Leading intellectual property barrister, Andrew Brown KC recently addressed the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys conference in Christchurch. In this paper he examines aspects of Taylor Swift’s career and her re-recorded albums to explain how copyright works in the music business. He discusses the emerging challenges posed by AI-generated music, examines how the United Kingdom and Australian Governments are protecting creative works and artists from AI. He also reviews the existing protection for computer generated works in the Copyright Act and the problems and issues with this category.
Taylor Swift is a cultural phenomenon. She is the highest grossing live music artist ever, having grossed US$3 billion[1]. Other artists exceeding just US$2billion are U2, Coldplay, Bruce Springsteen and Elton John. Taylor Swift is also the wealthiest female musician[2]. Both Billboard and Rolling Stone magazines have rated her as one of the greatest artists of all time.
Taylor Swift’s career as a songwriter, composer and recording artist is the focus as a means of explaining how copyright works in the music business.
For intellectual property attorneys and lawyers, one of the more fascinating aspects of Taylor Swift’s career is the way in which she re-recorded four of her albums between 2021 and 2023[3]. The albums were Fearless, Red, Speak Now and 1989. This event achieved massive publicity. There has been a real interest to go behind this process. Why did it happen, and more importantly,how does copyright in musical works and sound recordings operate?
Once a musical work is created, how does music get recorded and commercialised? Who owns what rights? Also there are different licensing bodies or collective management organisations (CMOs) in New Zealand. These are APRA and Recorded Music with a third player called AMCOS. How do they operate and who does what?
Finally, I will examine the separate topic of AI creating music.
Background to the Taylor Swift Saga
Although the Taylor Swift events played out in the United States, there are close similarities between the copyright position in the US and in New Zealand. This is because of international conventions such as the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention covering sound recordings and also the harmonising of IP rights internationally in the TRIPs Agreement.
So, we don’t have to get too hung up on the different jurisdictions. Also, because you all practise in New Zealand, naturally you want to know about New Zealand law first and foremost.
In 2004 at the age of 14, Taylor Swift in her capacity as a songwriter signed a publishing deal with a publishing company, Sony/ATV. A publishing deal is explained shortly. In her capacity as a recording artist, she had a short term deal with RCA Records but then signed a six-year recording contract with a recording company called Big Machine Records established by Scott Borchetta. Under the recording contract Big Machine owned copyright in the sound recordings produced in-studio. In this early part of her career, Taylor Swift released six very successful albums through Big Machine Records.
In June 2019 a dispute arose between Taylor Swift and Big Machine Records. This occurred when an entrepreneur named Scooter Braun (who was the manager of Justin Bieber and Arianne Grande) purchased Big Machine Records. In acquiring the business Scooter Braun acquired the masters of Taylor Swift’s six albums and copyright in those masters as well as music videos and artworks associated with the albums[4].
In 2020 Scooter Braun subsequently sold these masters and copyright in them to a private equity firm Shamrock (the Disney family’s private investment company)[5].
When the dispute arose, Taylor Swift said that she had tried to purchase the masters (and copyright in them) but that Big Machine had offered her what she regarded as ‘unfavourable conditions’.
The disputes escalated. Taylor Swift alleged that Big Machine had blocked her from performing certain songs from her albums at the 2019 American Music Awards. Big Machine responded by saying that it had not tried to stop the show and that the Taylor Swift narrative “did not exist”.[6]
Billboards reading “#StandwithTaylor” were then paid for by Taylor Swift fans and appeared outside the headquarters of Big Machine Records as a means of putting it under pressure.[7] This is a remarkable example of fan power.
Live Performance of songs by the songwriter do not require record label approval.
