Taylor Swift buys back masters

Taylor Swift said on May 30, 2025 that she had bought back the master recordings of her first six albums, ending the dispute that had defined one of the music industry’s longest-running catalog fights. In a letter posted on her official website, Swift wrote that she now owns “all of the music I’ve ever made.” Billboard, Rolling Stone and Variety reported that the seller was Shamrock Capital, which had acquired the catalog after Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings bought Big Machine Label Group in 2019. Geo.tv reported on May 22, 2026 that the purchase also gives Swift full control of the recordings as labels and streaming companies pursue more artificial-intelligence music tools. ### Which recordings did Swift say she now owns? Taylor Swift’s May 30, 2025 letter said the deal returned ownership of her catalog to her after years of failed attempts to buy it outright. Billboard and Rolling Stone reported that the transaction covered the masters for her first six studio albums, the recordings originally released through Big Machine. Those albums are the core of the dispute that began after Big Machine Label Group was sold in 2019. (taylorswift.com) Billboard reported that Braun’s Ithaca Holdings acquired the label and Swift’s catalog in that sale, and that Shamrock later bought the masters from Braun before Swift ultimately purchased them back. ### Why did Swift not already own those masters? (taylorswift.com) Big Machine Records controlled the master recordings under Swift’s original recording contract, a standard arrangement for many artists at the start of their careers. Time reported that Swift left Big Machine in 2018 when her deal expired and signed with Republic Records, part of Universal Music Group, after seeking ownership of her work. (billboard.com) The 2019 sale of Big Machine turned the contract dispute into a public fight. Billboard reported that Swift said at the time she learned of the sale “as it was announced to the world,” and described Braun’s acquisition as her “worst-case scenario.” ### How did the re-recordings fit into the fight? Rolling Stone and Billboard reported that Swift responded by re-recording the albums she no longer owned, releasing “Taylor’s Version” editions as a way to shift commercial value toward recordings she controlled. (time.com) That strategy kept the original masters in circulation while giving fans, advertisers and film or television supervisors an alternative catalog to license. (billboard.com) Variety reported when the buyback was announced that Swift indicated reissues and unreleased material could still surface later, even after she regained the original recordings. That meant the purchase did not necessarily end the commercial life of the re-recording campaign. ### What does “full ownership and control” change now? (rollingstone.com) Geo.tv reported on May 22, 2026 that Swift’s ownership gives her direct control over how the recordings are used as the industry debates artificial intelligence and music licensing. The outlet tied that control to a broader argument about legal protection as labels and platforms test AI-related products. Swift’s own letter was narrower. (variety.com) TaylorSwift.com said she had wanted the chance to buy her music “with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy,” framing the deal as a rights and control issue rather than an AI policy statement. ### Where does the story go from here? May 30, 2025 remains the key date in the transaction because that is when Swift publicly confirmed the purchase on her website. (geo.tv) Geo.tv’s May 22, 2026 report shows the catalog fight is now being folded into a newer debate over AI-era licensing and artist consent. The next concrete documents are already public: Swift’s letter on her official site and trade reporting from Billboard, Rolling Stone and Variety on the Shamrock Capital deal. (taylorswift.com) Those sources set out the ownership chain, the date of the buyback and the recordings involved.