Major labels tell Supreme Court Vetter termination ruling would trigger “chaos” globally

Major music companies just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in after a first-of-its-kind copyright termination ruling that they say would create “chaos” for the music business. In a June 11 petition, filed by Paul Clement for Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and BMG, the labels argued that the January decision for songwriter Cyril Vetter was “profoundly wrong” and “every bit as disruptive as it sounds.”

The core issue is sharp and, for executives, frankly high-stakes: the ruling says termination can regain not only U.S. copyrights, but also overseas rights to the same songs, overturning decades of precedent. The labels argue this flips the long-established expectation that termination affects only U.S. rights and leaves foreign ownership arrangements intact, which has been a major pillar under the way global music deals are structured.

To understand why the labels are treating this like an emergency, you have to look at how termination works in practice. Termination is the legal mechanism that gives songwriters and other creators a chance to recapture their rights decades after they sold them away. For years, industry practice has treated that right as country-bound, because the statute has been read to apply to U.S. copyrights without touching rights under foreign laws. That approach matters because modern music revenue is global, and publishing and licensing deals often depend on exactly who controls which territorial rights.

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the longstanding background rules. The court sided with Vetter in his quest to win back ownership of the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” It reasoned that Congress designed the termination statute to correct “unequal bargaining power,” and therefore did not intend authors to win back “only half of the apple” when they invoke the law. But the labels say that logic is the problem. Their petition argues that the Fifth Circuit’s decision is legally incorrect and departs from decades of contrary authority.

What the labels emphasize in their legal framing is the statutory language that termination “in no way affects rights arising under any foreign laws.” They say that language was “universally understood” before the Vetter case. In their view, the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation creates uncertainty so wide that it threatens a whole ecosystem of negotiated agreements that have been backed by billions of dollars. Clement writes in the petition that “In a single stroke, the decision below unsettled 50 years of industry practice,” and that it immediately calls into question “the scope and meaning of countless negotiated agreements backed by billions of dollars.”

The labels also argue the ruling is not just a theoretical dispute. Clement’s pitch to the justices focused on practical effects that he says have already begun, including “sow confusion” and “chaos.” He framed this as a broader creative-industry problem, extending beyond music companies to movie studios, other entertainment industries, and creators themselves. The argument is that if termination is interpreted to reach overseas rights, then a big chunk of deal architecture changes at once, and nobody can be confident where ownership lines land across borders.

Even the labels’ letter has an industry tell: it cites a real-world Supreme Court-adjacent problem case to illustrate why the stakes are global. Paul McCartney made an unexpected appearance in the petition. In 2017, he sued Sony Music seeking to take back Beatles songs via termination. The labels say the country-by-country structure of copyrights is the reason that lawsuit could proceed. They argue that if Vetter’s theory is upheld, McCartney “never could have pursued that case,” because termination would supposedly shift overseas rights in a way that undermines the territory separation that made his approach possible. The labels also note that McCartney is a British subject, and that “Yesterday” and “Hey Jude” are U.K. works, and that U.K. law currently has nothing like termination.

Finally, the petition turns up the volume by attacking the predicted consequences of the opposing side’s legal approach. Clement quotes legal article work by Tim Kappel and Loren Wells, describing the “fringe” nature of the theory they advanced and emphasizing that the “ultimate goal” was to give terminating songwriters leverage they never had before, and to “sow confusion” about the status and validity of innumerable author-publisher agreements worth millions. Clement sums it up bluntly: “The resulting chaos benefits no one.”

Kappel responded to Billboard with a counterpunch. In a statement Wednesday, Kappel said: “As one would expect, the petition is well-written. But it covers no real new ground and traffics in the same arguments that were rejected by the courts below. We look forward to responding.” Vetter will get a chance to file his own brief by next month.

After briefing, the justices will privately vote on whether to take the case, and their review odds are described as not great. The Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of petitions each year, and the Court might prefer to wait for another case that directly conflicts with the Vetter ruling before taking this territorial question head-on. Still, for music-adjacent executives and boards, this filing is a signal worth treating seriously: the termination fight is no longer confined to U.S. copyright papers. It is being framed as a potential global contract earthquake, and the labels want the Supreme Court to stop the shaking before it spreads.