A novel court ruling that would allow artists to regain their global copyrights is “a massive win for the principle of fairness,” according to a group advocating for artists and songwriters.
In a statement following the first-of-its-kind ruling on copyright termination, the Music Artists Coalition (MAC) said the decision represents a “seismic shift” and a “game-changer” that could result in “fundamentally altering the economic landscape” for musicians.
Related
“This ruling is a massive win for the principle of fairness,” said Ron Gubitz, MAC’s executive director. “The termination right is an artist’s second chance at ownership. If the original deal gave away the world, that second chance must include the world.”
This week’s ruling is particularly crucial in the “modern, globalized music industry,” says MAC, an influential advocacy group co-founded by Irving Azoff, because the rise of streaming and social media has largely eliminated national borders for music fans.
“In today’s streaming economy, music distribution is almost immediately global,” the group says in its statement. “Limiting termination to the U.S. would exclude creators from a massive (and growing) portion of their global earning potential.”
Monday’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed by songwriter Cyril Vetter that aimed to use termination to win back full global copyright ownership of the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” from publisher Resnik Music Group.
Termination is a crucial copyright provision that allows authors a “second bite at the apple,” allowing them to recapture their rights decades after they sold them away. But historically, it has only ever applied to American copyrights and had no effect on foreign countries. Under that approach, publishers often continue to own overseas rights even after a U.S. termination, giving them veto power over cross-border projects and a big bargaining chip in negotiations.
In Monday’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected that longstanding precedent, saying that Congress had written the law to correct “unequal bargaining power” and did not intend for authors to win back “only half of the apple.”
According to MAC, which co-filed a brief in the case alongside other advocates, that ruling is a “vital precedent for artists,” preventing them from being “tied to an unfavorable deal for international royalties” even after they exercise their right to terminate that deal. They stressed that it would also help correct “power imbalances” that leave young artists with unfair agreements.
“The ruling reinforces the core purpose of the Copyright Act: to protect creators who entered into unremunerative deals early in their careers when they lacked bargaining power and the ability to foresee a work’s future value,” the group wrote.
MAC’s brief in the case was co-signed by other artist rights groups, including the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), Songwriters of North America (SONA) and SAG-AFTRA, the powerful Hollywood labor union.
Monday’s ruling was not the preferred outcome for record labels and publishers, who filed their own briefs in the case, warning that it will disrupt “a half-century of settled industry norms.” The publisher involved in the case, Resnik Music Group, told the court that such a ruling would lead to “chaos” by upending existing contracts and business calculations.
But MAC says those concerns are overblown and that music companies are already very familiar with returning global rights to artists and songwriters: “Despite arguments that this ruling would cause chaos, the court found that the music industry is already equipped to manage these shifts, as contractual reversions of all rights are common practice.”
“The Fifth Circuit has confirmed what we have always known: a ‘second chance’ for creators means a meaningful second chance — globally,” Gubitz says.
