The publishers' case against worldwide termination is about chaos abroad. Songwriters should still keep it

The Supreme Court has left songwriter Cyril Vetter holding the worldwide rights to his 1962 song, without ever ruling on whether he should. The publishers who fought him have one argument worth taking seriously. We still think they are wrong.

The news hook

On 19 Oct 2026 the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter because four justices took no part and it lacked a quorum, which triggers an automatic affirmance under 28 U.S.C. § 2109. That leaves in place the Fifth Circuit's January ruling that Vetter's termination of his 1963 grant of "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)" recaptured the song everywhere, not only in the US. Our news report covers the procedure. This column takes one question: should termination reach the world at all?

The best case for the publishers

Put it as BMG and the majors would. Termination is a creature of US law. The statute itself says a termination affects only rights that "arise under this title" (§ 304(c)(6)(E)), and the industry has long read that as US rights only. Foreign copyright in the same song arises under foreign law, and some foreign courts have agreed. Reed Smith partners Nick Breen and Joshua Love, writing in Music Business Worldwide, point to a 2007 Düsseldorf ruling that a US termination had no bearing on German ownership, and to English cases, including the Duran Duran dispute Gloucester Place Music v. Le Bon, where the contract's governing law still shaped the outcome.

So a worldwide reading does not give writers the world. It gives them a US judgment that a German or British court may ignore, while their old publisher still holds a contract that local law treats as valid. A collecting society facing two claimants can freeze the money, the op-ed warns. The publishers also say, in their petition, that the ruling unsettles agreements "backed by billions of dollars in consideration". Catalogue prices assumed foreign rights stayed put.

That is a strong argument. On the practical point, it is right: Vetter by itself will not move a single payment at a European society.

Where it breaks

The argument is about enforcement, not entitlement. Clashing claims abroad are a reason to expect friction, and a reason writers should plan for it. They are not a reason for a US court to read the statute narrowly against the people it was written to protect.

The Fifth Circuit read "arise under this title" as being about where the grant of rights originated: Vetter's copyright came from US law, and he granted it worldwide in one US contract for one dollar. Undoing that grant only domestically would leave the publisher with the foreign half of a bargain the law lets the author reopen. That's the point of termination: a second chance at a deal signed before anyone knew what a song was worth. A US-only reading made more sense when the US was most of the money. For many songs, it no longer is, so a domestic-only right is a much smaller right than Congress gave. That is our reading of the incentives, not a figure from the court.

The "billions in consideration" point cuts both ways. Buyers of old catalogues paid for rights that were always subject to termination by statute, which applies "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary". They priced in an open legal question and lost a round of it.

What we think

Keep worldwide termination, and fix the plumbing. The useful response to the publishers' best point is a clear way for a terminating author to give notice to foreign sub-publishers and societies, and for disputed money to be held and then released on a US judgment, not a retreat to US-only rights. Only Congress or a full Supreme Court ruling can settle the reach of § 304 nationally; until then this is the law only in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

For writers, the practical advice doesn't change: serve notice on time, record it, and send the judgment to every sub-publisher and society. Expect a slow fight territory by territory.

What would change our mind: if foreign courts and societies start treating Vetter-style claims as a reason to freeze income for terminated and non-terminated writers alike, the cost could land on songwriters themselves. Then a narrower rule with predictable payouts might serve writers better than a broad one stuck in limbo. There's no sign of that yet.