In the recent salvo in a rapidly developing media battle that has developed in the last 15 hours, Taylor Swift refuted the claim of Big Machine Records that the company had not tried to stop them from making material from their early days To use albums that are the property of Big Machine Records are from the label in upcoming television specials.
Swift made these allegations against the company on Thursday night, stating that she was denied the use of her Big Machine era songs for the upcoming American Music Awards and a Netflix documentary. Big Machine denied these allegations in an early Friday statement in a general but not specific way.
Big Machine also claimed Swift owed the company "millions of dollars and several assets", claiming that the singer owed her almost refuted unpaid royalties totaling $ 8 million.
In the latest statement, a representative from Swift wrote:
"The truth is that on October 28, 201
"Please note that the BMLG does not issue any licenses for existing recordings or the associated limitations on re-recording with these two projects:
The Netflix Documentary and
The Alibaba Event & # 39; Double Eleven & # 39; [an event in China at which Swift performed last week].
"To avoid litigation, Taylor played three songs from her new album & # 39; Lover & # 39; at The Double Eleven event, when it was clear the Big Machine Label Group felt that a TV performance of catalog songs was against their agreement. In addition, Scott Borchetta, CEO and founder of the Big Machine Label Group, yesterday rejected the request for American Music Awards and Netflix. Please note that in the Big Machine statement, she never denies Taylor's claim she made in her post last night.
"Ultimately, Big Machine tries to divert this and make money by saying it owe them, but an independent, professional auditor has determined that Big Machine Taylor has paid unpaid royalties of 7.9 million over several years Dollar owes.
Variety has seen a document that seems to support their claim that Big Machine denied the use of songs, although its authenticity could not be independently verified immediately.
Swift says in her posts that the Big Machine team told her she should only use her old songs if she agrees not to re-record them in the future – a non-starter for her, she says – and if she does assured she would not talk negatively about the company.
Normally, the live performance of older material, if someone else's master recordings are held, should not require permission. Cept Swift claims that Borchetta and Braun claim that a performance on the AMAs is "a re-recording," before I'm allowed to go next year ". She also said, "Scott and Scooter have refused to use my older music or performance footage for [the Netflix documentary]." Their big-machine contract states that they may not re-record material from their time at the label until November next year In fact, when analyzing Big Machine's statement, these specific claims are not completely denied: They say, "Taylor could never appear on the AMAs or block their Netflix special." They also said that they "Continued to consider all their applications for licensing their catalog to third parties", but did not address the two possible uses. (A representative from Braun and Big Machine did not immediately respond to Variety's request for further clarification.) They then turn to larger questions that deal with the problematic relationships between Swift and de Addressing a Label That Has Become Crisis On that day, Swift published a passionate social media post describing how she considered the US government's "sad and disgusting" deal to be the rights to her entire catalog up to the "call" 2017 includes. She called the deal "my worst scenario," saying she'd always mistrusted him and accused him of "bullying" her by referring to a social media post in which Bieber, Brown and Kanye West – with whom Swift at the time bitter and publicly spared – were photographed together, titled "Taylor Swift what up". Bieber apologized for the job.
"For years, I have asked for a chance to own my work," the post begins. "Instead, I had the opportunity to re-enroll in Big Machine Records and get one album for each new one I submitted, I left because I knew Scott Borchetta would do it if I signed this contract Sell the label and sell it to me and my future I had to make the horrible decision to leave my past behind. "
Swift claims to have been blinded by the deal, which seems questionable as her father was a big machine shareholder and rumors in the industry were almost unavoidable in the weeks before it happened, but it is possible that the The family intentionally closes its eyes.
The singer has announced that she will re-record and release her earlier material if she does so next year rudimentarily permitted – a brazen piece to devaluate their early catalog