Fans have been left wondering if Taylor Swift has become engaged to boyfriend Joe Alwyn, after she was seen wearing a ring in scenes of her documentary Miss Americana. The Lover singer’s highly anticipated film, which gives fans a behind the scenes look into her life and career, has finally hit Netflix, and some viewers were quick to point out that Taylor could be seen wearing a questionable ring on her left ring finger in scenes where she spoke about breaking her silence on politics. ‘The question of the day, are @taylorswift13 and Joe engaged? ’ one fan wrote on Twitter. ‘Put me in my grave if me and @taylorswif13 are engaged at the same time! ’ another fan enthusiastically tweeted. Taylor also revealed in the documentary that she is ‘not ready for kids’ just yet with Joe, who happens to make several cameos in the documentary. During a heart-to-heart with her best friend Abigail Anderson, she discusses her future personal plans as she approached turning 30 and it doesn’t appear that having babies is a high priority of hers. ‘There’s a part of me that feels like I’m 57 but then there’s a part of me that’s like definitely not ready to have kids, definitely not ready for all this grown up stuff,’ she admitted. Taylor also opened up about her relationship with the 28-year-old, which has been mostly kept out of the spotlight. ‘I also was falling in love with someone who had a really wonderfully normal balanced grounded life,’ she said. ‘And we decided together that we wanted our relationship to be private. It was happiness without anyone else’s input.
Have you Heard? Taylor Swift Nashville Is Your Finest Bet To Develop
As for the Netflix restriction, it’s a lot simpler. It isn’t in Borchetta or Braun’s interest to restrict usage of her old songs in a documentary, and Almy explains that Swift would have to be the one to approve their sync usage, not the other way around. What would happen if Taylor agrees to Braun and Borchetta’s terms not to rerecord her old songs? Swift says that Big Machine would waive the restriction to have her perform during the AMAs in exchange for her agreeing not to rerecord her music or speak about Braun and Borchetta publicly. In her post, Swift explained that she couldn’t wait to rerecord her first six albums – something pop singer JoJo did last December after facing a similar label-holding situation, and that Def Leppard forged back in 2012 to spite their label – when she’s contractually able to next November. A typical recording contract states that the artist is restricted from doing so over a certain period of time, says Almy, typically five years after date of delivery of the last master recording, and two to three years after the expiration or termination of the terms of their agreement.
The #1 Taylor Swift 13 Mistake, Plus 7 More Lessons
For Swift, that could mean she’s able to rerecord her work as competition to the masters in November 2020, which is likely two years after the contract with BMLG was terminated. But if she were to agree to their terms not to do so, it would essentially tie her hands behind her back and leave Borchetta and Braun with the advantage. “Taylor is alleging that Big Machine would waive their rerecording restriction, allowing her to ‘record’ these old songs at the AMAs in exchange for her agreeing to a perpetual extension of their current rerecording restriction clause, thus forever preventing her from rerecording old songs in new masters and creating competition for them in the marketplace,” Almy says. In this case, if Swift agreed to the terms, she’d be unable to perform any of her old songs owned by Ithaca for sync uses in essentially any circumstance – on TV, in video games, etc. – unless the label gives approval. “This takes some wind out of the sails of an artist heading back to the studio to rerecord old songs in new masters following the long wait for their rerecording restriction to expire,” she continues.
Does Taylor have any legal loopholes? There may be an easy, albeit not ideal, workaround. If Swift wanted to circumvent the restrictions placed on her from performing her own songs on recorded televised broadcasts, she could enlist others to give renditions of the tracks in a tribute. Here’s an idea,what if other artists perform your early songs in the 1st half of the performance paying tribute to u? So it would be other artists “cover version”of your earlier hits? Then u jump in 2nd half? Almy says this is a legal alternative. “Any other recording artist could perform those exact songs live without Big Machine’s consent,” she says. That’s because when a master recording isn’t being synchronized during a live performance, usually only the writers and publishers who control the composition would need to grant permission, not the owner of the master recording. That means she wouldn’t need a license from Ithaca for that. What is the Carlyle Group and what do they have to do with all this?
In her post, Swift mentioned the Carlyle Group, who “put up the money for the sale of my music to these two men,” and asked them for help. She’s referring to the gargantuan investment firm that helped finance the deal through the Carlyle Partners VI Fund and, according to its site, has “$222 billion of assets under management across 365 investment vehicles.” In return, Carlyle remained a minority stakeholder in Ithaca, and planned to make an additional investment in Ithaca that would tick up its worth to more than $800 million. As a stakeholder, they likely have some influence in the decisions made by the company, but without knowledge of the contract, it’s unclear to what extent. Activating her fan base has elicited a considerable militarization from the Swift army on Twitter against Braun and Borchetta. As quickly as an hour after Swift posted her message, fans publicly shared what were alleged to be their phone numbers and posted screenshots of what they were texting them.