Jump to content

2020 headliners


jj200

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, a6l6e6x said:

First I've heard of this Scott and Scooter thing. So did they buy copyright to her early music? If so which albums?

Can you ban an artist from performing a song live when bands cover stuff all the time? Could she just say it was a cover of a Taylor Swift song as a work around (as ridiculous as it sounds)

American copyright law is very complicated. There's a distinction between the recorded works, live performances, and broadcasting rights.

Taylor's old record label Big Red Machine sold the recorded rights (the masters) of all of her music up through and including Reputation (everything except her new album Lover). The new owner of Taylor's music is a group of rich people/investors spearheaded by Scooter Braun, the manager of Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, among other big acts. Side-note, but very important context, is that Taylor has long claimed that Scooter Braun has persistently bullied her over the course of many years. Google Taylor Swift Scooter Braun to learn more.

But back to copyright. Anyone can PERFORM any song at a concert without permission. However, broadcasting falls into a whole separate category of US rights law. So if Taylor told Glastonbury to shut off the broadcast feed during her set, she would be in the clear. Clearly, however, that is not ideal.

Taylor is furious that her arch nemesis now owns her music. It's her worst dreams come true.

Remember how I said that Scooter Braun owns the masters to her old music? A master is a literal recording. It's a static, non-changing audio file, for lack of a better description. One way that Taylor could get some power back in this situation, and something that she's been rumored to be planning to do, is re-record her old songs.  She would then own the rights to the re-recorded songs, and she could sell them, broadcast them, etc. She is legally allowed to do this. It would create a fascinating scenario where Spotify, iTunes, etc. would have 2 versions of all of Taylor Swift's old songs. Scooter Braun does not want this to happen, because Taylor would tell all of her fans to only purchase and stream the new version, not the old versions. Scooter Braun bought Taylor Swift's old masters because he wants to make money, and Taylor Swift re-recording her old music is a threat to that.

(Quick side note. The law that governs re-recording old music is complicated. I also don't know what Taylor's contracts with her old record label say. It might or might not be the case that if Taylor re-recorded her old music, she would have to make it different enough such that a court decides it is it's own piece of work, rather than derivative of the original.)

As Taylor notes in her open letter, she wants to use some of her old music in an upcoming Netflix documentary, and she also wants to be able to broadcast some of her old songs on TV such as at the upcoming American Music Awards, and perhaps Glastonbury. Scooter Braun is saying he will let her do so if she agrees not to re-record her old songs, at least for another year, and she also has to stop publicly criticizing Scooter Braun. Sure, sounds like a quid pro quo to me. #ImpeachScooterBraun.

With this public letter she just put out, she's essentially declaring war. She's hoping that public sentiment turns so strongly against Scooter Braun, and her fans just don't stop annoying/probably harassing him, that he relents. She's also asking other artists that Scooter Braun represents (Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, etc.) to put pressure on him to reverse his decision. I think Taylor is likely to lose this battle. I think this letter will just serve to piss the guy off even more.

Anyways, will be fascinating to see how this shakes out. I don't think this has any real bearing on whether she plays Glastonbury. If she has to cut the broadcast feed during her set, then they'll do that. That's assuming she's even playing (which is likely, but not confirmed). We shall see what happens!

Edited by Ameeps
  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have an upvote for the informative post. Completely unaware of all of that. I think Taylor would put off playing glasto until she was allowed to broadcast a live performance of those songs again though. Crazy how through now fault of her own (that I can see) she's restricted to playing music she wrote! The industry is messed up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think if changes the situation much tbh. BBC could just broadcast a one hour highlights deal of the Lover tracks. The Stones didn't have their full set broadcast did they? Doing that would also give Taylor more ammo and a huge forum to further say how ridiculous the situation is as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, morph100 said:

So the third headliner they are still working on could be Taylor or she’s booked and will only televise the new tracks or she not playing due to this and will play BST instead.

 

Do we reckon Emily's sprogs are Swift-fans? Would make sense that they where pestering for confirmation of Taylor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ameeps said:

American copyright law is very complicated. There's a distinction between the recorded works, live performances, and broadcasting rights.

Taylor's old record label Big Red Machine sold the recorded rights (the masters) of all of her music up through and including Reputation (everything except her new album Lover). The new owner of Taylor's music is a group of rich people/investors spearheaded by Scooter Braun, the manager of Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, among other big acts. Side-note, but very important context, is that Taylor has long claimed that Scooter Braun has persistently bullied her over the course of many years. Google Taylor Swift Scooter Braun to learn more.

But back to copyright. Anyone can PERFORM any song at a concert without permission. However, broadcasting falls into a whole separate category of US rights law. So if Taylor told Glastonbury to shut off the broadcast feed during her set, she would be in the clear. Clearly, however, that is not ideal.

