Major Labels Acquire Copyright Case to Challenge Landmark Termination Ruling in Supreme Court

Following a pivotal court ruling that allows musicians to enforce U.S. copyright termination rights globally, major music companies are employing an unconventional legal strategy to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court. They are doing so by acquiring the copyright from the individual who lost the case.

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a groundbreaking decision that artists can use termination rights to reclaim not only their American copyrights but also their international rights to the same songs. This ruling overturned decades of established legal precedent and industry norms.

Industry Reaction to the Ruling

Artists and advocacy groups have praised the ruling as a transformative moment for music creators. However, it poses significant challenges for record labels and publishers that risk losing rights through termination. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) have expressed concerns that this ruling could disrupt “a half-century of settled industry norms.” Moreover, since no major music companies were involved in the original case, they lack the ability to appeal the ruling.

In response, major labels have taken a creative approach.

Acquisition of Copyright

On March 26, 2026, it was reported that Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and BMG purchased the disputed copyright from Robert Reznik, the owner of the small music publishing company that lost the landmark case to songwriter Cyril Vetter. The major labels intend to take over the case.

The companies stated their purpose clearly: “The publishers have made this acquisition for purposes of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter.” This legal term refers to the process of bringing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that the court should allow this substitution to enable them to protect their newly acquired interest by seeking Supreme Court review.

Representatives for the four music companies either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

Legal Significance

Tim Kappel, Vetter’s attorney, remarked that the major labels’ takeover of the case reflects its importance. He stated that the legacy music publishers are understandably concerned, as their agreements were designed to maintain control over assets like Vetter’s song. Kappel emphasized that the intentions of the music publishers are irrelevant; what matters are the intentions of Congress, which he believes favor Vetter’s arguments.

Termination rights allow authors a “second bite at the apple,” enabling them to reclaim rights decades after they were initially sold. Historically, these rights have only applied to American copyrights and have not affected rights in foreign jurisdictions. This has allowed publishers to retain overseas rights even after a U.S. termination, giving them significant leverage in negotiations.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling rejected this longstanding precedent. It sided with Vetter in his effort to regain ownership of the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” The court noted that Congress intended the termination statute to correct “unequal bargaining power,” indicating that authors should not only reclaim “half of the apple.”

Implications for the Music Industry

If the ruling is adopted in courts nationwide, it could significantly benefit artists and songwriters. The Music Artists Coalition (MAC), led by Irving Azoff, described the decision as a “seismic shift” that would fundamentally alter the economic landscape for musicians. However, the ruling has been met with silence from labels and publishers, who believe it is legally flawed and could create uncertainty in an industry already experiencing a boom in streaming royalties and catalog values.

Attorneys for the RIAA and NMPA warned that the decision undermines the foundational understanding of foreign exploitation rights, against which countless agreements in music publishing have been established.

Unusual Legal Tactics

The move to replace Reznik as the defendant in the case is an unusual legal tactic. Typically, companies concerned about the implications of influential cases file amicus briefs, or “friend of the court” filings, to express their positions and warn of potential collateral damage. They may also fund legal teams for smaller litigants to help them continue their fight in higher courts.

The fact that the major labels opted to directly take over the litigation indicates they view this case as a critical precedent that must be overturned. One possible reason for this approach is that Reznik may not have intended to appeal the ruling, leaving a decision they believe could be reversed by the Supreme Court unchallenged. Reznik’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

The deadline for filing a petition with the Supreme Court is April 13, 2026. However, the labels indicated in court documents that they plan to request an extension of time to bring the case before the high court.

As reported by www.billboard.com.

Explore the latest digital editions of FAME Delivered in the Magazine section: https://famedelivered.com/magazine/

Published on 2026-03-27 22:53:00 • By FAME Delivered News Desk