The music publishing sector has been closely watching the Vetter v. Resnik case to determine the implications for international catalogues.
Here, Nick Breen, partner at Reed Smith, examines what the judgement means for songwriters and publishers…
A US court has ruled that when songwriters reclaim their copyrights, they get the whole world back, not just America. The music publishing industry is working to understand what that means for international catalogues, back-catalogue valuations, and deals that were structured on a completely different assumption.
In January 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Vetter v. Resnik that when a songwriter exercises their statutory right to terminate a copyright assignment, they recapture not just their US rights but their worldwide rights too. The decision overturns decades of industry practice and could expose international catalogues to challenge.
What happened?
Under US copyright law, songwriters have the right to terminate old assignments and recapture their copyrights after a set period. The industry had always assumed this clawed back US rights only, leaving international rights with the publisher. Songwriter Cyril Vetter challenged that assumption. After terminating an assignment of his co-written song, Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), he argued that the termination recaptured his rights everywhere, not just in the US. The Fifth Circuit agreed.
The court’s logic was straightforward: the original deal assigned worldwide rights, so the termination must cover worldwide rights too. Whether assignments with more specific territorial language would be treated the same way remains an open question.
Key to the court’s decision was its reading of the US Copyright Act’s termination provision, which states that termination ‘affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title.’ The court held that because Vetter’s original grant ‘arose under’ US law, everything granted, including international rights, was within scope.
Where does the case go next?
The ruling is currently binding only in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. But three major publishers and an independent have bought out the defendant’s interest in the copyright and substituted themselves as defendants, with the explicit aim of petitioning the US Supreme Court for review.
The decision overturns decades of industry practice and could expose international catalogues to challenge
Nick Breen
Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General, has been retained to prepare the petition, with the filing deadline currently set for June 12, 2026. Even without that, similar claims are expected in copyright-heavy jurisdictions like California and New York, and if courts reach different conclusions, that disagreement would itself make Supreme Court review more likely.
Does it apply to past terminations?
Yes – potentially. Because the ruling interprets existing law rather than creating new law, it applies to disputes that are currently live, even where the termination happened years ago. If a songwriter previously recaptured only US rights and there was no final court judgment, settlement or new grant dealing with the foreign rights, ownership of those international rights could now be contested.
Will foreign courts follow suit?
Not necessarily. Under the Berne Convention (the key international treaty governing copyright) the scope of copyright protection is determined by the law of the country in which protection is claimed. So even if a US court says a songwriter has recaptured worldwide rights, a court in another country will apply its own domestic copyright law to determine who owns the local copyright.
Take the UK as an example. A UK court would likely accept that US copyright had reverted – that is a question of US law. But it would almost certainly apply the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to determine who owns the UK copyright, and that Act contains no equivalent of the US termination right. A UK court could therefore conclude that the publisher still owns the UK rights. Similar reasoning would likely apply across Europe and other major territories.
There is in fact direct English authority for this. In a case involving ownership of Cuban songs under UK copyright law, the English Court of Appeal held that a foreign government's attempt to vest those copyrights in the Cuban state had no effect on UK copyright title, since UK copyright is governed by UK law alone.
The parallel is obvious: a US statute giving songwriters the right to reclaim their work is, from a UK court's perspective, simply another foreign law – and foreign laws don't determine who owns UK copyright. Notably, the film and TV industry's trade body, the Motion Picture Association, put exactly this argument to the Fifth Circuit in the Vetter proceedings. The court rejected it, but it will almost certainly be run again before the Supreme Court.
In short, ‘recapture’ under US law will not automatically translate into recapture everywhere else, even if a US court says otherwise.
Does the nationality of the songwriter matter?
The US termination right is a statutory right that attaches to transfers of US copyright and cannot be waived. Any songwriter who transferred US copyright interests should in principle be able to exercise it, regardless of nationality.
However, even where the statutory right is available, exercising it could expose the songwriter to liability for breach of the underlying contract, particularly where that contract is governed by a foreign law.
The English High Court’s decision in Gloucester Place Music v Le Bon illustrates the tension: a publisher argued that exercising US termination rights was inconsistent with contractual obligations under an English-law agreement. This may give publishers and investors a reason to use non-US governing law agreements, creating a practical obstacle to termination even where the statutory right exists.
It also remains to be seen whether Vetter’s extension to non-US rights would apply in the case of a copyright that first ‘arises’ outside of the US.
Legal advice is essential before assuming that a US termination will reclaim a global catalogue
Nick Breen
There is force in the idea that the decision ought to cut both ways: that a non-US copyright granted under the Berne Convention to a US author (or in respect of a work first published in the US) is a right ‘covered by the grants that arise under’ US copyright law – and that the same should be true of a US copyright granted to a foreign author or in respect of a work first published abroad.
But the correctness of Vetter and the scope of its reasoning are ultimately questions of US law, and it is not yet clear how courts will apply its logic to scenarios involving non-US authorship or first publication.
What should the industry do now?
The commercial implications are significant. Acquisition, licensing, sub-publishing and distribution deals are routinely structured (and valued) on the assumption that US termination recaptures only US rights. If Vetter is followed more widely or confirmed at Supreme Court level, publishers and catalogue owners who acquired worldwide interests through copyright assignments may find their non-US revenue streams exposed to challenge.
Publishers and catalogue owners should audit their catalogues to identify songs acquired through worldwide assignments where the songwriter may have (or may soon have) a termination right. New publishing and acquisition agreements should address the Vetter risk explicitly, with both sides seeking clarity on what happens to international rights if a termination is exercised. Governing law and jurisdiction clauses will come under heightened scrutiny, particularly in the context of catalogue acquisition.
Songwriters should understand that Vetter may mean their termination right is worth more than previously assumed. But enforcement outside the US is far from guaranteed, particularly in territories whose courts are unlikely to recognise the US termination right as affecting local copyright. Legal advice is essential before assuming that a US termination will reclaim a global catalogue.
Vetter v. Resnik is a landmark ruling, but it is not the final word. Other courts may disagree, and the Supreme Court may yet step in. What is clear is that the old assumption – terminate in the US, lose only the US rights – can no longer be taken for granted.
Publishers, songwriters, and investors alike will need to reckon with a new and uncertain copyright landscape.
