Vetter v. Resnik: Worldwide Copyright Recovery and Implications for Argentina

Vetter v. Resnik left standing a US decision recognising the worldwide recovery of copyright in a song assigned decades earlier. For Argentina, this raises questions about international licences and ownership documentation; it does not mean that Argentine law has changed or that any author can automatically cancel an assignment. The development on 19 October 2026 adds a distinctive feature: the US Supreme Court affirmed the outcome because it lacked a quorum, without deciding the underlying merits.

One song, an old assignment and two routes to recovering rights

The dispute concerns Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), written by Cyril Vetter and Donald Smith. The rights were assigned to a publisher in 1963. Decades later, Vetter served notice terminating his assignment, effective from 2022. Through a separate route, his company had acquired copyright renewal rights from Smith’s heirs.

The Fifth Circuit’s judgment of 12 January 2026 confirmed that Vetter and his company held exclusive rights worldwide. The two routes must be distinguished: termination of Vetter’s assignment and renewal rights acquired from Smith’s heirs. The entire outcome does not stem from a single power to “change one’s mind” about a contract.

The international problem arose when the parties disputed who could authorise uses outside the United States. For music licensees, the question is concrete: if a publisher received worldwide rights, what does it retain when the author recovers rights through a US statutory mechanism?

What termination allows in the United States

Termination is a statutory tool for recovering certain assigned rights even where a contract contemplated a lengthy term. This case concerned §304(c) of the Copyright Act, applicable to certain pre-1978 grants and subject to conditions, deadlines and notices. The familiar 35-year period, associated with another termination regime, should not be applied to every contract.

The most disputed provision is §304(c)(6)(E): it limits the effect to rights arising under that title and preserves rights arising under other laws, including foreign laws. The court held that this reference to the source of the right did not impose the territorial limitation sought by the defendants.

The legislation also contains an exception for certain derivative works prepared under authorisation before termination. It would therefore be wrong to announce that every pre-existing film, recording or licence immediately becomes unusable. The specific use and the scope of the exception require examination.

Why worldwide scope divides authors and publishers

From authors’ perspective, recovering only a territorial portion may exclude a substantial part of the economic value assigned. In his opposition to Supreme Court review, Vetter defended the distinction between ownership of transferred rights and how the work is protected in each country. He also noted that foreign courts retain their own recognition rules.

The publishers challenged the international reach in their petition for review. The debate extends beyond remuneration for one song: it affects predictability when acquiring catalogues and negotiating permissions for different territories.

A group of intellectual property professors acting as amici curiae objected that the reasoning disregards the independence of national rights and the presumption against extraterritorial application of US legislation. These are objections advanced by those seeking review, rather than conclusions adopted by the Supreme Court.

Territoriality: worldwide circulation does not mean one governing law

Article 5 of the Berne Convention grants authors protection in other member countries and establishes independence from protection in the country of origin. Subject to the Convention’s provisions, it also refers to the law of the country where protection is claimed to determine its extent and the available remedies.

This explains why a worldwide licence does not erase legislative differences. A contract can organise exploitation across many countries, but it does not create a worldwide copyright law. Ownership, transfers, authorised uses and infringement remedies raise questions that should be identified separately.

Our reading is that the dispute requires avoiding two simplifications. It is insufficient to say that a US termination necessarily determines ownership in Argentina. Nor should it be ignored simply because a project takes place here: it may affect the party offering the licence, its authority to contract and its relationships with other catalogue participants.

Four justices did not participate: why the Court did not decide the merits

The order of 19 October 2026 recorded that Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson did not participate. Without a quorum, §2109 applied: the judgment was affirmed with the effect provided for an affirmance by an equally divided Court. There was no merits opinion resolving the disputed interpretation.

In a commentary published on Eric Goldman’s blog, Professor Guy Rub connects the recusals to those justices’ publishing relationships with Penguin Random House, part of the same group as BMG, one of the petitioners. Rub also joined the professors’ brief challenging the judgment. His explanation and institutional criticism must be distinguished from the official order, which does not state the individual reasons for non-participation.

For this analysis, the consequence is that the international debate remains open. The outcome should not be described as a Supreme Court merits decision declaring US law applicable worldwide. The ethical discussion deserves attention of its own; here, it helps explain how the outcome became final without that Court answering the substantive question.

What changes for businesses licensing works in Argentina

Argentina’s Law 11,723 recognises authors’ exploitation rights and allows total or partial assignments. Articles 51–53 regulate transfers and the retention of certain authorial powers, and provide for registration of assignments of literary, scientific or musical works. Vetter does not replace that framework.

The practical lesson we draw is preventive: review the documentation connecting the author to the party now offering the licence. An agency, producer or business preparing a campaign needs to know whether its counterpart can authorise the work, for which territories, for how long and for which uses.

With music, identify exactly what is being licensed. A composition and a particular recording may involve different rights and owners. Permission for one layer should not be assumed to cover the other. A platform’s trade name or a publisher’s reputation cannot replace reading the authorisation.

If a recovery claim arises, a reasonable first step is to gather the original contract, subsequent assignments, the notice relied upon and the parties’ responses. It is then possible to assess whether clarification, additional permission, alternative music or specific dispute analysis is needed. Unilaterally changing the recipient of royalties without reviewing the documents may create another problem.

An example: a Córdoba campaign using a catalogue song

Imagine your business commissions a campaign using an older song. The proposal allows the video to run in Argentina for six months. Before launch, the composer announces that the rights have been recovered, while the publisher says it retains the Argentine rights.

The judgment does not automatically establish which party is correct in that scenario. It does show why proceeding with an invoice and a generic “rights included” statement would be insufficient. You need to identify the right in dispute, whether the notice affects the supplier’s chain of title, and what solution covers the planned distribution.

Options may include requesting documentation and a reasoned explanation of territorial scope, agreeing how a claim will be handled or replacing the work before committing the investment. These are contractual risk-management alternatives, rather than a statement that all earlier licences are invalid or that a contractual warranty eliminates third-party rights.

What to review before signing an international licence

The work and the rights. Identify versions, recordings, translations and adaptations. Avoid an agreement describing only a title when the production needs several different permissions.

Ownership and changes to it. Request evidence of the supplier’s authority and ask about termination notices, expiries, inheritance or disputes. Focus the review on the links relevant to your intended use.

The scope of permission. Define territories, duration, media, paid advertising, modifications and subsequent uses. A local campaign can circulate on platforms accessible from other countries; that possibility should be considered during negotiation.

The response to a dispute. Agree on disclosure duties, cooperation, warranties and alternatives if someone challenges the authorisation. Drafting should reflect the project’s reality without promising that a clause prevents every claim.

Documentation matters both when protecting a creation and when acquiring permission to use it. We also explain this when examining the chain of rights in a logo and registration of works with the DNDA (in Spanish). For contract review or planning exploitation of a work, see our intellectual property advisory service in Córdoba.

Frequently asked questions

Did Vetter change Argentine law? No. It raises an international issue relevant to certain chains of title, but does not itself amend Law 11,723.

Can any author now recover all worldwide rights? No. The applicable regime, dates, requirements and position in each territory must be examined. The case does not permit general cancellation of contracts.

Did the US Supreme Court decide the merits? No. The result was affirmed for lack of a quorum through the mechanism identified in its order.

Must I change a licence I have already obtained? The judgment alone does not require that conclusion. Where a dispute or notice affects the work and your supplier’s chain of title, its effect on the licensed use should be reviewed.