what i'm saying is that there's a pretty good chance that a judge might look at the situation and say something like:

"sure, she signed it away. it's true. and, the law let her do it. but, she was a child, and how can a child consent? what legality is there in a law such as this?

what should have happened is that the adults in the room should have realized that they had an obligation to do what was in her best interests, which was create a trust in her name that she could access at a certain age, because she wrote these songs and they must belong to her.

so, i therefore rule that the fiduciary obligation of the parties overpowers the existing contract, and give her the rights to her own songs."

and, because she's taylor swift, it just might work.

and, there's a really positive upside to this, as well: if she can get a judge to make that ruling, and it can withhold a few appeals, it will become the new legal reality. so, it will stop people from preying on child artists in the future - they will be legally required by precedent to carry through with their fiduciary obligations.