‘Chaos Benefits No One’: Major Labels Ask Supreme Court to Overturn ‘Disruptive’ Copyright Ruling
Categoria: Musica
A novel ruling on copyright termination has "unsettled 50 years of industry practice," the labels told the justices.
Por Billboard | 17/06/2026
The major music companies filed a hotly-anticipated case at the U.S. Supreme Court aimed at reversing a first-ever ruling on copyright termination, calling it a “profoundly wrong” decision they say will cause “chaos” for the music business. The ruling, won in January by songwriter Cyril Vetter, said artists can use termination to regain not only American copyrights, but also overseas rights to the same songs — overturning decades of precedent and industry practice. It was hailed as a “game-changer” for musicians, but seen as dangerously incorrect by publishers, labels and investors. Related ‘We’ve Been Told We’re Crazy’: Lawyers in Landmark Copyright Case Aren’t Backing Down 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' Coming to Las Vegas' Sphere Carly Pearce Signs With BBR Music Group/BMG Nashville In a June 11 petition obtained and first reported by Billboard on Wednesday (June 17), the major labels didn’t hold back — calling Vetter a “headscratching” and “startling” ruling that would be “every bit as disruptive as it sounds” if it was not quickly reversed by the high court. “In a single stroke, the decision below unsettled 50 years of industry practice,” writes Paul Clement , the elite Supreme Court attorney representing Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, as well as BMG. “[It] immediately calls into question the scope and meaning of countless negotiated agreements backed by billions of dollars.” Termination gives songwriters and other creators a chance to recapture their rights decades after they sold them away. But it has only ever applied to U.S. copyrights and had no effect on rights in foreign countries. Under that approach, labels, publishers and investors continue to control overseas rights even after termination. That gives them a major source of perpetual revenue in a globalized streaming era, not to mention veto power over cross-border projects and key leverage in deal re-negotiations. In January’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected that longstanding precedent. Siding with Vetter in his quest to win back ownership of the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” the court said Congress had written the termination statute with the goal of correcting “unequal bargaining power,” and thus clearly did not intend for authors to win back “only half of the apple” when they invoke the law. But in their Supreme Court petition, the labels said that ruling was clearly legally incorrect. They cited language of the statute that termination “in no way affects rights arising under any foreign laws,” which they argued had been “universally understood” before the Vetter case. “For decades, virtually no one even tried to argue that the statute’s plain text could be read any other way,” the labels wrote. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision not only marks a dramatic split from decades of contrary authority, but is also profoundly wrong.” As expecte