Songwriter Cyril Vetter has told the US Supreme Court not to hear the majors’ and BMG‘s challenge to a ruling that lets songwriters reclaim their copyrights worldwide.
His lawyers filed a brief in opposition on Monday (September 14), the deadline set by the court, according to the Supreme Court’s docket.
The filing answers a petition lodged on June 11 by Capitol CMG, Essential Music Publishing, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing, and BMG Rights Management; publishing companies owned by Universal, Sony, and Warner, plus BMG.
Those four companies want the justices to overturn the Fifth Circuit‘s January 12 ruling on termination rights.
That decision held that termination under US law returns an author’s rights across the world, and not only in the United States.
Vetter‘s brief argues that the case is an “unsuitable vehicle” for the court, because the publishers failed to challenge a separate part of the Fifth Circuit‘s ruling, leaving the justices unable to give them any meaningful relief.
“Petitioners bought the rights in dispute just to file this petition,” the brief states. “But a win here would leave them no way to exercise their newly acquired rights without consent from Respondent Cyril Vetter.
“That is because Petitioners failed to challenge the Fifth Circuit‘s separate holding that gave Vetter full ownership throughout the world of half of the copyright in question. So even if Petitioners regained some foreign rights and wanted to license them, Vetter could veto the transactions.
“That leaves Petitioners without any path to the unilateral control they claim to need over their song catalogs.”
The brief also tells the Supreme Court there is no disagreement between appeals courts for it to settle, and that the question should be left to work through the lower courts first.
No other appeals court has ruled on the issue, Vetter‘s lawyers write, and the only decision going the other way came from a California district court in 2008.
The brief further defends the Fifth Circuit‘s reading on the merits, arguing that the Copyright Act‘s definition of a transfer of copyright ownership – which covers any conveyance “whether or not it is limited in … place of effect” – shows Congress did not confine termination by geography.
On the practical consequences, Vetter‘s lawyers argue that the music business has already moved toward worldwide reversion without being ordered to.
“At least in the music industry, the Fifth Circuit‘s decision actually reflects modern industry practice. In the streaming era, publishers have shifted dramatically toward 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.”
Brief in opposition, Cyril Vetter
“At least in the music industry, the Fifth Circuit‘s decision actually reflects modern industry practice,” the brief states. “In the streaming era, publishers have shifted dramatically toward 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.”
Vetter‘s lawyers further argue that the publishers can absorb the ruling. “But publishers are doing just fine and will continue to thrive even if some of them have slightly less bargaining power with which to deprive authors of a fair return when their works become wildly successful,” the brief states.
The brief points to the IFPI‘s amicus brief, which it says cites annual US music publishing revenues above USD $6.21 billion, and to the RIAA‘s September 1 report of $6 billion in US recorded music revenue in the first half of 2026.
“Publishers can afford to negotiate with more artists about whether to give artists a fairer share of the fruits of their artistic brilliance,” Vetter‘s lawyers write.
The dispute concerns Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), which Vetter wrote with Donald Smith in 1962 and assigned to Windsong Music Publishers the following year in exchange for one dollar and a royalty promise.
Vetter served a termination notice in March 2019, effective May 3, 2022, and then sued Resnik Music Group, which had acquired Windsong and continued to claim a 25% stake in the song, arguing that neither renewal nor termination gave Vetter the right to exploit it outside the US.
The four publishers bought Resnik’s asserted interest in March and were substituted as defendants, before petitioning the Supreme Court through Paul Clement, who wrote that the decision would bring “chaos” to the industry.
Amicus briefs backing the petition were filed in July by Paramount Pictures, the Motion Picture Association, a group of intellectual property law professors, the RIAA alongside the NMPA and A2IM, and the IFPI with three other trade bodies.
A footnote in Monday’s filing states that there is “an irony” in the publishers’ professed concern for the termination rights of foreign artists, citing Sony‘s 2016 UK court win against Duran Duran and Paul McCartney‘s 2017 suit against Sony/ATV over Beatles songs.
The brief was filed by E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, alongside Timothy R.W. Kappel of Wells & Kappel, who led the case in the courts below.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether to grant review. “The petition should be denied,” Vetter‘s lawyers write.Music Business Worldwide