Rock Song Copyright Dispute Rocks The Entertainment Industry

US Copyright Law Allows an Author to Terminate a Grant of Rights

To understand this dispute, you have to go back to 1963. Vetter and Smith assigned 100% of their copyright ownership in “Double Shot” to a publisher, Windsong Music Publishers, Inc., granting it exclusive rights to the song throughout the world for the full term of copyright protection. Smith died tragically in a plane crash in 1972, and under a well-established rule, his share of the copyright reverted to his heirs rather than staying with the publisher. Vetter later bought that share through his company.

Many songwriters assign their rights to a music publisher, but copyright law gives them a powerful tool: after a set number of years, they can “terminate” an old deal and take their rights back, no matter what the original contract said. Vetter used that tool in 2019, sending notice to Robert Resnik and Resnik Music Group, which had acquired Windsong’s rights in the song, to reclaim the rights he had signed away in 1963.

Does a Termination Terminate Rights Worldwide?

For almost fifty years, the music and other copyright-based industries operated on one shared understanding: the U.S. termination right lets you reclaim only your U.S. rights. Rights outside American borders were thought to stay with the publisher under the original grant, governed by each country’s own copyright laws. Publishers have relied on that understanding, since copyright ownership is the backbone of their business model and their main source of revenue.

Vetter argued the opposite: that by terminating the assignment in 2019, he reclaimed his rights everywhere in the world. A federal district court in Louisiana agreed. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, agreed as well, holding that termination reclaims worldwide rights, not just domestic ones. The court relied on a single technical phrase in the Copyright Act, the idea that a copyright “arises” under U.S. law and is then recognized by other countries. This reading rejects the commonly held notion that a copyrighted work carries a separate, distinct copyright in each country under the principles of “territoriality” and “national treatment” which underlie the primary Copyright Treaty, the Berne Convention, and puts a new twist on the language of the relevant statute which had been held to mean that a termination shall not affect rights arising under foreign laws. The provision reads:

“Termination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.”

Publishers Panic

When the ruling came down, the music industry went into a frenzy. Publishers argue that it ignores the language in the statute saying termination does not affect rights arising under foreign laws. They also note that courts in other circuits, including in New York and Los Angeles, have said for decades that termination is a U.S.-only remedy.

The fallout goes well beyond one rock song. Over the past decade, the buying and selling of music catalogs has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry. If a songwriter can use a U.S. termination notice to grab back rights everywhere, publishers worry it could unravel those deals, along with existing downstream licensing agreements. The Recording Industry Association of America and the National Music Publishers’ Association have both warned that the decision destabilizes the “bedrock understanding” underlying the industry’s foreign licensing business.

The ruling also affects copyright-based sectors beyond the music industry. Copyright terminations affect all copyrighted works, including film screenplays, books, art, photography, choreography – the list goes on and on. All of the grants of foreign rights that were understood to be intact after a termination of U.S. rights are now in jeopardy.

Terminations Are on the Rise

Vetter landed at a moment when termination litigation was already surging, as more copyrights become eligible for termination and as awareness of termination rights has grown. The most famous example is the decades-long battle over Superman. In 1938, Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, sold their rights to the character for just $130. Decades later, Siegel’s heirs tried to terminate the deal to recapture the character. In 2008, a federal court sided with the family in part, ruling the deal could be terminated, but only for domestic rights. That meant Warner Bros. and DC Comics kept their rights everywhere outside the U.S. That ruling is, incidentally, one of the precedents the Fifth Circuit declined to follow in Vetter, calling its domestic-only reasoning unpersuasive and built on secondary legal treatises rather than the statute itself.

More recently, in 2025, rap duo Salt-N-Pepa sued Universal Music Group, sought to use termination rights to reclaim ownership of their master recordings, most notably their hit “Push It.” In January 2026, a federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that under their 1986 contract the duo never owned the copyrights to their recordings in the first place, so they had nothing to terminate. Salt-N-Pepa have appealed. Separately, the rap group 2 Live Crew won a jury verdict to reclaim several albums from their label, only to have an appeals court overturn the win. Termination rights have existed for decades, but cases testing their limits are reaching courts with increasing frequency.

Copyrights in Every Sector are at Stake

The entire entertainment industry is affected by and divided over the case. On one side are the three major record companies, Universal, Sony, and Warner, along with independent publishing giant BMG. These companies hold most of the world’s most valuable song catalogs, and a worldwide termination right directly threatens how they value and license them. The major labels were not originally parties to the case, but, in a highly unusual move, bought Resnick’s interest in the disputed rights to “Double Shot” so they would have standing to take the case to the Supreme Court, a sign of how much is at stake for them. The labels aren’t alone—they’ve recruited heavyweight allies to help them make their case. Paramount Pictures’ amicus brief warns that the ruling “gutted Congress’ carefully calibrated scheme” sending the entire entertainment industry into a state of confusion, or what it calls, only half-jokingly, “the legal version of a postapocalyptic film.” The Motion Picture Association, which represents the major studios, argues that the current state of uncertainty means that “deals are harder to reach, fewer creative projects get produced, and fewer authors get paid” and advocates for “clear, consistent, and enforceable territorial boundaries” that do not apply abroad. Even intellectual property law professors have chimed in, stating that the ruling violates the “territoriality” and “national treatment” principles at the heart of international copyright law, as well as U.S. law concerning extraterritoriality, and puts foreign authors in danger of losing their rights to terminate under U.S. law.

On Vetter’s side are songwriter advocacy groups and supporters, including the Music Artists Coalition, Artists Right Alliance, Songwriters of North America and the Screen Actors Guild. They argued in briefs before the Fifth Circuit that termination rights were created to protect songwriters who signed bad deals before their work had proven value, and that limiting those rights to the U.S. leaves artists with, as one advocacy group put it in court filings, “half the apple.”

The Supreme Court is Asked to Weigh In

In June 2026, the labels and BMG, now standing in for Resnick, filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and reverse the Fifth Circuit. Their brief calls the ruling “profoundly wrong” and warns that it threatens to unsettle “countless negotiated agreements backed by billions of dollars.” Vetter’s legal team has dismissed these warnings, arguing that the industry has long operated on a flawed legal theory and that songwriters deserve to have it corrected. In his September 2026 response, Vetter pushed back on the publisher’s alarmist framing directly, arguing that publishers “are doing just fine and will continue to thrive.” Vetter also argues that the “streaming era” has already shifted the industry norm towards licensing agreements that return to the authors all rights to their songs and recordings after 10-20 years, without regard to geography and without any need to invoke statutory termination.

Whether the Supreme Court will hear the case remains to be seen, since the Court accepts only a small fraction of the petitions it receives. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is binding only within its own jurisdiction (Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi), but its influence could be felt across the country, as new termination lawsuits are expected to test its reach.

Double Shot Doubles Down

For now, the industry waits. It will be watching closely to see whether the Supreme Court steps in, whether other appeals courts split from the Fifth Circuit, whether foreign courts will recognize a termination in their own jurisdiction, or whether Congress eventually weighs in to settle the question itself.

• Thanks to J.D. Candidate Micaela Coll, who contributed to this article.