A settlement of the American Music Awards part of the dispute was reached with Big Machine stating correctly that “recording artists do not need approval from the label [the owner of copyright in the sound recording] for live performances on tv or any other live media”. Big Machine also stated that “Record label approval is only needed for contracted artists' audio and visual recordings and in determining how those works are distributed."[8]
This was really saying that Taylor did not need permission to live perform at the AMAs her hits songs like Shake It Off, Love Story or I Knew You Were Trouble. But what she could not do was to make a recording of her performance at the AMAs and put this up online. Although some 6.5 million viewers apparently watched the AMA’s live, the number of watchers who would subsequently go and watch a video of the performance was much much larger and that was what mattered. Viewings of the video would far exceed live watchers. And the Record label as owner of copyright in sound recordings had rights in respect of any such online recording of those songs.
Taylor Swift’s six-year recording contract with Big Machine expired in November 2018.[9]
It is apparently very common for record labels to include a no-rerecording clause in the sound recording contract with an artist to prevent them from taking their songs, re-recording them and delivering these re-recordings to another label (or simply holding the new copyright themselves) – and thus undermining the original sound recording copyright.[10]
But in this case the Big Machines contract contained no contractual restriction on Taylor Swift from re-recording the songs. Also, importantly, because Taylor was the owner of copyright in the underlying musical works which she had written and composed, she was legally able to re-record them. So, she went ahead and re-recorded four albums and, of course, then owned the new copyright in these re-recorded sound recordings. This enabled her to have real control over her music catalogue and the commercialising of it.[11]
Taylor Swift then entered into a new recording contract with Republic Records, a division of Universal Music, the largest music label in the world. This contract allowed her to fully own sound recording copyright in any new albums in her own right, starting with the album Lover which Republic Records would distribute.
Also in 2022 after her 14 year publishing contract with Sony/ATV expired, Taylor Swift signed a new publishing contract with Universal Music Publishing covering all her musical works copyrights.
The Relevant Copyrights: How the Music Industry is Structured
Let’s step back from the facts and now turn attention to a diagram of the various copyrights, who owns what and what rights.
(1) Parallel Copyrights: the Musical work, the Lyrics and the Sound Recording Copyright
There are three major copyrights. These are (1) the musical work copyright, (2) copyright in the lyrics and (3) the sound recording copyright. There will also be copyright in the cover art released with the sound recording – either in vinyl or digital form. This is an artistic work.
(i) The Musical Work Copyright
The owner of copyright in the musical work is the author, being the person who created it (s 5(1)). There can, of course, be joint authors. So, when a composer or band member writes a song and records it in material form, i.e. in sheet music or in digital form on some form of recording device, then provided this is original [12] and not slavishly copied from an earlier composition, then the composer owns copyright in the musical work.
(ii) The Lyrics
These are categorised as a literary work. Some artists write both the music and the lyrics. With other famous collaborators like Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Elton John wrote the musical works and Bernie Taupin would write the lyrics. Again, the owner is the author (or joint author).
In New Zealand, evidence presented to the Copyright Tribunal back in 2009 in the Radio Rates case estimated that over 80% of New Zealand artists in the last 30-40 years have written their own musical works (and lyrics). There is a huge incentive for artists to write their own material, because this means that they are not hostage to finding a composer to write their next hit song for them. Back in ancient eras in the 1940s and 1950s, big name artists, for example, Frank Sinatra and Elvis always relied on a composer to write and provide them with a song which they would then record.
But from the 1960s onward the inexorable trend has been for artists to write their own songs and lyrics. In many cases there is collaboration of the artist with a professional producer. Taylor Swift has collaborated with writers such as Anton Dessener who co-wrote and produced Folklore and Evermore and Jack Antonoff who co-wrote and produced 1989, Melodrama and Midnights. Another collaborator is New Zealand composer Leroy Clampitt co-wrote and co-produced four songs on Lily Allen’s recent smash hit album West End Girl.[13] Or Joel Little who was the co-writer and sole producer of Lorde’s hit Royals.
Successful composers and writers such as Taylor Swift, Lorde or Lily Allen will often enter into what they call a publishing contract with a music publishing company. These publishing companies such as Sony Music Publishing. Universal Music Publishing Group Ltd, Warner Chappel Music and BMG Rights Management manage, protect and monetize the copyright in songs and compositions that their stable of composers write. Most often the publishing company will pay a cash advance to the songwriter/composer when they sign up. The publishing company then recoups this from royalty income and licence fees all over the world. Net income from these sources is then paid out to the composer/songwriter. I will further explain this income stream shortly.
