On January 12, 2026, in Vetter v. Resnik (No. 25-30108), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) clarified the geographic scope of copyright recapture (termination of a prior assignment) and renewal rights under the Copyright Acts of 1976 and 1909.
Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act of 1976 enables individual creators, not corporate authors of works made for hire, to terminate transfers of their copyright rights once the work has entered an extended renewal term. 17 U.S.C. § 304(c).[1] Critically, section 304(c)(6)(E) provides that “[t]ermination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.” 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(6)(E).
The case involves a 1960s-era song called “Double Shot” written by Cyril E. Vetter and Donald Smith. In 1963, Vetter and Smith transferred all their copyright interests to Windsong Music Publishers, Inc. covering “exclusive rights to Double Shot throughout the world for the full term of copyright protection” with a contingent assignment of renewal period rights dependent on the authors’ survival. At the commencement of the renewal period, Vetter’s renewal rights transferred to Windsong, but because Smith died before the start of the renewal term, his heirs obtained his renewal rights. Vetter Communications Corporation later purchased the renewal rights of Smith’s heirs, and Windsong assigned half of its 50% interest in the renewal copyright to Lyresong Music, Inc.
Fast-forward to 2019, and Vetter sent a statutory termination notice to Windsong pursuant to Section 304 of the Copyright Act of 1976, recapturing all rights originally granted in the assignment. Shortly after, ABC requested from Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation an expanded license for the song to be used in worldwide digital broadcasts and streaming of a TV episode. Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation provided a quote, claiming sole ownership of the copyright, but Robert Resnik, who had purchased Windsong’s assets, insisted he retained a 25% ownership interest in the work outside the United States, notwithstanding the termination notice. Vetter and Vetter Communications sought a declaratory judgment of sole copyright ownership of the song throughout the world. Resnik argued that Vetter and Vetter Communications have no rights in the song outside of the United States on the grounds that copyright terminations and renewals have no effect in other countries. The district court sided with the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment that Vetter and Vetter Communications are collectively the sole and exclusive owners of the song throughout the world. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
On appeal Resnik, relying on statutory interpretation, existing case law, and international treaty principles, argued that the district court erred by declaring Vetter to be the sole owner of the song’s copyright throughout the world in the recaptured copyright interest and Vetter Communications to be the sole owner of the song’s copyright throughout the world in the renewal interest.
As to the recapturing of rights by Vetter, the Court disagreed with Resnik’s argument that the plain language of Section 304(c)(6)(E), “arise under this title,” created geographical limits to the termination. Rather, the statute has no explicit geographical limitations, and the plain language indicates that Vetter’s termination would be effective as to all his rights, including both domestically and internationally. The Court also declined to follow any of the cases Resnik pointed to, finding they provided weak support for his arguments. Specifically, those cases were in other circuits and relied heavily on non-binding treatises in coming to the opposite holding. Lastly, Resnik’s theory that the district court’s holding conflicts with international treaty principles lacked sufficient support, and moreover, the district court’s interpretation of section 304(c) could be reconciled with principles of national treatment and territoriality.
Similarly, as to Vetter Communications’ renewal right, the text and purpose of the Copyright Act of 1909 support an interpretation that there are no geographical limits to the scope of renewal rights. The case law Resnik cited also provided weak support for his arguments, as they were not presented with the same issues at hand. Lastly, the court was not persuaded by Resnik’s theory that this would violate principles of national treatment and territoriality, which lacked support and explanation in the court’s view.
In sum, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that Vetter and Vetter Communications are the sole owners of Double Shot’s copyright throughout the world.
Key Takeaways
Per this decision, termination rights may recapture worldwide grants, and renewal terms may include international rights. Many licensees assumed that even if an author exercised termination rights, foreign exploitation rights would remain intact under the original assignment. That assumption no longer holds—at least in the Fifth Circuit. Copyright assignees including publishers and studios should no longer treat termination as a domestic-only concern. If your business intends to exploit licensed or assigned content internationally through streaming platforms, foreign broadcasts, or multi-territory campaigns, understand that authors or their estates may reclaim worldwide rights.
This decision also creates the potential for a circuit split. District courts in other circuits have held that termination applies only to domestic rights. Ultimately, clarity requires Supreme Court intervention or congressional action. Until then, parties acquiring copyright interests from individual creators must do so cautiously and with the risk of global termination in the background.
[1] Note that renewals under the Copyright Act only apply to works created before 1978; transfers of post-1978 works are still subject to termination, however, under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 203.