Here, There, and Everywhere: Supreme Court Leaves Fifth Circuit's Worldwide Copyright Termination Ruling in Place

Key Takeaways

• Worldwide copyright termination rights remain available in the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court left Vetter v. Resnik intact, allowing qualifying songwriters to reclaim foreign rights under U.S. copyright law.
• Music publishers and catalog investors face greater ownership and valuation uncertainty. Older worldwide licensing agreements may warrant reassessment as termination claims could affect international revenue and catalog transactions.
• Copyright owners should reassess termination rights and contractual exposure. Songwriters, publishers, and buyers should review termination eligibility, jurisdiction, and foreign rights before negotiating or acquiring music catalogs.

For decades, the music business has run on a simple assumption: when a songwriter uses the U.S. Copyright Act to take back (or “terminate”) a rights deal signed years earlier, the songwriter gets back the U.S. rights, and the publisher keeps everything else. That assumption just took a serious hit. On October 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States let stand the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Vetter v. Resnik, which held that a songwriter’s termination can reclaim rights throughout the world, not just in the United States. For songwriters, their heirs, music publishers, and catalog buyers alike, the case is worth a close look.

A “Double Shot” of Worldwide Rights

The dispute centers on “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” written by Cyril Vetter and Donald Smith. In 1963, Vetter signed his rights in the song over to a music publisher. Decades later, he used a provision of the Copyright Act (Section 304(c)) that lets authors cancel those old deals after a set number of years and take their rights back. A federal court in Louisiana ruled that what Vetter got back covered the whole world and, in January 2026, the Fifth Circuit (the federal appeals court covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) agreed.

That ruling cuts against the industry’s long-held view that a U.S. termination returns only U.S. rights and leaves foreign rights with the publisher. The Fifth Circuit was not swayed by arguments that each country’s copyright laws stop at its own borders. Instead, the court focused on the text of the statute and Congress’ intent on giving authors a second bite at the apple.

Why the Supreme Court Left the Fifth Circuit Ruling Intact

The Supreme Court’s handling of the case is unusual, so it is important not to read too much into it. Four Justices (Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) sat the case out. That left the Court without a quorum of Justices to render a formal decision. When that happens, a federal statute says the lower court’s ruling simply stands.

Put simply, the Supreme Court did not endorse the Fifth Circuit’s reading of the law, and it wrote no opinion. That kind of result does not bind other courts. That is anything but a ringing endorsement, to be certain. But the practical effect is still significant. Vetter remains binding law for federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Courts in the rest of the country are free to go the other way.

Should Songwriters Head to the Fifth Circuit?

Maybe. For songwriters who can properly bring a termination dispute in federal court in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, Vetter is an unusually friendly ruling. A valid termination may bring back not just U.S. rights, but all the worldwide rights handed over in the original deal. We can expect so-called, “forum shopping” to be a big part of the conversation in these disputes going forward.

The money at stake can be substantial. Under the traditional model, a publisher could hang on to foreign rights after a U.S. termination, keeping overseas income and control over worldwide licensing. Under Vetter, the songwriter may claim those rights globally. Not surprisingly, the major publishers and labels argued that the ruling upends expectations baked into countless catalog deals.

Vetter is not an open invitation for every songwriter to rush to court in the Fifth Circuit. As a threshold matter, artists and their counsel must consider:

• Can the case actually be brought there? Courts require a real connection to the parties and the dispute, known as “personal jurisdiction.”
• Does the original publishing or administration agreement say which court must hear disputes, or which state’s law applies?
• Is the deal eligible for termination at all, and was the termination notice sent on time and in the right form?
• Was the song a “work made for hire” (e.g., written as an employee or under a specific type of commissioning deal), which can’t be terminated?
• How will each foreign country where the song earns money treat ownership under its own laws?

That last question deserves emphasis. Vetter decides what comes back under the U.S. deal and the U.S. termination law. It does not rewrite other countries’ copyright laws, and it will not automatically settle every ownership question abroad. In fact, the termination law itself says termination “in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws,” and publishers can be expected to keep pressing that language in other courts here and overseas.

What Copyright Owners and Music Catalog Investors Should Do Now

Songwriters, heirs, and their representatives with valuable catalogs, especially those nearing or already inside the window when termination is allowed, should take a fresh look at older deals that grant worldwide rights. The value of a termination can no longer be measured by U.S. income alone. Those with a genuine connection to Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi have extra reason to evaluate their position now.

On the other side of the table, publishers, investors, and catalog buyers should factor Vetter into their review of older deals and rethink any assumption that foreign rights stay put after a termination.

Do not expect this to be the last word. Other federal appeals courts are not bound by Vetter, and if one of them rejects worldwide recapture, the resulting disagreement could send the question back to the Supreme Court, hopefully with enough Justices on hand to decide it. Until then, anyone thinking about a termination notice, negotiating the return of rights, settling a termination dispute or selling a catalog should account for Vetter first, and get experienced counsel involved early. The bottom line: termination rights may now reach here, there, and everywhere, so plan accordingly.