Copyright termination rights can now reach worldwide, at least in one part of the United States. On 19 October 2026 the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment in BMG Rights Management v Vetter, No. 25-1391. It did so without hearing the case.
The result matters to songwriters, authors, publishers and anyone who licenses a US catalogue abroad. A grant of worldwide rights made decades ago may now end everywhere, not only in the United States.
The facts
Cyril Vetter and Donald Smith wrote the song "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)" in Baton Rouge in 1962. In 1963 they assigned their copyright to Windsong Music Publishers for one dollar. The assignment covered the exclusive rights throughout the world for the full term, including renewal rights.
Smith died in 1972, before the renewal term began. His renewal rights therefore passed to his heirs and not to Windsong. Vetter Communications Corporation bought those rights in 1996.
In March 2019 Vetter served a notice of termination under section 304(c) of the US Copyright Act. It took effect on 3 May 2022. Robert Resnik, who had acquired Windsong, kept claiming a 25 percent share. The dispute surfaced when a broadcaster asked to license the song for worldwide streaming.
- The Fifth Circuit held on 12 January 2026 that Vetter's termination recaptured his rights throughout the world.
- The key words are "arise under this title" in 17 U.S.C. section 304(c)(6)(E). The court read them as describing where the rights came from, not where they apply.
- The court also held that renewal rights that passed to Smith's heirs were worldwide.
- The Supreme Court lacked a quorum because four Justices took no part. The judgment was affirmed under 28 U.S.C. section 2109.
- That affirmance does not create a nationwide precedent. Courts outside the Fifth Circuit may still take the domestic only view.
What the Fifth Circuit decided
Judge Carl Stewart wrote for a panel of Judges Smith, Stewart and Ramirez. The court affirmed summary judgment from the Middle District of Louisiana in case 3:23-CV-1369.
The statutory text
Section 304(c)(6)(E) says that termination "affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title". It adds that termination "in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws."
Resnik argued that this limits termination to US rights. The court disagreed. It read "arise" as "originate from". Vetter's rights originated under the US Copyright Act. The 1963 grant transferred those rights and their worldwide reach. So the termination returned all of them. The court found no geographic limit in the text.
The court drew support from Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons (2013). There the Supreme Court gave "lawfully made under this title" a non geographic reading. The Fifth Circuit read "arise under this title" the same way.
Purpose, earlier cases and treaties
The court relied on the purpose of the termination right. Congress meant to protect authors against unremunerative transfers made from a weak bargaining position. Returning only US rights would deprive the author of the full set of rights he granted.
The court declined to follow Siegel v Warner Bros (C.D. Cal. 2008) and Clancy v Jack Ryan Enterprises (D. Md. 2021). Both held that termination reaches only US rights. The court treated them as nonbinding and found their reliance on treatises unpersuasive. It also said Fred Ahlert Music v Warner/Chappell (2d Cir. 1998) did not decide the point.
Resnik argued that the ruling breaks the Berne principles of territoriality and national treatment. The court said this case is about ownership and assignment, not infringement abroad. The presumption against extraterritoriality had not been shown to apply to ownership.
Renewal rights
The second holding concerns Smith's share. Under the Copyright Act of 1909, renewal rights pass to the author's heirs if the author dies before the renewal term. The court held that the renewal provision has no geographic limit. Smith's heirs, and so Vetter Communications, took worldwide rights.
What the Supreme Court did and did not decide
The publishers petitioned for certiorari. They were BMG Rights Management, Capitol CMG, Essential Music Publishing and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing. Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson took no part. That left five Justices, below the quorum of six set by 28 U.S.C. section 1.
The remaining Justices concluded that the case could not be heard in the next Term. Section 2109 then required the Court to affirm. The affirmance has the same effect as an affirmance by an equally divided court. It ends this case. It does not decide the legal question for the country.
No other federal court of appeals has squarely decided the point. The publishers argued that Fred Ahlert took the opposite view. District courts in California and Maryland have taken the domestic only view. The question may return to the Supreme Court in a later case.
What this means in practice
The ruling concerned section 304(c). Its reasoning should apply equally to section 203. Section 304(c) applies to grants made before 1978 of copyrights still in force on 1 January 1978. Section 203 applies to grants made by authors on or after 1 January 1978. Section 203(b)(5) uses the same "arise under this title" wording. Grants of works made for hire cannot be terminated under either section.
Under section 203, termination may take effect during a five year window that opens 35 years after the grant. If the grant covers publication, the window opens 35 years after publication or 40 years after the grant, whichever comes first. Notice must be served between two and ten years before the chosen date. Termination can now take effect for most grants made between late 1986 and late 1991.
Where the Fifth Circuit's view applies, a publisher may lose foreign rights as well as US rights. Foreign sub publishers and licensees may find that their licensor no longer owns the rights it licensed. Disputes may turn on where a case is filed.
How India, Europe and the UK compare
- India. The Copyright Act, 1957 has no right to recapture a grant after a fixed period. Section 19 instead controls the assignment itself. If the assignee does not exercise a right within one year, the right lapses unless the deed says otherwise. If no period is stated, the assignment lasts five years. If no territory is stated, it covers India only. Under section 19A, an assignment may be revoked on the author's complaint if the assignee does not use the rights enough. Sections 19(9) and 19(10) protect the author's equal share of royalties when a work is used in films and sound recordings.
- European Union. The Digital Single Market Directive (EU) 2019/790 requires Member States to give authors a right of revocation under Article 22. It applies where an exclusive licence or transfer is not exploited. The author must give notice and a deadline first. Article 20 also lets authors claim more pay where the agreed pay is disproportionately low. Neither rule depends on the passage of a fixed number of years.
- United Kingdom. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has no general termination right. A legacy rule survives in paragraph 27 of Schedule 1. Certain assignments made by authors between 1911 and 1 June 1957 cannot run beyond 25 years after the author's death.
The US rule is the strongest of these for authors. It returns most rights after a long period whatever the contract says. Existing derivative works may still be used. After Vetter, it may return them worldwide.
Practical steps
- Authors and heirs should list grants made before 1978 and grants now 25 years old or more. Check the notice windows under sections 203 and 304(c).
- Publishers should map which catalogues include foreign rights that came from US authors, and which licensees hold them.
- Foreign licensees should ask for warranties and termination notices from their US licensors.
- Indian authors and companies should state the period, territory and royalty in every assignment deed. Section 19 fills gaps in ways that may surprise both sides.
- Under a new contract, consider how long the grant runs and what happens to each territory if the US grant ends.
Our copyright services cover assignment and licence drafting, ownership reviews and disputes. For how copyright fits with other rights, see our guide to the types of intellectual property protection.
Frequently asked questions
Does a US copyright termination cover foreign rights?
The Fifth Circuit says yes, where the rights came from the US Copyright Act. The Supreme Court affirmed that judgment without ruling on the merits. Courts elsewhere in the US may still disagree.
Can an author take back an assigned copyright in India?
There is no general right to terminate after a fixed period. But unused rights lapse after one year unless the deed says otherwise, and an assignment with no stated period lasts five years. Section 19A also allows revocation where the assignee does not use the rights enough.
What is the right of revocation in the EU?
Under Article 22 of Directive (EU) 2019/790, an author can revoke an exclusive licence or transfer if the work is not exploited. Notice and a deadline must be given first.