IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—5th Cir.: Copyright termination rights apply overseas as well as within the United States, (Jan 13, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The appellate court affirms a widely debated ruling over how far termination of assignments can extend.

A songwriter who penned a widely-covered musical work in the 1960s was entitled to terminate his assignment of copyright and regain the right to exploit his work on his own terms, not only in the United States but throughout the entire world, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held. The court of appeals, in affirming a district court decision from a federal court in Louisiana, is likely to extend a vigorous debate over the scope of termination rights that drew nearly two dozen amicus briefs at the court of appeals levels alone and has been widely criticized in several corners of the copyright ecosystem (Vetter v. Resnik, No. 25-30108 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2026)).

The work at the center of the lawsuit is Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), a song recorded and performed in the early 1960s by the South Carolina band Swinging’ Medallions. (Bruce Springsteen is one of many artists to cover the song since.) Cyril Vetter and Don Smith co-wrote the song in 1962 and assigned their interests to it a year later to Windsong Music Publishers. Over the following decades, however, Vetter managed to wrest back control of the song—first by purchasing from Smith’s heirs the renewal rights in Smith’s half of the song and then, decades later, by exercising his right under the Copyright Act to terminate the transfer to Windsong of his own half.

But dispute over the rights to the song broke out in 2022, when ABC sought permission to use the song in a television series. Resnik Music Group, now the successor to Windsong’s interest, contended that it still held the overseas rights to the song. Vetter, by contrast, asserted that his termination of the original 1963 assignment was applicable not only in the United States but worldwide as well. Vetter sued for a declaration of ownership on those rights, bringing this dispute to the federal district court in Baton Rouge.

In its first brush with the case, the Louisiana court denied the music publisher’s motion to dismiss on legal grounds. As to the renewal rights, the court found, that was fairly straightforward. Under Supreme Court precedents interpreting the 1909 Act, which governed at the time the song was created, an author may assign both the original as well as the renewal term of the copyright. However, the assignment of the renewal right does not vest in the assignee unless the author is alive at the time the copyright is renewed. Because Smith was no longer alive in 1994, when the song was up for renewal, the renewal interest never vested in the publishing company, but rather reverted to Smith’s heirs. Because the renewal copyright term is “completely separate” from the original term and that renewal term creates a “new estate” clear of any rights granted under the original copyright, the court reasoned, that renewal estate would necessarily encompass both domestic and foreign rights.

The district court’s analysis of the termination right was more complex—and more controversial. Under Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 304(c), the author of a pre-1976 work may under certain circumstances terminate an earlier assignment of copyright and get back his copyright. But Section 304(c)(6) of the Act specifies that termination under that provision “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.” That raised the question: What does the term “arise under this title” mean? “This title” means the Copyright Act, of course. So domestic rights clearly “arise under” that Act and can be recovered by termination. But do foreign rights “arise under” the Copyright Act? Or do they “arise under” the law of that jurisdiction?

The district court held that foreign rights, like domestic rights, arise under the Copyright Act—meaning that Vetter’s exercise of this termination right recovered those foreign rights. Resnick appealed, leading to this opinion.

Statutory language. The court of appeals affirmed the holding of the district court. In so doing, the court addressed the language and underlying purpose of Section 304(c), the impact of international treaties upon the dispute, and the scope of the renewal rights for pre-1976 works.

With respect to the language of the Act, the court of appeals found, dictionary definitions of the term “arise” provided a clear answer. Black’s Law and Merriam Webster, the court noted, both define the term in connection with origination of a right, e.g. to “to originate; stem from” in the terms of Black’s, and “originate from a source” in the terms of Merriam Webster. Here, the court reasoned, Vetter’s copyrights “originated” in the United States under U.S. copyright law. “Therefore,” the court of appeals concluded, “based on the plain language of the statute, the district court’s holding [was] correct.”

Prominent caselaw also supported this reading, the court found. For example, in determining whether an action “arises under” the Copyright Act (and therefore provides the basis for federal jurisdiction), the venerable Second Circuit holding in T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964) found that the phrase referred, among other things, to “a claim requiring construct[ion] of the Act.” This case required construction of the Act too, the court reasoned, namely the interpretation of Section 304(c). Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), also supported the same reading, the court found. Here, the court interpreted the so-called “first sale” doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which enables works “lawfully made under this title” to be resold without permission from the copyright holder. Even where a book was printed overseas, the Supreme Court reasoned, it was still “lawfully made under this title” because it was made “in accordance with” or “in compliance with” the Copyright Act. “Because ‘arise under this title’ in section 304(c)(6)(E) contains some of the same terms as ‘lawfully made under this title’ in section 109(a),” the court of appeals reasoned, “the former phrase likely also means ‘in accordance with’ or ‘in compliance with’ the Copyright Act.”

The purpose and intent behind the termination provision also supported Vetter’s reading of the law, the court found. In describing the termination right (this one enacting a termination provision for post-1976 works, but analogous here), a key House of Representative committee noted that “a provision of this sort is needed because of the unequal bargaining position of authors, resulting from the impossibility of determining a work’s value until it has been exploited.” The district court’s holding that Vetter is the sole owner of the work’s copyright throughout the world, the court reasoned, “conforms with this purpose” Interpreting section 304(c)(6)(E) as enabling Vetter to recapture the exclusive rights to the song on a worldwide basis, the court noted, would “safeguard against an unremunerative transfer and help correct for the unequal bargaining power between Vetter and [his original publisher] Windsong.” Put another way, the court noted, quoting from one of the many amicus briefs in the case, “[d]enying terminating authors the full return of a worldwide grant leaves them with only half of the apple—the opposite of [c]ongressional intent.”

International treaty principles. Neither of the two core copyright treaties, the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, the court found, helped Resnick’s case. Under those treaties, the court explained, the so-called principle of “national treatment” states that authors enjoy in every treaty country the same protections as domestic authors in those country enjoy. (Which is to say, for example, that a U.S. author must enjoy the same protections in, say, Spain as Spanish authors do.) But this case was not about infringement, the court noted, but rather about copyright ownership, which was not implicated by treaties. In any event, the court noted, given the nature of the international treaties, it was “more likely that a copyright is better understood as being granted under the U.S. Copyright Act and recognized by member countries” pursuant to those treaties.

Renewal rights. Finally, the court held, the fact that Vetter’s copyright was already in the renewal phase did not change the outcome. Under pre-1976 law, copyrights were granted for 28 years and could then be renewed, under certain conditions, for another 28 years. Resnick argued that under Section 109 of the 1909 Copyright Act, which governed at the time the song was originally copyrighted, the right to renew for the additional 28 years could only refer to the U.S. copyright “because only the United States had this renewal term” at the time. But that renewal provision, the court of appeals noted, “makes no mention of geographical limitations to the scope of renewal rights, and the provision itself does not contain any ambiguity.” Therefore, the court of appeals concluded, “the district court did not err based on the plain language of the provision.”

Comment. The Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court decision is likely to perpetuate a divisive debate over whether the termination right extends to overseas works. Nearly two dozen people or entities filed amicus briefs in the case and the court’s opinion is directly in contrast to those of several district courts in other jurisdictions. Longtime copyright commentator Aaron Moss even put the district court’s decision on his list of the “5 Worst Copyright Decisions of 2024.” The debate will surely continue.

The Case is No. 25-30108.

Judge: Stewart, C.

Attorneys: Timothy Robert William Kappel (Wells & Kappel, L.L.P.) for Cyril E. Vetter and Vetter Communications Corp. Robert William Clarida (Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, L.L.P.) for Robert Resnik.

Companies: Vetter Communications Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews