The rumors may be terrible and cruel, but the ones about Barstool Sports’ “Taylor Watch” podcast being canceled are true.
The podcast with 115,000 fans on TikTok, 78,000 fans on Instagram and 16,000 subscribers on YouTube — geared toward discussing all things Taylor Swift — aired its final episode on June 4.
What was supposed to have been a celebratory moment for Swift regaining control of her masters started on a melancholic note as hosts Kelly Keegs and Gia Mariano sang “Ave Maria.” The two sat in their brown leather chairs to acknowledge the termination of a show they’ve cultivated for two-plus years.
“‘Taylor Watch’ is canceled,” Keegs said on the 150th episode, “because having a music related podcast or something that can toe the line with lawsuits in general where it comes to music rights, whatever, is just not feasible with Barstool Sports at this time.”
One underlying issue lies in copyrighted photos, videos and music being used on social media. Several posts potentially opened parent company Barstool Sports to lawsuits, and the podcasters had two options: to cancel “Taylor Watch” or be fired.
“It was all just stupid mistakes on my part,” Mariano said on the podcast through tears. “It was never intentional. We would never think that we could just get away with something.”
“Or even jeopardize the company,” Keegs jumped in. “We love working here.”
Long live the Eras Tour with our enchanting book
The one- to two-hour episodes crafted a corner in the Swiftie community where fans (and some haters) tuned in to hear the thoughts of Keegs and Mariano.
” Gia and I went to Paris Night 2 together, and there were some people coming up to us and saying what they liked about the show,” Keegs tells the USA TODAY Network of Swift’s May 10, 2024, concert. “Then by the time we were in Miami — that was a totally different experience — I couldn’t believe how many people were coming up to us who knew who we were.”
The two hosts offered unfiltered thoughts on Swift’s music, business moves, concerts and news. They would post short snippets to social media. A couple included some paparazzi photos and sped-up music pulled from the internet.
“It’s what I looked forward to every week,” Keegs says. Her favorite part was the voicemail segment when people called in to offer their thoughts. “We got a call from a mom excited about the ‘Speak Now (Taylor’s Version).’ She gave birth to her son when the first version came out and now he’s a teen. She made him listen to ‘Never Grow Up.’ It was a beautiful full circle moment.”
Copyright’s gray area
So where do the legal lines lie for copyright?
It’s a perfect question for David Herlihy, an intellectual property, new media and entertainment lawyer who also teaches at Northeastern University in Boston. Copyright is the subject of entire college courses, so keep in mind the following is heavily abbreviated.
Herlihy also provides an asterisk: ” None of these things are absolute, but there are basic policy contours of copyright.”
Let’s start with images and videos that fan accounts share on social media.
Herlihy says the copyright of photos of Swift taken in a public place are owned by the photographers and can be licensed to news outlets. However, the photographers can’t make merch with the photos, “because that’s a commercial exploitation of her likeness.”
What about fan accounts that repost photos and credit them, do they need permission?
Some cases can be deemed fair-use, which means using copyrighted material doesn’t need permission under “certain circumstances.” This balances copyright holders’ intellectual property rights with the public’s need to access and use information.
“You’re using the photograph for news reporting, commentary or for conversation, and the law regards news, commentary and conversation as valuable,” Herlihy says. “So depending upon the nature of the use, the rights of the copyright owner may actually yield to other socially beneficial purposes.”
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Mariah Frazee – Makenzies Version (@inthat.taylor.haze)
What Taylor Swift’s trademark applications say about potential business moves.
However, Instagram has a clear policy that users cannot post content that violates someone else’s intellectual property rights, including copyright.
“Taylor Watch” is not the first account within the past month to get flagged. In fact a few behemoth Swift fan accounts with six digits in followers were recently sent to Instagram purgatory and deactivated for similar infractions including @in.that.taylor.haze and @tstourtips.
Meta, Instagram’s parent company, did not comment on the deactivations to the USA TODAY Network.
The accounts, which are not officially affiliated with Swift, share news, theories on upcoming announcements and records broken by the superstar. They foster micro-communities of the global fandom. And they celebrate moments like Swift buying back her first six albums from Shamrock Capital.
For Keegs and Mariano, “Taylor Watch” was their safe space to gab about the superstar.
“It’s not like we aren’t Taylor fans still,” Keegs said. She tried to find a bright side explaining, “If we want to be poetic about it, I suppose you can say our watch has ended because [Swift’s] gotten all of her stuff back.”
Don’t miss any Taylor Swift news; sign up for the free, weekly newsletter This Swift Beat.
Follow Bryan West, the USA TODAY Network’s Taylor Swift reporter, on Instagram, TikTok and X as @BryanWestTV.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: ‘Taylor Watch’ podcast canceled: what fans should know about copyright