Taylor is furious that her arch nemesis now owns her music. It's her worst dreams come true.

Remember how I said that Scooter Braun owns the masters to her old music? A master is a literal recording. It's a static, non-changing audio file, for lack of a better description. One way that Taylor could get some power back in this situation, and something that she's been rumored to be planning to do, is re-record her old songs.  She would then own the rights to the re-recorded songs, and she could sell them, broadcast them, etc. She is legally allowed to do this. It would create a fascinating scenario where Spotify, iTunes, etc. would have 2 versions of all of Taylor Swift's old songs. Scooter Braun does not want this to happen, because Taylor would tell all of her fans to only purchase and stream the new version, not the old versions. Scooter Braun bought Taylor Swift's old masters because he wants to make money, and Taylor Swift re-recording her old music is a threat to that.

(Quick side note. The law that governs re-recording old music is complicated. I also don't know what Taylor's contracts with her old record label say. It might or might not be the case that if Taylor re-recorded her old music, she would have to make it different enough such that a court decides it is it's own piece of work, rather than derivative of the original.)

As Taylor notes in her open letter, she wants to use some of her old music in an upcoming Netflix documentary, and she also wants to be able to broadcast some of her old songs on TV such as at the upcoming American Music Awards, and perhaps Glastonbury. Scooter Braun is saying he will let her do so if she agrees not to re-record her old songs, at least for another year, and she also has to stop publicly criticizing Scooter Braun. Sure, sounds like a quid pro quo to me. #ImpeachScooterBraun.

With this public letter she just put out, she's essentially declaring war. She's hoping that public sentiment turns so strongly against Scooter Braun, and her fans just don't stop annoying/probably harassing him, that he relents. She's also asking other artists that Scooter Braun represents (Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, etc.) to put pressure on him to reverse his decision. I think Taylor is likely to lose this battle. I think this letter will just serve to piss the guy off even more.

Anyways, will be fascinating to see how this shakes out. I don't think this has any real bearing on whether she plays Glastonbury. If she has to cut the broadcast feed during her set, then they'll do that. That's assuming she's even playing (which is likely, but not confirmed). We shall see what happens!

Excellent post - very well explained.

Made my brief explanation look a bit lame ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t really know why I’m in here, I just like gossip I guess - pyramid headliners are not something I watch and I have less than zero interest in Taylor Swift beyond that nice goat remix of Trouble (Trouble? I think it’s called that) but the idea of someone not having the rights to their own music is absolutely batshit mental. And Scooter Braun is a colossally weird name, it appears he is a twat.  
 

right, back to poop stories and rock slots, sorry 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose though it is an issue if the main reason big artists play Glastonbury for a much lower than standard fee is the exposure. 

That said, a lot can happen between now and then; a deal could be done, or pressure mounts on Borchetta and Braun to allow her to perform what she wants in front of cameras, or, worst case scenario the BBC only shows the newer stuff 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, henry bear said:

I suppose though it is an issue if the main reason big artists play Glastonbury for a much lower than standard fee is the exposure. 

That said, a lot can happen between now and then; a deal could be done, or pressure mounts on Borchetta and Braun to allow her to perform what she wants in front of cameras, or, worst case scenario the BBC only shows the newer stuff 

Yup. I also remember the stones refusing to be shown and now the full set is up.

Things can change. Seems to me like there will be a litigation and a settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, strummer77 said:

We've been talking about RHCP for so many pages now I forget... is there anything actually linking them?
 

headlining festivals in Europe, and every time they do festivals in Europe, it's headlining the same festivals that your Coldplays, Foo Fighters etc. headline, yet apparently people think they couldn't possibly headline Glastonbury these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for the Taylor thing, not really an issue for Glastonbury. just have a delayed broadcast of the Lover tracks from her set. there's no issue not broadcasting sets, Portishead (or was it Massive Attack?) didn't allow theirs broadcast before.

I don't really think the AMAs thing is even remotely true TBH, I can't see any court ruling that performing a medley of tracks live would constitute "re-recording" them. And if Taylor was arsed, she would just do it and then fight them in court on it.

I'm a big fan of her music, but as a person I think she's incredibly manipulative, and this open letter just seems like the latest in a long history of her trying to twist the narrative to suit her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kingcrawler said:

Justin Timberlake is apparently headlining Pinkpop the week before Glastonbury. I reckon he's a much better fit for BST and I don't think they'd book him and Taylor Swift to headline in the same year but another name to consider.

Yeah JT sounds like a BST booking.

Its a shame because when he first came back he was making really exciting music but now he’s just fizzled for me. His old stuff still bangs though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...