Take two: The law behind artists re-recording their music

The practice of artists re-recording their music is not a new phenomenon, with the likes of Frank Sinatra, Joni Mitchell and Def Leppard having famously revisited their work over the years with varying levels of commercial and critical success. However, the recent surge in high-profile re-recordings has turned this once niche practice into a prominent feature in the music industry, capturing the attention of both fans and media alike. One notable example is Roger Waters, the former frontman of Pink Floyd, who made headlines with his solo rendition of the band’s groundbreaking 1973 album, “The Dark Side of the Moon.”

This trend has evolved into a lucrative venture for renowned artists, driven by various motivations ranging from creative expression to legal disputes with original record labels. Many artists seek to re-record their music as a means of gaining greater control over their works, particularly when faced with disagreements or conflicts with their original labels.

Understanding the legal intricacies of re-recording music involves delving into copyright law, which typically distinguishes between the rights associated with the song itself and the rights pertaining to the sound recording, often referred to as the “masters.”  In a typical recording/publishing arrangement, artists retain the song copyrights, while the label maintains ownership of the masters. Despite the apparent advantage of owning rights in the song, the master rights holder crucially wields control over both physical and digital forms of the sound recording, often considered the “definitive” version of the song by listeners, adding long-term value.

Artists looking to re-record their music do need to consider the agreements into which they have entered. Until recently, recording contracts would as standard stipulate that re-releases were only permitted after a specific period – for example five years following the original release or two years post the artist’s contract expiry, whichever was longer. Only after this period elapsed, artists could potentially re-record their music.

However, the landscape is beginning to shift as major labels move to tighten their control over future re-releases through contract law, specifically by limiting the ability of new artists to re-record material. Recognising the potential diversion of profits and devaluation of original masters, labels are extending the aforementioned waiting periods significantly. In certain cases, this period has been set at thirty years or even “in perpetuity”, and while artists and their representatives have sought to push back against these changes, the balance of power in negotiations often favours the labels, with a perception existing amongst certain industry figures that contracts have become too artist-friendly over time.

In response to these challenges, some industry-leading artists are exploring deals with labels that allow them to retain control of the master recordings. However, the traditional model, whereby labels own the masters, remains by far the more common arrangement. This is unsurprising given the generally unequal bargaining power between artists and labels, placing the majority of artists in a weaker negotiating position when it comes to agreeing the terms of a record deal. As the music industry continues to evolve, the dynamics between artists and labels in the realm of re-recordings will undoubtedly undergo further transformation, shaping the future of this practice and its impact on artistic control and profitability.