Copyright Colonialism? One Court Says “Double Shot” has a Single Owner

Copyright Colonialism? One Court Says “Double Shot” has a Single Owner

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.