NEW ORLEANS — A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit appeals court decision that granted a Louisiana songwriter worldwide copyright ownership has been hailed by creators’ advocates as a landmark victory but criticized by copyright experts as a potentially destabilizing expansion of U.S. law beyond its traditional territorial limits.
The Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling in Jan. in the case of Vetter v. Resnik, determining that songwriter Cyril Vetter, through his company Vetter Communications Corporation, regained full global ownership of the 1963 hit “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” after exercising his U.S. copyright termination rights. The ruling affirmed that termination and renewal provisions under U.S. copyright law can restore ownership not only in the United States, but worldwide.
Vetter was represented by Loyola University New Orleans professor Tim Kappel, an assistant professor of music industry studies and associate director of Loyola’s School of Music and Theatre Professions, who described the decision as long overdue.
“We knew from the start that we had the law on our side, even though we felt it had been misapplied for decades,” Kappel said following the ruling. “Now, songwriters will be able to recapture the full scope of what they gave away.”
But while creator groups applauded the outcome, some legal commentators argue the decision marks a sharp break from long-standing international copyright norms.
One of the most pointed critiques came from copyright attorney and writer Aaron Moss, who warned that the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning effectively treats copyright as a single global right emanating from U.S. law — an approach he argues conflicts with international treaties and decades of judicial understanding.
A Clash Over Territoriality
At the heart of the controversy is how far U.S. copyright law can reach beyond national borders. In Vetter v. Resnik, the Fifth Circuit concluded that when an author terminates a grant made under U.S. copyright law, that termination restores the full bundle of rights originally conveyed — including rights to exploit the work internationally — even though copyright protection abroad arises under foreign legal systems.
Moss argues that this interpretation collapses a critical distinction in international copyright law: while countries must recognize foreign works under treaties like the Berne Convention, copyright ownership itself arises separately under each nation’s domestic law.
In his analysis, Moss contends the court misread statutory language that limits termination to “rights arising under” U.S. law and improperly extended that language to rights governed by foreign legal systems. He also criticizes the court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons decision, noting that the case dealt with resale rights, not ownership, and did not involve foreign copyrights.
“The Berne Convention doesn’t create an international copyright,” Moss wrote. “It requires national treatment — meaning each country protects works under its own laws.”
Supporters See Creator Justice
Supporters of the ruling, including songwriter advocacy organizations that filed amicus briefs, argue that limiting termination to domestic rights would undermine the very purpose of the statute. They maintain that creators historically gave away global rights, often for minimal compensation, and should be able to reclaim that full bundle decades later.
“As the owner of the copyright, you decide how the work is used, or not used,” Kappel said. “It’s about control. It’s about revenue. But really what it’s about is fairness.”
What Comes After the Fifth Circuit Ruling
Further court review now appears unlikely. The deadline for asking the full Fifth Circuit to reconsider the case has passed, and the defendant did not seek that review. As a result, the three-judge appeals panel’s ruling now stands as binding law in the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.
A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court remains the primary remaining avenue for review. If no such petition is filed, or if the Court declines to hear the case, the decision is likely to remain controlling law in the Fifth Circuit for the foreseeable future.
Some copyright scholars, including Moss, have commented that any broader reconsideration of the issue may now depend on future litigation in another federal circuit, potentially setting the stage for a split among appellate courts over whether U.S. copyright termination and renewal rights can reach foreign exploitation rights.
For now, the ruling places the Fifth Circuit at odds with prior federal decisions and leading copyright treatises that have long assumed U.S. termination does not extend to foreign rights.
As international markets continue to account for a growing share of music and media revenue, the debate highlights a broader tension between strengthening creator protections and preserving the territorial foundations of global copyright law.
