A coalition of music creator advocacy organizations has filed an amicus brief in a landmark US copyright case that could significantly expand protections for songwriters and recording artists worldwide.
The brief was filed by Music Artists Coalition (MAC) in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case Vetter v. Resnik, which centers on whether U.S. copyright termination rights apply globally or are limited to domestic markets.
MAC’s collaborators on the filing are Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), Songwriters of North America (SONA), and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA).
The full amicus brief can be read here.
Global Reach for Termination Rights
At the heart of the case is a 1963 agreement in which songwriter Cyril Vetter assigned worldwide rights to his song Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love) to Windsong Music Publishers.
Decades later, with Windsong now owned by Resnik Music Group, Vetter invoked his statutory right to terminate the copyright agreement and reclaim his work.
(Under the US copyright act, authors can ‘take back’ their copyright from a publisher after a set period. For works written in 1978 or later, that term is 35 years; for works from before 1978, it’s 56 years.)
Resnik’s lawyers claim this action pertains only to the U.S. market. However, the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled that Vetter’s termination actually recaptured worldwide rights – concluding that termination under US law applies globally, or at least in all countries that participate in the Berne Convention.
“This case could set a crucial precedent for creators in today’s global marketplace.”
Susan Genco, MAC/The Azoff Company
“This case could set a crucial precedent for creators in today’s global marketplace,” Susan Genco, MAC board member, and co-founder said today (July 31).
“MAC exists to ensure songwriters have a voice and are represented in a case like this. When artists sign away worldwide rights early in their careers for little money, meaningful termination should let them recapture worldwide rights, not just domestic.”
It’s worth noting that, in addition to her role at MAC, Genco is co-President of The Azoff Company, whose Iconic Artists Group typically acquires rights from veteran US artists and songwriters.
On that score, don’t be surprised if this case increasingly sees companies who want to buy terminated US music rights on one side, and those who don’t want to give them up on the other!
Copyright Termination Rights Explained
As mentioned, copyright termination rights in the US allow creators to reclaim rights to their works 35 years after signing them away.
The MAC’s amicus brief argues that this provision recognizes that young artists often lack bargaining power and cannot foresee the future value of their creative output.
Congress established these rights, it says, to give creators a “second chance to control and benefit from [their] work”.
The coalition’s brief notes that in the current streaming economy, a song can achieve immediate global reach, generating revenue across international territories simultaneously.
“Yet, without worldwide termination, creators remain bound by agreements made when they lacked leverage and before their works’ global value could be understood, leaving them at a perpetual disadvantage,” it states.
Industry Opposition and Creator Response
According to the amicus brief, “major industry trade organizations” have filed briefs opposing the Louisiana district court’s pro-creator ruling.
These orgs are apparently arguing that expanding artists’ termination rights (from US-only to global) would “unsettle bedrock understanding of foreign exploitation rights” against which “tens of thousands of agreements respecting recorded music and music publishing copyrights have been drafted” in the music industry.
“Whose ‘bedrock understanding’ are they protecting? Certainly not the creators who signed those agreements as unknown artists for minimal compensation, only to watch their musical creations generate millions of dollars for others.”
MAC’s Amicus brief argues against industry reps suggesting ruling could undo ‘bedrock understanding’ of termination rights, affecting tens of thousands of agreements
MAC’s amicus brief questions “whose ‘bedrock understanding’ are they protecting? Certainly not the creators who signed those agreements as unknown artists for minimal compensation, only to watch their musical creations generate millions of dollars for others”.
Ron Gubitz, MAC Executive Director, said: “When industry heavyweights line up to defend the status quo and fight against expanded songwriter protections, artists need an advocate.
“That’s precisely why MAC exists – to champion the rights of music creators.
“This case could impact so many songwriters who have signed away rights before understanding their works’ true value. I’m grateful to our partners SAG-AFTRA, ARA, BMAC, and SONA to stand together with us in this filing.”
The Power Imbalance Argument
The MAC amicus brief argues that a power imbalance exists in the music industry.
It suggests that young, unknown artists “often” sign away all rights to their creative works in perpetuity for minimal upfront payments, typically lacking music industry knowledge, meaningful bargaining power, or skilled legal representation.
“The traditional industry practice routinely meant demanding all rights throughout the world in perpetuity in their standard agreements,” the brief states. “This practice compounds this imbalance. Artists, desperate for any recognition or income, believe that they have little choice but to sign these ‘standard terms.’”
The brief argues that the termination right represents “one of the few tools available to musicians to address a growing disparity between traditional grants of perpetual, worldwide rights and potentially lucrative global revenues.”
The filing also emphasizes how streaming platforms have made international exploitation the norm rather than the exception. Record labels and publishers can now instantaneously distribute a song worldwide, which can quickly generate revenue from almost every territory around the globe simultaneously.
“In this highly connected, worldwide, media environment, limiting the termination right solely to domestic exploitation would provide creators with only a fraction of the benefit they deserve,” the brief argues.
“It appears this fraction is also decreasing as other countries recorded music revenues grow.”
The brief cites the fundamental policy behind U.S. copyright law as stated in the Constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
The brief’s conclusion emphasizes: “This case presents a choice between two visions of U.S. copyright law.
“One vision treats the termination right as meaningful protection for creators in the global marketplace where creators have the opportunity to recapture their works’ value. The other treats these rights as domestic-only consolation prizes that leave creators excluded from much of their works’ earning potential.”
Music Business Worldwide
