SCOTUS Summarily Affirms Fifth Circuit Judgment on Worldwide Copyright Reversion

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on Monday in BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Vetter affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judgment granting a songwriter ownership of the worldwide copyright in “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” The Court entered the affirmance under 28 U.S.C. Section 2109, following a September 30 reply in which BMG Rights Management (US) LLC and the other petitioners urged the Court to grant certiorari and reverse.

The order stated that the Court “lacks a quorum” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1 and that the qualified Justices concluded the case “cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court.” Section 2109, as described in the order, directs an affirmance “with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.” Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson did not participate in considering or deciding the petition, which the Court distributed for its October 16 conference.

In January 2026, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in Vetter v. Resnick, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment declaring Cyril Vetter, co-author of “Double Shot,” and his affiliated entities the sole owners of the song’s copyright throughout the world. The Fifth Circuit found that Vetter’s termination rights arose under U.S. law and did not violate the Berne Convention or other international treaties. The Fifth Circuit also found that Vetter’s acquisition of renewal rights from the heirs of co-author Donald Smith entitled him to a renewal copyright that includes all rights Smith originally granted, without any limit on geographical scope.

Capitol CMG, Essential Music Publishing, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing, and BMG Rights Management petitioned the Supreme Court in June, asking whether U.S. law’s reversion of copyright rights to owners extends worldwide to determine ownership of foreign copyrights. Vetter’s brief in opposition, filed in September, argued that no circuit conflict existed and that Congress broadly defined a “transfer of copyright ownership.” Five amici supported the petitioners, including Paramount Pictures, the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, and 20 copyright and intellectual property law professors.

In the reply, BMG Rights Management contended that Vetter did not dispute that the Fifth Circuit’s decision departs from statutory text and decades of settled law and industry practice. The reply also maintained that the absence of a circuit conflict does not mean the question lacks a meaningful divide in authority. Vetter’s reliance on the Section 101 definition of “transfer of copyright ownership” drew a single-sentence response in his Fifth Circuit brief and was not adopted by the Fifth Circuit.

According to the reply, Section 304(c)(6)(E) focuses on the law under which rights arose rather than the law under which a transfer was made, so rights arising under Title 17 refer to U.S. copyrights and rights arising under foreign laws refer to foreign copyrights. The U.S. Copyright Office, which wrote the language, has interpreted it that way across multiple administrations, the reply stated. BMG Rights Management further argued that Vetter’s reading conflicts with the Berne Convention’s national treatment rule, since a rightsholder whose rights arose in the United States would have a worldwide termination right, while a rightsholder whose rights arose under another country’s law would not.

Vetter had maintained that the case is a poor vehicle since the petitioners did not seek review of the Fifth Circuit’s renewal holding. The reply responded that the issue falls within the question presented, since the Fifth Circuit’s holdings on termination and renewal rested on the same premise that foreign rights revert along with U.S. rights. BMG Rights Management also said the industry is negotiating deals running through 2072 and that ownership uncertainty makes those transactions harder to complete. A footnote suggested the Court could seek the Solicitor General’s views. But ultimately, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 2109.

Commenting on the case yesterday, Randy McCarthy of Hall Estill said the procedural, rather than substantive, decision means “the Fifth Circuit’s ruling now governs Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but the major entertainment jurisdictions in the Second Circuit (New York), Ninth Circuit (California) and Sixth Circuit (Tennessee) continue applying the older, domestic only rule. Until another circuit weighs in, the law will remain split.”

McCarthy added the decision could thus lead to parties attempting to designate particular jurisdictions “in an effort to circumvent this holding” but that “it is unclear whether such clauses can override federal termination rights.”

“Until another circuit rules differently, the nationwide landscape will remain unsettled,” McCarthy said.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:103763568
Copyright:bigfatnapoleon