Supreme Court Declines to Review Copyright Case
A lack of a quorum keeps a lower court ruling on worldwide copyright termination rights in effect.
Updated on Oct. 20, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should songwriters have the right to reclaim worldwide copyright control over their work after 35 years?
The Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling in BMG v. Vetter regarding copyright termination rights. Because four justices recused themselves due to conflicts of interest, the high court lacked the necessary six-justice quorum to hear the case.
Why it matters
The decision leaves in place an appellate ruling that confirms U.S. copyright termination rights apply globally. This outcome impacts the ongoing legal battles over the rights to creative works under Section 304 of the Copyright Act.
The dispute centers on copyright termination eligibility for works under Section 304 of the Copyright Act, which allows for termination 35 years after an agreement. BMG had acquired a 25% ownership stake from Resnik Music Group to pursue the appeal.
The players
Cyril Vetter
He is the litigant whose victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
BMG
This music company led the appeal against Vetter after acquiring a partial ownership stake in the disputed copyright.
Bertelsmann
This German multinational media conglomerate owns Penguin Random House, prompting the recusal of four Supreme Court justices.
The details
Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson recused themselves because they have published books through Penguin Random House, a subsidiary of the parent company Bertelsmann. Consequently, the court affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that favored Cyril Vetter and his claims regarding the song Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love).
Timeline
1978 marked the earliest year for copyright termination rights.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Vetter in early 2026.
The Supreme Court declined to review the case on October 20, 2026.
Political Context
The ruling draws criticism from major music labels who argue that the extraterritorial application of U.S. law disrupts established global licensing agreements. Industry advocacy groups maintain that such interpretations create legal uncertainty for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.
This decision solidifies that original authors may reclaim rights to their works globally under U.S. law, potentially altering royalty distribution for classic songs. Major publishers and labels must now navigate the legal precedent that limits their ability to block these termination claims.
The takeaway
This outcome highlights the significant influence of judicial recusals on the finality of complex intellectual property litigation. Readers should note that copyright termination remains a potent tool for creators to challenge long-standing ownership agreements.
Further reading
For broader insight into legal developments, visit the United States Law section.
Live Poll
Should songwriters have the right to reclaim worldwide copyright control over their work after 35 years?
