According to Taylor Swift's new recording project, musicians appointed their work back

Pete Murray would prefer it if they didn't stream one of his biggest hits.

The Australian musician has been working in the industry for more than 20 years, and his hit single Better Days is one of his most famous songs.

But recently he announced that he would prefer fans not to play the original song because he had a new version available.

Pull a Swiftie here

In April Murray announced on social media that he published a new version of Better Days (Pete's version) and that he was now an independent artist and did not sign for a label.

“You may not know that I don't have many of my older classic songs,” he wrote.

“I think it is important for all artists to own their own recordings, and this is the first of a series of” Pete's versions “of some of my greatest songs that I will publish in the coming years.”

Sounds familiar? Musicians who resume and publish new versions of their work are not new.

Taylor Swift's new recording project is one of the most famous examples of this. And many musicians were encouraged to follow their guide.

“Taylor did it and I thought: 'Wow, that's how you do it,” says Murray.

Swift Ebnet the way

In 2019, Swift's former label Big Machine Records announced that the company was taken over by Braun's Ithica Holdings businessman.

This deal triggered years of discourse on the rights of musicians when it comes to owning their work.

Swift, one of the biggest pop stars in the world, quickly expressed their anger at the move, as this meant that their original masters were sold to Braun.

“Scooter robbed me of my life work that I had no opportunity to buy. Essentially my musical heritage is in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it,” she wrote in a long statement about Tumblr.

Swift left Big Machine Records in 2018 and signed Records owned by Universal Music in a joint contract with Taylor Swift Productions.

After the public struggle with Braun, Swift began to release newly recorded versions of their six previous albums. These new albums were identified as “Taylor's version” so that the fans were able to support Swift and the purpose of their reconstruction project.

It is a step that music journalist Nic Kelly says that Swift's fans protest in her name.

Musicians take up their work to claim to claim property back, but Swift was not the first.

Early risk

The Everly Brothers were superstars in the 1950s, and the duo had two studio albums with Cadence Records. When their contract had expired in 1960, they left and were signed by Warner Brothers Records.

The deal worth 1 million US dollars was the biggest record contract in music history at that time.

Under Warner, the Everly Brothers published a studio album in 1964, the best of the Everly Brothers, to which not only their hits were recorded under Warner, but also the versions of their earlier hits were re -recorded.

Legally there was no restriction on them again. And it meant that the recorded versions of their hit songs competed with their first two plates from Cadence. The label fought to compete and finally closed in 1964.

Thanks to this, the risk that artists will resume their old songs again became identified, and soon contracts were added to orders to avoid this in the future.

A record gap

How can musicians, such as Swift and Murray, re -start their earlier work if they don't own the masters?

Joshua Yuvaraj, lecturer for senior lawyers at the University of Auckland, says that this is complicated.

For artists such as Swift and Murray, who write their own music, this can depend on who belongs to the master recording of the original work and who has the copyright of the song.

“There are two different copyrights … One is when the artist writes the song that there is a copyright for it.

“But there is also a copyright in the admission when the song is made in the studio with the artist, the producer, etc.,” says Yuvaraj.

The master often belongs to the recording label, while the composition (melody and texts) is protected separately under copyright.

Murray knows this law all too well and had to wait five years after the end of his contract before reckoning and releasing his previous songs.

The deal that Murray signed almost 20 years ago meant that his record label had his masters.

This meant that the Masters recording was paid for by the label and Murray was brought to debt with the record company, which took his entire contract for repayment.

He realized that to make enough money to cover these costs, he had to continue on tour.

“I was at a point where I had to call my agent and say:” I need more money, book more shows “.

“I thought: If I don't change that soon, I will do it for the rest of my life,” he says.

He receives small license fees from these masters today, but he still doesn't have them.

“That was the difficult thing to accept … I just thought it wasn't really a fair deal.”

For fair

The journalist Nick Kelly says that the advertising for artists from the position has led to changes.

“We see a massive shift towards artists who maintain their independence and keep ownership of autonomy about the way they are perceived and the way they are marketed.

He says that historically many admission contracts contain large cuts of profit for the label and not the musician.

“The cut that these record labels take from some of these shops is enormous and does not feel justified,” he says.

Well-known musicians have reported their record label horror stories in recent years.

When Chappell Roan won her first Grammy Prize for the best new artist at the beginning of this year, she took the opportunity to fight better working conditions for aspiring musicians.

“I would demand that labels in the industry that benefit millions of dollars from artists would offer viable wages and health care, in particular the developmental artists,” she said.

Joshua Yuvaraj says that there are clearly systemic problems in the industry, he believes that a healthy dialogue is of crucial importance.

“Without demonizing these record companies and streaming companies that play an important role in the creative ecosystem, we also have to recognize that artists have to be cared for,” he says.

Plate companies struck back

In view of the higher cases of new admissions that occurred in recent years, some record companies have replied.

It was reported in 2023 that large labels such as the Universal Music Group, the Sony Music Entertainment and the Warner Music Group overtook their contracts for new artists.

These updates to contracts are said to contain longer periods before resuming with a few time frames, according to reports up to 30 years.

Kelly is not surprised.

“It shows that they definitely feel the effects of these new admissions and the loss of income.”

He says it reflects the deeper wounds between some artists and record labels.

“It raises the bigger question to me: 'Why do artists want to resume again?' And this responsibility depends on the communication between artist teams and record labels.

“The label has to earn money so that they can again invest in the development of new talents.

“I think that's a good ecosystem, but it should be fair for everyone.”

Murray believes that in the music industry there is space for improvements. “How many artists have tried to sue the record label for years because they tried to get out of shops because the offers were terrible?” He says.

He wishes that he could have given his younger himself.

“I think you should have your master … because you control it and own it.

“Nobody can do it.”

He says that if labels prioritize more fairer business, the long -term results will be an advantage.