(iii) The Sound Recording Copyright
When the musical work (and lyrics) are recorded in analogue or digital form as a sound recording then the third copyright arises, the sound recording copyright.
The owner is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken (s5(1)) OR if the work is commissioned, the person who commissions and pays for it (s 21(3)).
Up until the mid 1990s sound recordings were always recorded in analogue format in a studio for then pressing into an LP or production as a cassette or (later) as a CD. Analogue studios were expensive. Musicians who wanted to become recording stars during this era generally needed to obtain a record contract from a music label such as Sony, EMI, Warner Bros or Universal (or one of their subsidiary labels). This was the holy grail for singers and bands – to secure a record contract to pay for the analogue recording process in-studio.
These recording contracts were universally provided by contract that the record label owned copyright in the sound recordings recorded by the artist or band. The record company would deduct from income from sales and licensing fees the costs of producing the sound recordings. The artist or band would then get a payout of net income. But most income stayed with the record label. The income from all live performances and concerts went to the band. This is why so many bands tour. It is also why you see so many older bands and artists still performing on tour. They need the money. It is also why Taylor Swift did not need the approval of her then-label, Big Machine Records, to perform her hit songs at the American Music Awards.
With the advent of digital recording from the mid 1990s, artists were able to fund and make their own recordings by recording these in home studios or by contracting time in a third party studio, such as Neil Finn’s Roundhead studio in Auckland. This trend to small digital studios has meant that many indie artists are now able to own copyright in their own sound recordings. They do not need to have a recording contract to fund the sound recording.
When leading artists such as Taylor Swift are very successful and have commercial power, they will always seek to retain ownership of their sound recording copyright. The major labels such as Universal, Sony and Warner Bros, frequently now do just distribution deals with an artist or band rather than deals where the label owns the sound recording copyright. So, as we saw earlier, when Taylor Swift entered into a new record contract with Republic Records (Universal) in 2019 she negotiated to retain the rights to her future sound recording copyright. At that point in her career, she would have had very substantial negotiating clout to achieve this. Also with digital recording, the costs of recording are no longer prohibitive for artists.
However, the major sound recording labels still have significant economic power because of the strength of their distribution and publicity machines. They are able to place songs on Spotify play lists and influence uptake on radio stations and digital networks. Indie artists self-promoting or using an Indie label tend to have greater challenges in getting cut-through, than an artist having a distribution deal with a major label.
(2) How These Copyrights Get Commercialised: Parallel Licensing Bodies/CMOs
The Exclusive Rights
An essential part of any discussion on commercialisation is to list the exclusive rights that the copyright owners have. These are:
(a) To copy the work: applies to musical works, lyrics, sound recordings.[14] This is the most powerful right.
(b) To issue copies of the work to the public: applies to musical works, lyrics, sound recordings.[15] This exclusive right applies only to the first distribution of legitimate copies in New Zealand. So, the first distributor of these physical CDs or vinyls or digital copies at the top of the distribution chain in New Zealand must have the licence or approval of the copyright owner.
(c) To perform the work in public: musical works, lyrics.[16]
(d) To play the work in public: sound recordings.[17]
These two exclusive rights are considered together. They are valuable and are generally licensed through licensing bodies (sometimes called collective management organisations or CMOs) APRA and Recorded Music license the public performance of these copyrights through One Music.
The first question is, what if I am in a band and I want to do a cover version of a song by Taylor Swift at the local pub, can I do this or do I have to have a licence? Answer: Yes. This issue is covered by a licence from APRA called a public performance licence. The licence is issued by APRA to the venue and gives a blanket licence to perform musical works and lyrics in public for an annual fee.
This is an important right for Taylor Swift as owner of copyright in her musical composition and any other owner either label or artist.
