We are the music makers

News · legal — By WATMM Desk —

Vetter v. Resnik stands: songwriters can reclaim worldwide rights in the Fifth Circuit, because the Supreme Court lacked a quorum

With four justices sitting out, the Supreme Court had no quorum and automatically affirmed the Fifth Circuit's ruling that a US copyright termination recaptures a songwriter's worldwide rights. It is a real win for writers in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, but it sets no national precedent and foreign courts still apply their own law.

Key facts

  • What happened: on 19 Oct 2026 the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter (No. 25-1391) under 28 U.S.C. § 2109, because Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson took no part and the Court lacked a quorum.
  • What is at stake: the Fifth Circuit held that when Cyril Vetter terminated his 1963 grant of "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)", he recovered the song's rights throughout the world, not only in the US.
  • Why it matters: the affirmance has the effect of an equally divided Court, so it decides this case without a nationwide ruling; the Fifth Circuit's rule binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi only.

Cyril Vetter gets to keep the world. On 19 October 2026 the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's ruling that his termination of a 1963 publishing deal recaptured his song's rights everywhere, not only in the US. The Court did not decide the question. Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson took no part, which left five of nine. A quorum is six under federal law, so the Court fell back on 28 U.S.C. § 2109: when it can't hear a case by the next Term, it must affirm the lower court, with the same effect as an equally divided Court.

The order gives no reason for the recusals. Music Business Worldwide noted that BMG's parent, Bertelsmann, also owns Penguin Random House, which has published books by all four justices, but did not claim that explains it.

What was the case about?

Vetter and Donald Smith wrote "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)" in Baton Rouge in 1962. In 1963 they assigned their worldwide rights to Windsong Music Publishers for one dollar, according to the Fifth Circuit's opinion. In March 2019 Vetter served a notice under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) terminating that grant as of 3 May 2022. Resnik Music Group, which bought Windsong in 2019, kept claiming a 25% share, and the dispute came to a head in 2022 when ABC asked to expand a licence to cover worldwide digital broadcast and streaming.

Vetter sued in the Middle District of Louisiana in September 2023 and won summary judgment on 29 January 2025. On 12 January 2026 a Fifth Circuit panel (Smith, Stewart and Ramirez; opinion by Judge Carl Stewart) affirmed in full. Its key reading was of § 304(c)(6)(E), which says termination affects only rights that "arise under this title". The panel read "arise under" as being about where the rights originated: Vetter's copyright was granted under US law, so terminating it recaptured that copyright to the extent it extends abroad. Separately, it held that renewal rights his company bought from Smith's heirs also carry no geographic limit.

The court declined to follow Siegel v. Warner Bros., the 2008 California district court ruling in the Superman case that read termination as domestic only.

According to MBW, in March 2026 the publishing arms of Universal (Capitol CMG), Sony (Essential Music Publishing) and Warner (Warner-Tamerlane), together with BMG, bought Resnik's claimed stake and replaced him as parties so they could petition the Supreme Court. Their petition was filed on 11 June. The docket lists amicus briefs supporting them from the RIAA (with the NMPA and A2IM), the IFPI (with ICMP and others), the Motion Picture Association, Paramount Pictures and a group of IP law professors.

What does a "no quorum" affirmance actually settle?

It settles this case. Vetter owns "Double Shot" worldwide as far as US courts are concerned. Beyond that, it settles less than the headline suggests. The order is a § 2109 affirmance with no merits opinion, so the Supreme Court has said nothing on the question itself. The binding rule comes from the Fifth Circuit, which covers federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Elsewhere it is persuasive authority only, as Reed Smith put it in January. In our view the question stays open until another circuit rules; one that disagrees would create the split that a full Court could later resolve.

A US judgment also doesn't bind foreign courts or collecting societies. In an MBW op-ed, Reed Smith partners Nick Breen and Joshua Love point to a 2007 Düsseldorf ruling that US termination had no bearing on German copyright ownership. They also cite English cases that applied local law. A society facing rival claims may simply hold the money.

How termination works

  • Who: authors (or their heirs), for grants they signed themselves. Works made for hire are excluded, and so are grants made by will (§ 203).
  • Deals signed from 1978 (§ 203): a five-year window opens 35 years after the grant was signed. If the grant covers publication, the window opens at whichever comes first: 35 years after publication or 40 years after signing.
  • Older works (§ 304(c)): the window opens 56 years after copyright was first secured. That is the route Vetter used for a 1962 song. Section 304(d) gives a second chance at 75 years to authors who missed it.
  • Notice: serve it on the publisher or label between two and ten years before the effective date, and record a copy with the Copyright Office before that date.
  • No contracting out: termination applies "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary".
  • Limits: derivative works made before termination, such as an existing sync or recording, can keep being used under the old terms. The original publisher may negotiate a new deal once notice is served; anyone else only after the effective date.

What we think

This is a big win, but it rests on the absence of a ruling. Writers whose disputes land in a Fifth Circuit court can now claim foreign income that publishers have treated as theirs for decades. Everyone else has a strong argument rather than a rule. The publishers' own filings show what they see at stake: their petition told the Court the ruling unsettles negotiated agreements "backed by billions of dollars in consideration".

The clock matters more than the headline. Under § 203, a deal signed in 1991 reaches its 35-year mark in 2026, and one signed in 2001 reaches it in 2036, so its notice could go out from 2026. That is our arithmetic from the statute, and every year a new cohort of 1990s and 2000s deals becomes terminable. Vetter changes how much a termination is worth, and so how much a publisher should pay to buy one off.

Expect the fight to move to forum. Reed Smith already expects rightsholders to avoid Fifth Circuit contacts and to file first in New York or California. Writers in Texas or Louisiana, or with a real connection to the circuit, gain leverage; writers in Nashville, Los Angeles and New York don't, for now. A right that depends on where you live is not a fair system, and it shouldn't be the end state.

Writers shouldn't over-read it either. A US declaration doesn't make PRS, GEMA or SACEM switch payments. Our advice: serve notice on time, record it, then write to each sub-publisher and society with the judgment, and budget for a slow fight territory by territory. The surest fix is a Supreme Court merits ruling or an act of Congress. Until one arrives, the most reliable protection for a writer is a notice served on time.

Sources

Sources

  1. Docket No. 25-1391, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, et al. v. Cyril E. Vetter, et al., Supreme Court of the United States (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  2. Vetter v. Resnik, No. 25-30108 (5th Cir. 12 Jan 2026), US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  3. 28 U.S.C. § 1, Number of justices; quorum, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  4. 28 U.S.C. § 2109, Quorum of Supreme Court justices absent, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  5. 17 U.S.C. § 304, Duration of copyright: subsisting copyrights, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  6. 17 U.S.C. § 203, Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  7. BMG Rights Management v. Vetter, SCOTUSblog. Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  8. Majors and BMG lose Supreme Court fight over songwriters' worldwide copyright reclaims on a technicality, Music Business Worldwide. Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  9. Vetter gave artists the world. Getting it back may be harder than it sounds, Music Business Worldwide (op-ed by Nick Breen and Joshua Love, Reed Smith). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
  10. Termination beyond US borders: what Vetter v. Resnik means for authors and rightsholders, Reed Smith. Accessed 23 Oct 2026.

Researched with AI assistance, written and checked by WATMM Desk.

Tags

artist-rightscopyrighttermination-rightssongwriterspublishing

Subscribe to We are the music makers

One email a week: the music-tech and AI-in-music news that mattered, and what we think about it.

Sign-ups open soon.