Also Known as “A Story About a Song Girl’s Adventures in Intellectual Property”
By Joshua Goldberg, Co-Managing Partner
And now for a brief interlude from our regularly scheduled programming…for a bit of fun, here is a story about intellectual property and a song girl from Nashville, Tennessee.
Even if you have never listened to her music, you are no doubt aware of Taylor Swift; she is one of the most famous people on the planet Earth. What you may be less aware of, though, is how Taylor Swift has strived to protect her Intellectual Property (IP), using the various intellectual property laws to her advantage, sometimes in surprising new ways. From re-recording to brand consolidation, Taylor Swift has pushed the boundary of how recording artists can use IP protection to their advantage.
“Taylor’s Version”
Have you ever wondered why Taylor Swift recorded “Taylor’s Version” of her first six albums? If so, the answer is because of copyright law! In the world of music, each new song, album, single, etc. involves two different copyrights: one for the musical composition (written lyrics and underlying music), one for the sound recording (the fixed recorded performance, i.e., the “master” recordings). Industry-standard recording contracts commonly assign ownership of master recordings to the company, while the songwriter (or publisher) retains the rights to the musical composition. Unfortunately, this arrangement can leave a performer without control over licensing and exploitation of the specific recordings that the public recognizes.
As it relates to her first six albums, these bifurcated copyrights greatly impacted Taylor Swift. While she owned the copyright to her lyrics and music, she did not own her original master recordings. To remedy the situation, Taylor Swift came up with a novel workaround strategy: re-recording her catalog and releasing the new recordings under the “Taylor’s Version” label. This was permitted as she already owned rights to the lyrics and music, followed by rights to the master recordings of each “Taylor’s Version”. Once her contractual ‘re-recording restriction’ window expired, since she controlled her composition rights, she was able to record new masters without infringing the old masters.
Counterfeits, Bootlegs, and Cross-Border Enforcement
Large-scale tours and global fandoms generate a predictable shadow market in counterfeit merchandise. The legal tools here are less about authorship disputes and more about brand integrity and consumer deception: trademarks (names, logos, and trade dress) and, where applicable, copyright (artwork). Industry reporting describes bootleg music merchandising as an escalating problem across major artists, with enforcement characterized as a recurring ‘Whack-a-Mole’ across platforms.
For example, in fiscal year 2023, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Homeland Security investigations seized 19,722 shipments of merchandise for IP violations, involving about 23 million counterfeit products with an estimated MSRP exceeding $2.78 billion if genuine. See U.S. Congress / CBP testimony, ‘Intellectual Property: Enforcement Activities by the Executive Branch’ (May 7, 2024). Taylor Swift, as one of if not the most popular musical acts in the world, is no exception to this rule, as there are undoubtedly countless examples of counterfeit Taylor Swift merchandise that can be found. CBP also maintains ongoing public reporting on IP seizures, underscoring that border enforcement is an institutional complement to private litigation and platform takedowns.
The Emerging Identity Layer: AI-Era Impersonation and Nontraditional Trademark Theory
A newer IP-adjacent challenge for celebrities is the rise of convincing AI-generated imitations of voice and likeness. Copyright generally protects specific recordings and expressive works, but not an individual’s identity traits in the abstract. As a result, celebrities have at times explored trademark and related protections to create enforceable ‘source’ signals around voice and persona in commerce.
Earlier this year, Taylor Swift’s trademark activity included filing multiple applications for her voice and image as, e.g., potential ‘sound marks’, reflecting a novel strategy to address AI-based commercial misuse and consumer confusion. Specifically, two of the filed applications are sound trademarks covering her voice, one of her saying “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift,” and the other is “Hey, it’s Taylor.” Another application is for a visual trademark, described in the filing as “a photograph of Taylor Swift holding a pink guitar, with a black strap and wearing a multicolored iridescent bodysuit with silver boots. She is standing on a pink stage in front of a multicolored microphone with purple lights in the background”.
This is a new use of the trademark laws; accordingly, there is no guarantee these trademarks will be registered and there is some risk in pursuing this strategy. Even so, the filings illustrate a growing industry trend: supplementing copyright with trademark and publicity-style theories to protect commercial identity.
Across these domains, Taylor Swift has used copyright and trademark protections to her advantage. By following her example, other artists can use a similar full ‘rights stack’ to reassert control over the creative and commercial value of their works.
