On 2026, 10, 19, the U.S. Supreme Court in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter (No. 25-1391) affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that an author's termination under Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act of a worldwide assignment made before 1978 can recapture the rights to the work abroad. This affirmance, however, is not a ruling on the merits: four Justices did not participate in the consideration, and the remaining five did not constitute a quorum, so the Supreme Court acted under 28 U.S.C. § 2109, with the effect of an "equally divided affirmance," carrying no precedential effect and binding only in the three states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
In 1962, Cyril Vetter and Donald Smith wrote "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)" in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In 1963, the two assigned the copyright to Windsong Music Publishers for 1 dollars, covering worldwide rights for the entire copyright term and including renewal rights. More than fifty years later, Vetter served a termination notice under Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act (2019, 3), effective 2022, 5, 3. That section allows an author to terminate, within a specified period, assignments made before 1978, 1, 1 without the assignee's consent. Resnik Music Group, which had acquired part of the original publisher's interests, still claimed a share. The disagreement surfaced when a broadcaster approached the parties about a worldwide streaming license for the song. In 2023, Vetter and his company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (No. 3:23-CV-1369), seeking a declaration of their worldwide copyright ownership; in 2025, 1, the district court granted summary judgment in Vetter's favor.
Resnik appealed, arguing that U.S. law allows Vetter to recapture only domestic rights. On 2026, 1, 12, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 25-30108) affirmed. Its core holding turned on the interpretation of Section 304(c)(6)(E): that provision limits the effect of termination to rights "arise under this title," and the court read "arise" as referring to the source of the rights rather than the territory of their exercise—since the 1963 worldwide assignment was made under U.S. law, termination recaptures the worldwide rights. The court also held that the renewal rights passed to Smith's heirs upon his death in 1972, that Vetter's company purchased that share in 1996, and that this portion of the rights likewise extends worldwide.
After the judgment, BMG and the music publishing divisions of Sony, Universal, and Warner, having acquired the interests of the losing party Resnik Music Group, petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari (No. 25-1391), arguing that the ruling would unsettle existing international licensing arrangements.
On 2026, 10, 19, the Supreme Court issued its ruling: Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson did not participate in the consideration, without stating reasons; the remaining five fell short of the six-Justice quorum required by 28 U.S.C. § 1, and the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2109. Thus, although the judgment has taken effect, the Supreme Court did not address the merits. The Fifth Circuit's rule is binding only in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and other circuits remain free to reach different conclusions; extraterritorial enforcement is also subject to the laws of other countries, and foreign courts, collective management organizations, and licensors may not necessarily accept this interpretation. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— Sources: U.S. Supreme Court, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Vetter, No. 25-1391 (ruling of 2026, 10, 19); Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Vetter v. Resnik, No. 25-30108 (judgment of 2026, 1, 12); U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:23-CV-1369. Note: This article is compiled from public information and is for informational reference only; it does not constitute legal or other professional advice. Specific conclusions should be based on official publications and the actual circumstances of each case.
Prepared by Liangma Legalmark Trademark Team from public industry information for general information only. It is not legal advice on a specific matter. Editorial standards ↗
← Back to news