Licensing Bodies/ CMOs in New Zealand
There are three relevant licensing bodies/CMOs in New Zealand:
(a) For copyright in musical works it is APRA.
(b) For copyright in musical works that are to be recorded for public release it is AMCOS. Although a separate body, it is part of APRA.
(c) For copyright in sound recordings, it is Recorded Music NZ (formerly PPNZ).
These licensing bodies or CMOs license some of the exclusive rights on behalf of the various copyright owners.
In the sound recording field, the sound recording copyright owners provide mandates to Recorded Music to act on on their behalf. There are three major labels – Universal, Sony and Warner Bros together with thousands of smaller indie labels and self-recorded artists. Because of international licensing arrangements, Recorded Music acts for sound recording copyright owners worldwide. Recorded Music collects licence fees from the playing in public of sound recordings and music videos on behalf of its member copyright owners and then pays these out to such owners (less their operating costs).
Rather than have multiple individual copyright owners collecting fees for the use of copyright in their musical works or sound recordings, it is far more efficient for a CMO to blanket license all such works to a New Zealand user and then to pay out the revenue to the copyright owners.
At the time of the Radio Rights case before the Copyright Tribunal in 2009, Recorded Music had mandates for over 8 million tracks. With the explosion of recorded music since then, that figure will be massively higher.
Licensing bodies such as APRA, AMCOS and Recorded Music are only permitted by copyright owners to license some of the exclusive rights outlined earlier. Copyright owners together with the major publishing companies or major record labels reserve to themselves the right to directly license major revenue streams specific to a particular track – for example the use of a track on advertising or in a movie.
Some brief examples of licences and licensing schemes operated in New Zealand are as follows.
Playing of Music on Radio Stations and Television
Where music is played on the commercial radio station networks in New Zealand operated by MediaWorks or NZME, then both APRA and Recorded Music have created separate licensing schemes which blanket license the playing of the musical composition copyright and the sound recording copyright in public. Under these licensing schemes the radio stations networks pay a percentage of the gross revenue of their radio stations to the CMO’s. A higher percentage is payable by music stations versus talk stations.
Similar licensing schemes exist for Radio New Zealand and for television stations.
The radio stations are digital operations and so have digital records of all tracks they have played every day. Logs of all tracks played are provided to APRA and Recorded Music each month.
APRA and Recorded Music then distribute the licence fees to the sound recordings copyright owners based on the number of plays a song/sound recording has received. APRA and Recorded Music have detailed records of who owns the copyright and who is entitled to receive the revenue. Most often the indie or major labels (in the case of sound recordings ) or the publishing companies (in the case of musical works copyright) will receive the revenue and account to the artist or band for these sums.
So, in the Taylor Swift examples discussed earlier she (or her company) will have received via APRA and via her publishers Sony ATV (and, subsequently, Universal Music Publishing) a share of revenue from the two New Zealand radio networks based on the number of plays. And she will also receive via Universal Music a share of revenue from the two New Zealand radio networks based on the number of plays of her sound recording. Because she owns copyright in the re-recorded albums, she would receive income from the playing of those. If the old versions of her 6 albums were played, then Big Machine now Disney would receive the income.[18]
Licensing for Playing/Performing Works in Public: Retail Stores, Shopping Centres, on Transport, in Bars and Entertainment Venues
APRA and Recorded Music also operate jointly under the title OneMusic to license the playing of music in public, i.e. in retail stores, hospitality venues, gyms, airports, on planes, ferries and ships. The term ‘in public’ has a very wide interpretation.
Rather than requiring two separate licences for all these venues, it has been more efficient from both APRA and Recorded Music to jointly offer the one licence.
Other Licensing: Sync Deals
Most other commercial uses of copyright musical works and sound recordings are licensed directly without the involvement of a licensing body. The record labels and publishing companies find it far more efficient and lucrative to license these one-off deals themselves.
