Taylor Swift He was triumphant after a long battle for years for the rights of his previous music. Now has The total control of your songsthe design of materials and distribution, without having to comply with corporate directives. That would already be sufficient reason to celebrate, but according to reports, he bought his catalog for more than 300 million dollars. For an international superstar, winner of Grammy and Multiplatin awards, whose assets amounts to 1.6 billion dollars, this agreement is practically a bargain.
This should not be seen only as a massive financial and artistic achievement for her. Luckily, says a Paradigm change for other musiciansespecially the youngest, and inspires them to be more cunning in businesses within an industry that has long depended on not paying attention to small fame letters.
The balance is usually against artists, and Swift, despite its overwhelming success, was no exception.
At the end of June 2019, more than seven months after she left Big Machine Records To sign for Republic Records/Universal Music GroupBig Machine was sold to Ithaca Holdings LLCProperty of the Musical Executive Scooter Braun. A year and a half later, Braun sold Big Machine Label Group (including the first Swift albums) to the private capital company Shamrock Holdings for approximately 300 million dollars. In the first case, she openly pronounced on the difficult conditions she faced to acquire the rights of her albums (record a new album for each of the previous ones to be returned); And in the second, he was not allowed to bid for them.
In recent years, veteran musicians have occupied holders selling the rights of their catalogs, in agreements that reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Among them are Paul Simonwhich signed a contract for 250 million dollars for its catalog of compositions; Bob Dylanwho obtained more than 300 million dollars for their copyright, in addition to an estimated amount between 150 and 200 million dollars for its masters; and Bruce Springsteenwhich received 550 million dollars for its compositions and recordings. For its part, Queen He marked a record when selling his catalog to Sony for 1.2 billion dollars.
For various reasons, younger artists such as Future, Justin Bieber and Katy Perry They have also sold personal participations in their publication catalogs and master recordings for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, taking advantage of this early income.
The main difference between those musicians and Swift is that they benefited from the sale of their master recordings, many accumulated over 50 or 60 years, while Swift did not get anything from the lucrative sale of his.
From now on, This 35 -year -old artist will get good profits. This is very unusual at your age, for several reasons.
On the one hand, despite the Copyright Review Law of 1976, which allows artists to request the rights of their master recordings 35 years after its commercial launch (applicable from music published in 1978), large record records are reluctant to yield valuable musical assets. They try to negotiate better agreements with the artists to retain titles of coveted catalogs, although for musicians it would be more profitable to own them directly. One of the most tumultuous and public cases was that of Princewho fought for years to recover his master rights, finally achieving him in his 50 years, only two years before his death.
In addition, many artists, either due to inexperience or despair to succeed, sign markedly unequal contracts. In the 1960s, The Beatles They signed a series of disadvantageous contracts for the management, marketing and editorial rights of the songs of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. This last mistake caused McCartney to spend six decades trying to reverse it until, finally, he reached an agreement with the then called Sony/ATV (now Sony Music Publishing) in 2017. (George HarrisonOn the other hand, he had the forecast to create his own editorial company, Harrisongs, in 1964, whose catalog includes the success “Here Comes The Sun”).
Even when artists become aware of abuse, the music industry finds new ways to win. At the beginning of the streaming era, the labels initially resisted compensating the artists for digital music, streaming platforms paid low royalties and the three great record records (Sony, UMG and Warner Music) bought actions at Spotify.
In addition, 360 agreements have become more common in the era of streaming. These contracts imply that the record is left with a percentage of the sales of albums and concerts, marketing, sponsorships and other residual revenues, to compensate for revenue reduction from CDs, vinyl and cassettes.
It is a way to guarantee the return of investment after dedicating resources to musicians (especially the new ones that have not yet demonstrated their stellar potential). However, these greatest deductions on the sources of income of artists are a heavy burden for less consolidated musicians.
To avoid industry traps, it is no longer enough to be talented in a recording study or on stage. More than ever, it is necessary that the artist also assumes a management role. Of course, new talents do not have the influence and capital that many consecrated stars such as Taylor Swift They have accumulated to face the industry.
We cannot ignore that he accumulated a fortune with his world tour You werewhich lasted almost two years and raised approximately 2.2 billion dollars, which allowed him to disburse the more than 300 million dollars necessary to acquire its catalog. He also had loyal followers who bought and reproduced exclusively their old album re -regions – the “Taylor versions” – in their support (this strategy negatively affected Big Machine’s profits).
However, this does not mean that the victory of Taylor Swift It is not a valuable lesson for emerging musicians and their representatives: prioritize negotiating smarter agreements From the beginning. It is also an encouraging message for veteran artists who do not have their master recordings: if they are willing, fight for their songs, especially those that languish in the forgotten files. The catalog remains the kingand that’s why these lucrative agreements continue to occur.
There is another lesson than extracting from this situation, directed this time to the recordings. Swift’s victory would not have been possible without the support of his Swiftieswhich shows that the cumulative power of fans, when they have a deep connection with an artist, is a huge asset, something that some in the industry had not planned.
Source: The Washington Post
