Double Shot (Of Copyright Termination): The Vetter Judgment And Worldwide Copyright Terminations

A Louisiana appeals court recently ruled that termination rights under US copyright law extend to worldwide rights, not just US rights.

This decision has caused a frenzy through the music industry as well as the copyright law bar, as it upends decades of legal authority and music industry convention holding that US copyright law termination impacts only copyright in the US. So, what does this mean for Canadian songwriters?

The history of Double Shot

On January 12, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the matter of Vetter v Resnik.

In the summer of 1962 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Cyril E. Vetter and Donald Smith wrote the hit song Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love). In 1963, Vetter and Smith transferred their copyright interests in Double Shot to Windsong Music Publishers, Inc. for one dollar. Windsong filed for copyright registration with the US Copyright Office in 1966 for an initial term of 28 years.

In 1972, Smith died in a plane crash. The US Supreme Court in Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990) had previously ruled that when an author dies before the renewal period for a copyright registration arrives, their heirs are entitled to the renewal rights, despite any previous assignments or agreements. Thus, Smith's 50% copyright interest in Double Shot reverted to his heirs upon the renewal of the copyright in 1994.

Vetter, through his company Vetter Communications Corporation, later purchased these rights from Smith's heirs. However, the 50% copyright interest originally owned by Vetter did not revert back to Vetter, as he was alive at the time of the 1994 renewal. Windsong still owned this 50% interest. Windsong later sold half of its interest to another company named Lyresong, and Windsong was subsequently sold to Resnik, resulting in Resnik purporting to hold a 25% ownership interest in the song.

Under US copyright law, the author of a work may terminate certain grants of copyright following specific parameters. In March 2019, Vetter purported to terminate, throughout the world, the rights transferred in the 1963 agreement as of May 3, 2022.

In 2022, ABC approached Vetter to obtain a worldwide license to use Double Shot in a TV episode, which Vetter claimed he was in a position to do, having obtained worldwide copyright as a result of the termination. However, Resnik continued to claim 25% ownership of Double Shot outside of the US, despite receiving the notice of termination worldwide.

The decision

The Court decided that Vetter had the right to terminate Resnik's rights in Double Shot worldwide and was the sole owner of the worldwide copyright.

The US Copyright Act explicitly states that "termination of a grant ... 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." The court overcame this obstacle by holding that global copyright does not arise under foreign law, but instead these global rights arise as a recognition by other countries of one single global interest under US law.

In coming to this conclusion, the court rejected Resnik's theory that there are "multiple and separate copyright interests in each country, rather than a single overarching international copyright that each country is required to honor." The court instead held that there is no explicit geographic limitation under the US Copyright Act termination provisions that would restrict the termination to the US. Under this interpretation, copyright is not a collection of territorial distinct interests, but instead a single interest that applies globally.

Thus, by terminating the copyright interest that arose under US law, the associated global interests are also terminated. In effect, the court granted Vetter a double shot of copyright termination, both in the US and abroad.

What does it mean for copyright to "arise under US law"?

The Court in Vetter v Resnik does not address the question of the circumstances in which copyright "arises under US law," or more importantly for Canadian songwriters, does not arise under US law.

In the Vetter case, there does not appear to be any foreign factor surrounding the creation of the work. However, it is unclear how the principles set out in this case will apply in instances where the songwriter is not an American citizen or resident, where the song was written in a different country, either wholly or in part, or where the law governing the assignment is that of non-US jurisdiction.

On the flip side, if these international elements are at play, will a songwriter even be entitled to termination of the copyright in the US? Or will the copyright be considered to have arisen under foreign law and therefore excluded from the US termination provisions? As of now, it is unclear how the courts will interpret this decision.

Impact on Canadian copyright holders

The global implications of this decision have yet to be tested.

Treaties, like the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, require member countries to treat foreign works in the same way as they do domestically produced works. Both Canada and the US are signatories to these treaties.

Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention explicitly provides that the extent of protection and the remedies are governed by the laws of the country where the protection is claimed. Issues of transferring rights and termination are not settled under the Berne Convention and are deferred to the domestic law of the relevant jurisdiction.

While Canadian courts often enforce foreign judgments, this process is not automatic. Amongst other things, a Canadian court must find that the foreign court had proper jurisdiction to decide the case, as evidenced by a "real and substantial connection" between the court and an action or defendant.

While it is clear that there is a real and substantial connection between the Louisiana Court and termination under the US Copyright Act, it remains an open question whether Canadian courts will find such a connection in respect of the termination of Canadian rights under the Canadian Copyright Act, particularly in light of the Berne Convention.

Benefits to creators

Despite the potential overbreadth issues, this decision could benefit songwriters on a global scale. US Congress has stated that the purpose of the termination provisions is for "safeguarding authors against unremunerative transfers," and that unfair agreements could ensue due to unequal bargaining powers between music publishers and songwriters, as well as the impossibility of predicting the value of a songwriter's work.

Conclusion

While this decision appears to upend global copyright law, it is important to remember that this decision comes from United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Decisions from this court are only binding on courts within the Fifth Circuit, being those in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. While persuasive in other states, including entertainment hubs like New York and California, it is unclear how courts across the US will address similar issues going forward. Further, Resnik retains the right to appeal the decision in this case.

It is thus important to monitor decisions from other circuits, the US Supreme Court, and courts globally to understand the implications of this decision.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.