These deals are called “Sync Deals” and typically occur where an advertiser wants to use all or part of a well-known recording as part of a commercial on free to air or streaming television services. Similarly, if a sound recording is used in a movie or television show. As with commercial radio, if a sound recording is being licensed, then the two copyright owners – of the sound recording and the musical composition/lyrics – have to grant licences. The typical split is 50% of the licence fee to each copyright owner.
So let’s take as an example the latest Kiwibank television advertisement of a talking sheep with green wool. This features as a backing track a recording of Fleetwood Mac’s song Go Your Own Way. Use of this involved a sync deal. If the original Fleetwood Mac sound recording had been used, then both copyright owners (Lindsay Buckingham from the band as composer and then the owner of copyright in the sound recording would each get a fee. If it is a sound alike only, i.e. where another artist re-records the song (as this one is), then only the musical composition copyright owner gets a fee.
(d) AMCOS licensing of the reproduction right
There is an intermediate licence between musical work copyright owners and sound recording companies/artists.
In order for artists and sound recording companies to be able to record a musical work on a record/CD/vinyl or as a digital copy for public release in the first place, they need a reproduction licence from the musical work copyright owner. This reproduction licence is granted by APRA’s sister organisation, AMCOS, as noted in the diagram.
Performers Rights
For completeness, reference needs to be made to the Performers Rights that are provided for in Part 9 of the Copyright Act. These are “related to copyright but are independent from the copyright that may exist in a work that may be performed.[19] The types of performance defined are dramatic performances, musical performances (i.e. by band members or session musicians), readings and recitations of literary works and performances of variety acts such as juggling.
The Copyright Act creates performers rights in relation to the recording and live performances. Some of these are a moral right i.e. to be identified as the performer and to prevent derogatory treatment of their performance that involves any distortion, mutilation or other modification that is prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the performer:
- In relation to any live communication of the performance to the public.
- By means of a recording, where someone plays or communicates the recording to the public.
Important economic rights given to performers are to consent to the live communication and recording of their performances. So, a band member or session musician must consent to the recording or live communication of their performances. Where there is no consent the performer can take legal action against copying, playing, communicating to the public or distribution of an illicit recording.
So, if you go to a live concert and without permission record a concert or part of a concert given by Olivia Dean, you cannot communicate that to the public or play it in public or distribute it to a further audience. You need the consent of the performers, i.e. the artist, band members.
The Creation of Music by AI
What is the position where an AI generative programme creates a new musical work or sound recording and this is entirely machine created? As you may have seen at the end of August 2026, the 2026 NZ Industry Music Manifesto [20] issued by multiple music organisations in New Zealand outlined the widespread concern amongst songwriters, musicians and artists that different AI programmes are presently training on their existing copyright works and are ingesting this material for use without any consent or authorisation. In other words, theft. The music industry seeks no new exemptions for AI companies on the basis that if they want to use existing copyright musical works, they should take a licence and pay for it.
The quantity of AI created musical works or sound recordings would shock you. Billboard magazine reported in March this year that one-third of new uploads of music to Apple Music were 100% created by AI [21].
On 25 August 2026, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), the Australian equivalent to Recorded Music NZ, announced that recorded music made wholly by artificial intelligence will be banned from Australia’s top music charts. So, if AI has been used to “generate the entirety or the primary portion of the creative elements” then these will be excluded from the charts [22]. Recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible.
One of the catalysts for this development in Australia was that in July 2026 a cover of Madonna’s sound recording Like a Prayer went to the top of the charts in Australia. It used AI generated vocals and drums.
The Australian Government has been vocal that it will be protecting creative works against AI [23]. It is now working on policy. Then on 26 August 2026 both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia resolved to establish a Joint Select Committee on AI. The establishment of this Select Committee is said to recognise that AI poses moral, strategic and existential challenges to Australia “and that a national response is required”.
