U.S. Copyright Act Ruling Raises Global Questions

A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has sparked a significant shift in how termination rights under the U.S.

Copyright Act of 1976 will be interpreted globally. The ruling centers on the case involving the song “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” originally written in 1962 by Don Smith and Cyril Vetter.

This decision has profound implications for the music industry, particularly regarding how authors can reclaim their copyrights after a set period, and how such rights extend beyond U.S. borders.

Understanding Termination Rights and Their History

Termination rights, a critical provision under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, allow authors or their heirs to reclaim the copyrights to works they previously assigned or sold, but only after a set time—typically 35 years.

This law was designed to offer protection for authors whose works were sold under less favorable conditions early in their careers, ensuring they would have an opportunity to regain control of their creations as time passed.

For decades, the understanding was clear: these termination rights applied only to U.S. copyrights.

If an author exercised their termination rights, it would only affect the U.S. market and not international rights. This system had been accepted by the music and broader creative industries, with each country enforcing its own copyright laws based on its territorial jurisdiction.

However, the recent ruling challenges this long-standing understanding. The U.S. District Court’s decision concluded that when an author exercises their termination rights under U.S. law, those rights also extend globally.

This change is poised to shake up the way music rights are handled internationally, creating potential chaos for global copyright systems.

The Case: “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)”

The song at the center of this case, “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” was written by Don Smith and Cyril Vetter in 1962. Initially recorded in 1963 by Dick Holler and the Holidays, it wasn’t until 1966 that the song became a Top 40 hit when it was recorded by the Swingin’ Medallions. The song’s copyright was originally sold to Windsong Music Publishers for a mere one dollar in 1963.

As per the copyright laws at the time, when the song’s copyright came up for renewal in 1994, Vetter’s copyright was extended for another 28 years under pre-1976 copyright law.

However, after the death of Don Smith in 1972, Smith’s heirs sold their share of the copyright to Vetter, making him the sole remaining copyright holder.

In 2019, Windsong sold their rights to Resnik Music Group, which had claims to the international rights of the song. Then, in 2022, Vetter notified Resnik that he was exercising his termination rights over the song, 56 years after the copyright had initially been created.

This move effectively put Vetter back in control of the song’s rights, including U.S. and international rights.

However, Resnik Music Group refused to give up its one-quarter ownership of the song’s copyright, continuing to claim international rights. This conflict prompted Vetter to take the matter to court.

The Court’s Ruling and Its Far-reaching Consequences

The central issue at hand was whether the U.S. copyright termination rights applied beyond the United States.

Traditionally, termination rights had been understood to apply only to the U.S. market, leaving international copyrights unaffected.

But in a surprising turn, the court ruled that termination rights under U.S. law would indeed extend globally. This ruling has far-reaching implications for how copyright law is interpreted and enforced across countries.

Resnik Music Group, the company challenging the ruling, has expressed concern that this decision could create chaos in the industry. “Copyright in each work [will be] dependent on its country of origin, rather than the orderly system that the nations of the world have in fact developed over more than a century, in which the applicable law is the law of the place ‘where protection is claimed,’” argued the company.

They warned that the global application of U.S. copyright law could destabilize existing copyright structures and create confusion in the international marketplace.

In response, Vetter’s legal team dismissed Resnik’s claims as a “novel theory” and insisted that the court’s ruling was the correct interpretation under international law.

They argued that U.S. law should govern globally, especially when it comes to the protection of an author’s rights. Despite this, Resnik’s lawyers have made it clear that they plan to appeal the decision, as they believe it will have disastrous consequences for copyright law internationally.

The Industry’s Concerns: Will This Set a Precedent?

One of the key concerns raised by Resnik and other critics of the ruling is the potential for legal uncertainty and confusion in global copyright law.

The principle that a work’s copyright is governed by the country in which it was created has been central to international copyright agreements for over a century.

Under this system, each country enforces its own copyright laws and determines how foreign works should be treated within its borders.

The court’s ruling now upends this framework, raising the possibility that U.S. copyright holders could challenge international rights in other countries based on U.S. termination laws.

Such challenges could lead to legal battles over the ownership of musical works, disrupting contracts and agreements between publishers, record labels, and artists across the globe.

The decision has the potential to affect not only individual works like “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” but also broader legal principles that have governed the music industry for decades.

As the ruling stands, it could pave the way for other authors or their heirs to attempt to reclaim international rights to works they created under U.S. copyright law.

This could lead to complex legal conflicts between U.S. rights holders and foreign music publishers, especially in markets where the original work may have been assigned or sold to different entities.

What’s Next for the Music Industry?

The outcome of the appeal will likely have major implications for the way termination rights are applied in the future, both in the U.S. and internationally.

If the ruling is upheld, it could lead to a shift in how global copyright law is understood and applied, potentially offering greater protection to authors but also complicating the legal landscape for publishers and record labels.

This case is also part of a broader conversation about the evolution of copyright law in the digital age. With the rise of streaming platforms and global distribution channels, copyright law has increasingly become a global issue.

The way music rights are negotiated and enforced across borders is an area of growing concern for artists, labels, and legal professionals alike.

For now, industry observers and legal experts will closely monitor the developments in this case. If the ruling stands, it could set a new precedent for how termination rights are handled in the music industry, raising new questions about the balance of power between authors, publishers, and the global music marketplace.

The ruling on termination rights under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 marks a pivotal moment in the music industry.

By asserting that U.S. termination rights apply globally, the court has introduced a level of uncertainty and complexity into international copyright law. As the case is likely to be appealed, it will continue to be a point of contention that could shape the future of global music rights, copyright law, and the way artists, publishers, and record labels operate in an increasingly interconnected world.