Taylor Swift recently bought back the rights to the master recordings of her first six albums, but could that change if she split from Travis Kelce after they wed?
On August 26, the pop star and Kansas City Chiefs tight end, both 35, announced their engagement in a joint statement posted to Instagram: “Your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married,” they captioned photos of the proposal.
The news came just two weeks after Swift revealed her highly anticipated 12th studio album, The Life of a Showgirl, on Kelce’s New Heights podcast, which he co-hosts with his brother Jason Kelce.
Newsweek asked experts their thoughts on how marriage could affect Swift’s ownership of her music in the case of a split. Newsweek also reached out to Swift and Kelce’s representatives via email for comment on Tuesday.
Swift Regains Control of Her Music
In May, the 14-time Grammy Award winner shared via social media that she owns all of her music, including the concert films, music videos, album art, photography and unreleased songs.
“To say this is my greatest dream come true is actually being pretty reserved about it,” Swift said in a statement posted to her website at the time. “All I’ve ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy.”
Since 2021, the “Cruel Summer” singer has been rerecording her early albums after her former record label, Big Machine Records, sold them to Ithaca Holdings, a company founded by music mogul Scooter Braun. To date, she has rerecorded Fearless, Red, Speak Now and 1989, adding “Taylor’s Version” to the end of each title.
What Is Taylor Swift’s Net Worth?
Swift’s current net worth stands at $1.6 billion, per Forbes. She became a billionaire in October 2023, with a majority of that figure (roughly $800 million) stemming from royalties and touring.
The Pennsylvania native wrapped up her 21-month Eras Tour in December. The tour is the highest-grossing tour of all time, with more than $2 billion in ticket sales, The New York Times reported.
What Is Travis Kelce’s Net Worth?
As for Kelce’s net worth, Forbes estimates it to be $70 million. In addition to his NFL career, which began with the Chiefs in 2013, and New Heights, he recently had a cameo in the Adam Sandler film Happy Gilmore 2 and starred in the Ryan Murphy series Grotesquerie.
The Ohio native is also the host of Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity?
With a Prenup
Experts previously told Newsweek that Swift and Kelce will likely sign a prenuptial agreement, or prenup, and that they would be wise to include a confidentiality clause.
A prenup is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an agreement made between two people before marrying that establishes rights to property and support in the event of divorce or death.”
Christopher Reali, associate professor of music (music industry) at Ramapo College of New Jersey—whose courses include advanced music of business and pop music studies—agreed that the couple will likely protect themselves.
“Ms. Swift and her team are very savvy business people. I’m sure that she, along with Kelce, would each have their own prenuptial agreements that protected their individual intellectual property rights, along with other personal and business-specific interests,” he told Newsweek. “I don’t think Swift would fight so hard to get back her master recordings to just share them with Kelce.”
Reali added that “in the case of Swift’s songwriting credits, she is the one who gets paid royalties regardless of who she marries.”
“Since copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the creator, Swift can assign her rights to an heir, which could be Kelce, any children they may have or anyone she wants. If Kelce gets a songwriting credit for something on upcoming albums, then that indicates Swift’s willingness to cut him in with regards to her creative side,” he said.
New York University professor Larry Miller, who is also the executive director of the Sony Audio Institute for Music Business and Technology and director of the Music Business Program, said that it’s important to “consider when the music rights were created and the value of those music rights separate from the royalty income generated by those music rights.”
“Music rights created or acquired before the marriage are considered separate property. In a divorce, separate property usually stays with the spouse who owned it before the marriage,” Miller told Newsweek. “Taylor’s catalog will generate plenty of royalty and licensing income during the marriage. Income produced during the marriage can sometimes be treated as marital property, depending on state law.”
“In community property states like California, that income may be split 50/50. If a catalog appreciates in value during the marriage, that increase in value can sometimes be subject to division if the non-owning spouse contributed to its growth, for example by managing business affairs, making investments or indirectly supporting that artist’s career.”
“Taylor has many years ahead of her to create valuable new music rights. Intellectual property like music created during marriage is treated just like any other marital asset,” he added.
Don Franzen, adjunct professor of music industry (music and law, forensic musicology) at UCLA’s Herb Alpert School of Music, told Newsweek that state laws could pose other considerations for the couple too, including tax.
“Tennessee, which I believe is currently Taylor’s home state, has no income tax, whereas Travis’ home state, Missouri, has an income tax. So their state of residence could have a significant impact on their tax liability as a married couple.”
Other possible concerns include “the potential for estate tax, which some states impose and others don’t,” and “marital asset laws.”
Billy O’Connell, professor of music industry studies at Loyola University New Orleans, told Newsweek that “there is usually a property designation that might designate her music rights (masters, publishing, trademarks, NIL [name, image and likeness] rights, etc.) as separate property. In that case, it would mean no matter what happens in a divorce, those assets remain hers exclusively.”
He also noted that a prenup “can specify that future royalties from those rights are hers alone. This can end up being a matter for a judge but would usually be enforced if the agreement is valid.”
“If things really went south, technically, Travis could try to make the case that he contributed to the value of her catalog in some way but with a prenup, Taylor could fend off claims like these,” O’Connell continued.
“Basically, with a prenup, she’d probably stay in control of her rights/royalties.”
Without a Prenup
In the event that Swift and Kelce do not sign a prenup, “they would both open themselves up to a potentially financially messy split,” Reali said.
“There have been lots of high-profile cases where a musician didn’t have a will or appoint a clear heir—Prince, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, for example. Swift is a business, a major business worth billions. I would almost guarantee that she has protected her songs—her musical children—in the event her relationship with Kelce goes sideways.”
Joshua Rabinowitz, adjunct professor at The New School who teaches music business, told Newsweek: “If there’s no prenup, Taylor’s catalog—the intellectual property itself—stays in her name, but the royalties that accrue during the marriage could be treated as shared income, subject to division in the event of divorce.”
“Courts often view ongoing royalty streams like salary, not static assets, which means the financial upside from her music during that period could be considered marital property, even if the songs themselves predate the marriage,” he continued.
O’Connell said that “state law is gonna decide how property is divided,” which “could be ugly,” but he added: “I can’t imagine she’d put herself in that position.”
“Since Taylor bought her music back before their marriage, it would probably be considered her separate property. But any royalty income during their marriage might be seen as marital income and could be exposed.”
“If Travis says he helped grow the value of her catalog in any way, he might try to get a part of that increase in value,” O’Connell said. “So…without a prenup, she would probably keep ownership of her masters, but Travis might try to claim ‘his’ part of the royalties made while they’re married, or maybe a part of any gains that during the marriage.”
Franzen noted that Swift and Kelce already have a large income gap, despite having two wildly successful careers in their respective fields, and that will likely only increase.
“Her career as a performer will undoubtedly have a long tail given her relatively young age, whereas the active life of an athlete is generally much shorter.”
“So she could be looking at decades of top earnings, whereas his earnings as an athlete may start to decline with age,” he told Newsweek. “This over time could generate a disproportionate contribution from Taylor’s side to the value of the marital estate.”
Miller said: “Many artists protect catalogs with prenups spelling out that the catalog, its income and any appreciation in value remain separate. Without a prenup, courts have wide discretion and messy, high-stakes disputes can ensue if ‘Traylor’ breaks up and ‘are never, ever, ever getting back together.’”
The post Taylor Swift Won Her Music Back. Could Marrying Travis Kelce Change That? appeared first on Newsweek.
