in the process. Beginning with [Tin Pan Alley](https://www.historynet.com/tin-pan-alley-where-americas-recording-industry-was-born/ "undefined") at the turn of the 20th century, the music industry professionalized rapidly. Composers and songwriters, despite creating the product that generated income, became increasingly separated from the business of music. Record label executives, music publishers, lawyers, agents, and other professionals handled the paperwork and managed the money. While some songwriters like [Irving Berlin](https://www.irvingberlin.com/ "undefined") also learned the business side of music, such cases were the exception, not the rule. Consider the career of Berlin’s contemporary [Woody Guthrie](https://blogs.uakron.edu/ualawip/2023/04/25/for-you-and-me-or-private-property-evaluating-the-copyright-claim-in-woody-guthries-this-land-is-your-land/ "undefined"). Guthrie did not have access to the kinds of industry support more mainstream artists had, but he did have access to his local library. In 1937, he researched the copyright registration process on his own, sent in the required documentation along with a one-dollar fee to register “California!,” and even asked the Copyright Office to send guidance about registration best practices. The Copyright Office responded promptly with an official registration certificate for “California!,” several blank application cards, and instructions for how to optimize future registrations. This process was time consuming, however. Guthrie’s transient lifestyle and prolific output meant that much of his catalog was not registered or managed properly. The copyright claim in Guthrie’s most famous song, “[This Land is Your Land](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/arts/music/this-land-is-your-land-copyright.html#:~:text='This%20Land%20Is%20Your%20Land,which%20Guthrie%20wrote%20in%201940. "undefined"),” has been [contested](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/business/media/this-guthrie-song-is-your-song-a-lawsuit-claims.html "undefined") by artists and content creators looking to use the song in new ways. Rather than to maximize profitability, Guthrie’s heirs have used copyright primarily to keep the song from being appropriated by [commercial and political interests](https://theconversation.com/woody-guthrie-old-man-trump-and-a-real-estate-empires-racist-foundations-53026 "undefined") that are in direct opposition to his worldview. The key ethical question of copyright, like so many areas of the law, is not just about what rights are granted. It is about how the power granted by those rights gets [wielded](https://doi.org/10.25101/25.11 "undefined") in practice. **_Read More:_** [_Songwriters Association Files FTC Complaint Against Spotify Over Royalties_](https://time.com/6988114/spotify-songwriters-ftc-complaint-royalties-audiobooks-bundle/ "undefined") Over the course of the 20th century, many popular musicians like Chuck Berry and John Fogerty [signed away their rights](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-lists/songs-on-trial-12-landmark-music-copyright-cases-166396/ "undefined") early in their careers, missing the full financial rewards when they later made it big. For many, accepting unfavorable terms had been their only option to break into the industry. Fogerty was famously [sued](https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/fantasy-v-fogerty/ "undefined") by his former label and bandmates for sounding too much like himself when he went solo in 1972\. Fogerty recently announced that, at the age of 80, he will be [recording a (John’s Version) album](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/john-fogerty-re-records-creedence-clearwater-revival-songs-1236232578/ "undefined") of his Greatest Hits, in a nod to Swift’s success with the strategy. Before Swift’s triumph, [Prince](https://www.billboard.com/music/features/prince-battle-to-control-career-artist-rights-7348551/ "undefined") is probably the artist who most skillfully used cultural influence to leverage their rights. When his label claimed a trademark in the rights to his name and all music marketed under it, he changed his name to an [unpronounceable symbol](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36107590 "undefined") until his contract with them expired in 2000\. Similarly, much of Swift’s success has come from relying more on public relations than litigation to assert her ownership.  Inspired by a viral social media post from [Kelly Clarkson](https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/entertainment/kelly-clarkson-taylor-swift/index.html "undefined"), Swift began the process of [rerecording her early work](https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/everyone-taylor-swift-said-re-recording-her-songs-9485702/ "undefined") in November 2020\. But that strategy only worked because she was also able to motivate her fans to choose (Taylor’s Version) albums on streaming platforms and even to repurchase her rerecorded work on CD, cassette, and vinyl. Including bonus material and other incentives was certainly part of the strategy, but the level of [fan involvement](https://slate.com/culture/2024/04/taylor-swift-fans-love-art-separate-from-swiftie-fandom.html "undefined") in policing the (Taylor’s Version) transition has reached levels that are difficult to explain by marketing tactics alone. Swift’s efforts to take legal control of her songwriting catalog have significantly raised the level of [discourse about copyright law](https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/ "undefined") in popular culture. They have also provided a high-profile challenge to the trope of the struggling artist that has creative abilities but lacks savvy business skills. Swift’s management of her career has been touted as a model to reduce the [structural inefficiencies](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2014/12/10/307978.pdf "undefined") in music licensing and broadcasting, to promote [equity sharing](https://jcl.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jcl.law.uiowa.edu/files/2021-08/Huffman%5FFinal%5FWeb.pdf "undefined") with record labels, and to give artists in general [more control](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=njtip "undefined") over their creative work. After her rerecording venture was so successful, some major labels have sought to [add language](https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor-swift-re-recordings-labels-change-contracts/ "undefined") to future contracts preventing that outcome. But to do so, they will have to navigate the fact that artists are more aware of the [value](https://www.billboard.com/pro/restricting-taylors-version-style-re-recordings-could-backfire-labels/ "undefined") that they bring in the post-(Taylor’s Version) Era. _Jason Lee Guthrie is an Associate Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Clayton State University in Morrow, GA. His research explores the intersections of creativity and economics, with a focus on copyright in the creative industries._ _Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians._ [_Learn more about Made by History at TIME here_](https://time.com/6317798/introducing-made-by-history-for-time/ "undefined")_. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors._ _The author has no connection to Woody Guthrie or his heirs._ ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/"},"headline":"The History of Music Copyright—Before (Taylor's Version)","datePublished":"2025-06-05T10:15:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-05-11T04:51:05.617Z","description":"Taylor Swift has raised public awareness about the intricacies of copyright law and the value of artists' work.","url":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/","keywords":["Made by History"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt3069f4581f6da7dc/6998c72a1500fbd350aa6513/Taylor-Swift-attends-Grammys.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Jason Lee Guthrie / Made by History"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt3069f4581f6da7dc/6998c72a1500fbd350aa6513/Taylor-Swift-attends-Grammys.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Taylor Swift 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards","caption":"Taylor Swift 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards","creditText":"Matt Winkelmeyer—The Recording Academy/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/made-by-history/","name":"Made by History"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/","name":"The History of Music Copyright—Before (Taylor's Version)"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Madame Tussauds Unveils 13 New Taylor Swift Eras Tour Wax Figures","description":"Madame Tussauds unveiled 13 new Taylor Swift figures in 13 cities across four continents Wednesday.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/Lnm23XSp/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2025-07-24T16:09:57.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/Lnm23XSp.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/","duration":"PT2M4S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/7290761/music-copyright-taylors-version/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```