Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 25, Issue 7
Share on Social
Copyright Colonialism? One Court Says “Double Shot” has a Single Owner
By Kristyn Webb
Did a federal court in Louisiana recently decide that US copyrights are global rights? It seems so.
The lawsuit arose from a dispute over the rights to the song “Double Shot” which was written in 1962 by Cyril Vetter and Don Smith. The duo sold their rights the next year to a music publishing company which obtained and renewed the registration (as used to be required under US copyright law). Later, US copyright law was amended to allow authors, or their heirs, to terminate copyright transfers. This provision was enacted to give artists or their heirs a second chance at controlling their creative works despite having previously assigned their copyrights. By reclaiming rights after a set period, creators can benefit from the long-term success of their works.
The rights to “Double Shot” changed hands over the years, including some percentage of rights being purchased by Vetter. In 2019, Vetter sent a termination notice to the music publishing companies that owned the remaining share of the rights, one of which was Resnik Music Group. In 2022, when ABC asked Vetter for a license to use the song in a television show, Vetter was informed that Resnik was claiming its 25% ownership interest. According to Resnik, Vetter’s recaptured rights were only US rights, and that Resnik had retained all his rights in the song outside of the US.
Vetter sued Resnik and argued that his rights sprang from a single source—US copyright—which other countries were bound by treaty to protect. And so, if he terminated his previous transfer under the US law, all other rights in other countries also would return to him as a matter of course. In turn, Resnik argued that US copyright law does not extend beyond US borders, because the US cannot impose its laws on other countries. And so, Vetter’s recaptured rights under US law naturally only extend to rights in the US and not anywhere else in the world.
The court sided with Vetter, and found in an early decision that recapturing rights meant all rights, and not just US rights. This is unusual because copyright law is usually understood to be jurisdictional in nature—meaning that the nature and scope of rights may vary from country to country. There is no “international copyright,” but most countries are parties to various international treaties that set certain minimum standards of protection, including protecting the copyrights to works from other member countries.
It is likely that this decision will eventually be appealed. In the meantime, artists looking to recapture their rights have a much stronger bargaining position if they are looking to renegotiate their royalty rates. At least according to this court’s decision, they stand to recapture global rights, and not just US rights.
Kristyn Webb is an attorney with Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and holds a master’s degree in copyright law from King’s College London.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
The fun internet trend of promoting "dupes" has officially crossed the trademark line and everyday content creators are finding themselves in the crosshairs of multimillion-dollar corporate lawsuits.
The FIFA World Cup is global football (or soccer) at its highest level. It is, however, also one of the most carefully crafted displays of intellectual property (IP) in the world.
Trademark owners are often cast as villains when they send cease-and-desist letters. But in trademark law, failing to enforce rights can sometimes create bigger problems than enforcing them.
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
The idea that someone might “own” a piece of DNA raises a slightly uncomfortable question: can you really patent something that exists inside all of us?
Forbes reported that more than 1.5 million bots on an AI agent-driven social network appear to have created a new religion for themselves, the Church of Molt, with congregants adopting the name of “Crustafarians.”
Every March, college basketball players get an opportunity to become household sensations overnight. In today’s NIL (Name Image Likeness) era, that moment can be a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity.
Behind the shamrocks and celebrations of St. Patrick's Day lies a surprisingly rich intersection with intellectual property.
Last week, PEI Licensing, LLC., the owner of the ORIGINAL PENGUIN brand (also known simply as PENGUIN) sued Pudgy Penguins Inc. in federal court in Florida over their respective penguin trademarks.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