Here in New Zealand there is an important need for the incoming Government to equally protect against the adoption and use of copyright works without consent or licensing by AI programmes. The Associate Minister of Commerce, Cameron Brewer, has been tasked by Cabinet with preparing a report by 31 March 2027, i.e. after the election, on “a possible framework for generative AI in New Zealand”. But there is anxiety that officials may not be well placed in terms of their factual knowledge and experience to provide the sort of advice that is required. AI firms will certainly be lobbying.
The NZ 1994 Copyright Act allowed for a specific category of copyright – namely computer generated works. This provision was copied across from the UK CDPA 1988. Does this allow there to be copyright in works which are wholly created by AI?
In each case where AI is involved in the creation of a song or sound recording, there will need to be a number of factual inquiries. Was the song written entirely by AI with no human input? Was there partial AI input. Was an existing musical work or sound recording (or a substantial part of these) copied in the AI generated work? Where did the creation and use of the AI work occur? For the purpose of this address and because of time constraints, I am going to consider only those musical works and sound recordings that have been written or created entirely by AI.
Section 14(1) Copyright Act provides that copyright exists “in original works of the following descriptions:
(a) Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works;
(b) Sound recordings;
(c) Films;
(d) Communication works;
(e) Typographical arrangements of published editions."
Section 14(2) provides that a work is “not original if –
(a) It is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of another work; or
(b) It infringes the copyright in, or to the extent that it infringes the copyright in, another work.“
So, on first principles, if a work has been copied wholly from an earlier work, it is not original. If part of the work has been copied from an earlier work (or a substantial part of it), then the copied part is not original and in fact would be an infringement.
‘Computer generated works’ (“CGW”) are defined in s 2 as meaning “that the work is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work”.
The use of the term ‘work’ in this definition suggests that all types of “works” defined in s 14(1) i.e. including sound recordings and films may claim protection as CGW if they are “generated by computer in circumstances that there is no human author”.
Resolving this live issue is beyond the scope of this paper. The authors of The Modern Law of Copyright [24] note that “in principle the definition [of a CGW] [25] applies to works of all descriptions”. But they go on to say that “in practice this is of no relevance save in relation to literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works.” This is because of the issue of originality discussed next [26].
The author of a computer-generated musical work (even though there is no human author) is defined in s 5 as being “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” [27].
The UK computer generated works provision nearly 40 years ago was aimed at outputs from early computer systems as well as encouraging investment in Artificial Intelligence systems [28]. UK texts and commentators have noted that, since introduction of this category, there have been remarkably few cases in the UK which have sought to rely on this provision.
For copyright to subsist, s 14(1) requires that the work be original. But how is this to be assessed when there is no human author? This key difficulty has troubled commentators [29].
In the UK, under EU influence prior to Brexit, the requirement of originality is now a little higher than the sufficient skill labour and judgment test. The UK Court of Appeal has applied the EU requirement for the work to be of the “author’s own intellectual creation”[30]. In New Zealand this higher standard has not been addressed but our test is whether there has been sufficient original skill and labour created by the author.
The UK Government report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence earlier this year [31] notes that there is a contradiction within s 5(2)(b) of the NZ Act 1994 (s 9(3) UK CDPA 1988). “This is because the provision applies only to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works which are original. The test for originality is now that a work must be an author’s own creation; but yet the definition of computer-generated works requires that “there is no human author of the work”.
The UK 2026 Report noted that:
“This contradiction has led some to question whether the provision could ever apply in practice. In our view, it is unlikely that a court would conclude that it can never apply, as Parliament clearly intended the provision to have an effect. But it is unclear in the absence of case law how an “original” yet wholly machine-authored work would be defined."
British commentators too have speculated on how the issue of originality is to be assessed.[32]
The UK Government’s 2026 Report noted that in other jurisdictions such as NZ, India, Singapore and Hong Kong, which had adopted the CGW category from the UK, there had likewise been no real litigation seeking to use or test the provisions relating to computer generated works.
The UK Report’s conclusion was that[33]:
- The Government’s preferred option was to remove CGW protection from the Act unless consultation responses provided sufficient evidence of its positive effects;
- Right holders and the creative industries generally supported the removal of the provision given that AI-assisted works would remain protected by copyright.
