McCormicks Law
  • Home
  • Services
    • Entertainment Law >
      • Music
      • Interactive Entertainment Law
      • Film + Television + Theatre
      • Media Law
      • Sport Law
    • Entertainment Visas >
      • Distinguished Talent Visas
      • TALENT VISAS
      • Business Industry Investment Visas
      • Character Issues & Talent Visas
    • Film + Television Business
    • Fashion Law
    • Tours & Events Legals
    • Royalty Audits and Recovery
    • Trademarks
    • Business Law >
      • Start Up Companies
    • Litigation
  • Industry Focus
    • Entertainment
    • Music Business
    • Creative Industries
    • Advertising + Media
    • Interactive Entertainment Industry
    • Design and Visual Arts
    • Fashion + Luxury Goods
    • Hospitality + Leisure
  • We are
    • Our Clients
    • Our Focus
    • Jobs Page
    • International
  • Blogs
  • Contact
1300 150 001
contact @ mccormicks.com.au

Taylor Swift and Universal Music Record Deal

22/11/2018

0 Comments

 

​Ok, a quick word on the Taylor Swift / Universal Records deal and her move away from Big Machine Records [– whom she’d been with since the she was 14 year old], and why it is big news.
 
Simply, Taylor had to move from Big Machine records to gain complete control of her work and it was the time to do it.  Her big Machine record deal wasn’t terminated, it expired, and she didn’t renew it. There was no ‘dispute’; It was a good business move by Swift. 
 
Big Machine owned the rights to all the master recordings for every single one of her 4 record breaking albums (that’s how it works in artist/record company deals, the company owns the master recording of the albums – not to be confused with ‘song ownership’, that’s different). 
 
So with offers from all the big labels, the final deal she signed with Universal Music unsurprisingly has a huge  ‘undisclosed figure’ but with her negotiation clout the new contract gives her control and ownership of her future albums. Only a small number of artists have been able to achieve this with a major label (E.g. Garth Brooks, Motley Crew, Bowie, Aerosmith, Metallica… et al).  
 
The way it traditionally works is that an artist would receive an advance in exchange for signing away the rights to the albums or tracks produced under the contract. There is numerous incarnations of that structure but at the end of the day in 99.9% of traditional deals that is what happens.
 
The biggest and the most unique, aspect of the new record deal is that she has negotiated a benefit for all Universal Artists. Universal is the largest shareholder in Spotify, if/when Universal sell ANY of its shares in Spotify, Swifts contract provides an obligation on Universal to distribute the profits to all of its artists. No one saw that coming and that was the master stroke.
​
Picture
Picture
Some context on the Spotify clause. Universal is the last remaining major label yet to sell its founding shares in the streaming platform. Sony has sold 50% of its shares ($770M) and Warner 100% ($500M).

Sony announced that it would be sharing its stock profits to its artists, and has shared 30%. Warner shared 25% ($125M) of the profits with its roster too, 

In response UMA announced that it would be also sharing if they ever sold but never confirmed any details.  Taylor Swift  confirmed it with a non-recoupable clause, and higher percentage that Sony, and this was was a critical term UMA needed to accepted to shake off all the other major labels, (as well as Apple and Spotify...and private telco companies whom were trying to lure Swift with unique direct partnership deals). 

Universals stock in Spotify is worth between $800M-$900m and while the profits on a sale will be shared on a pro-rata basis with the artists, Swift is not in the top 20 streamed artists (remember she pulled her music off the platform). So its a terms negotiated that will benefit other artist before herself. 
0 Comments
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Band Agreements
    Copyright
    Defamation
    Digital
    Domain Names
    Entertainment Visas
    Film TV Media
    Licences
    Moral Rights
    Music Agreements
    Publishing
    Record Deals
    Royalties
    Streaming
    Trademarks
    Video Blog

    Archives

    July 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    April 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012

    Picture

    RSS Feed

Picture
  • Home
  • Services
    • Entertainment Law >
      • Music
      • Interactive Entertainment Law
      • Film + Television + Theatre
      • Media Law
      • Sport Law
    • Entertainment Visas >
      • Distinguished Talent Visas
      • TALENT VISAS
      • Business Industry Investment Visas
      • Character Issues & Talent Visas
    • Film + Television Business
    • Fashion Law
    • Tours & Events Legals
    • Royalty Audits and Recovery
    • Trademarks
    • Business Law >
      • Start Up Companies
    • Litigation
  • Industry Focus
    • Entertainment
    • Music Business
    • Creative Industries
    • Advertising + Media
    • Interactive Entertainment Industry
    • Design and Visual Arts
    • Fashion + Luxury Goods
    • Hospitality + Leisure
  • We are
    • Our Clients
    • Our Focus
    • Jobs Page
    • International
  • Blogs
  • Contact