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
Before a brand makes headlines for the right reasons, it helps to make sure someone else doesn’t already own the name. A recent dispute involving Tesla offers a timely reminder that a great brand name can become an expensive problem.
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
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.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