- The responses to the consultation showed minimal evidence that CGW protection is being used or has significant economic effect. The majority of respondents who engaged with the CGWs questions posed by the inquiry supported its removal.
- Copyright should incentivise and protect human creativity. There was minimal evidence that protection for CWGs had been actively used, or that it had had a material impact on creativity and innovation.
New Zealand is in limbo until we see some official statement of policy from the Government. What is clear is that the computer generated works provision has its problems as to scope and coverage and there are uncertainties as to whether it provides protection to fully AI-generated musical works (and sound recordings).
This article is based on Andrew’s presentation “Exploring the Galaxy of Music Copyright through Taylor Swift” at the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys Conference 2026.
References
[1] Wikipedia: List of highest-grossing live music artists.
[2] Wikipedia: List of highest-grossing live music artists.
[3] Wikipedia Taylor Swift albums discography.
[4] Wikipedia: Taylor Swift Masters Dispute.
[5] Wikipedia Taylor Swift Masters Dispute.
[6] Bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50471812 (“BBC Report’).
[7] BBC Report.
[8] BBC Report.
[9] Wikipedia Taylor Swift Masters Dispute.
[10] BBC Report.
[11] In May 2025 Taylor Swift subsequently purchased the copyright in her first six sound recordings from Shamrock for US$360m; Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute#:~:text=In%202005%2C%2015%2Dyear%2Dold%20Taylor%20Swift,her%20first%20six%20studio%20albums
[12] Section 14(1) and (2) Copyright Act 1994.
[13] The tracks Pussy Palace, Sleepwalking, Fruity Loop and Beg For Me.
[14] Sections 16(a); 30.
[15] Sections 16(1)(b); 31.
[16] Sections 16(1)(c); 32(1).
[17] Sections 16(1)(d); 32(2).
[18] As it acquired that copyright from Big Machine Records and Scooter Braun.
[19] MBIE Performers Rights https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/business/intellectual-property/copyright/performers-rights; for detailed treatment see Richard Arnold Performers Rights (6th ed) 2026, Sweet & Maxwell.
[20] NZ Music Commission: https://nzmusic.org.nz/music-commission-news/aotearoa-music-organisations-share-2026-nz-music-industry-manifesto/
[21] Billboard Magazine 22 April 2026 Apple Music Exec Talks AI.
[22] NZ Herald, 25 August 2026. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/music-made-by-ai-will-be-banned-from-australian-charts-to-protect-human-artists/LS7NRW6VKFGHRECNN5XEBUTAXI/
[23] On 20 August 2026 both Houses of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament resolved to establish a Joint Select Committee on AI. The establishment of this Select Committee was said to recognize that”AI poses moral, strategic and economic challenges to Australia” and that a national response was required.
[24] Laddie Prescott & Vittoria (5th edition) 2018 Lexis-Nexis para 22.39.
[25] Which New Zealand and the UK share.
[26] The authors say that this is because, when ascertaining originality, normally a court is concerned to identify the individual or individuals who created it by human mental effort, so that title is traced for literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works.
[27] Section 5(2)(a).
[28] Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence UK Govt 18 March 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence#section-i-computer-generated-works
[29] The UK’s Curious Case of Copyright for AI Generated Works: What section 9(3) Means Today Authors Alliance May 19, 2025: https://www.authorsalliance.org/2025/05/19/the-uks-curious-case-of-copyright-for-ai-generated-works-what-section-93-means-today/
[30] THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 at [23].
[31] See Footnote 21.
[32] A&O Sherman Ownership of AI-generated content in the UK EIPR 2024 46(7) 470 – 478. This refers to commentary by Bently et at Intellectual Property Law 6th ed at [127] Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th ed) [3-239]; Laddie Prescott & Vittoria The Modern Law of Copyright 5th ed [36.44].
[33] Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence UK Govt 18 March 2026 Section I. Conclusions and Proposals.
Comment