\ Hour kappel off Wells Kappel llp was the lawyer behind a new lawsuit from the copyright who saw songwriter Cyril Vetter Reuse the global rights to a hit song He had unconsciously signed – for a dollar – in his youth. Amount Welcome responsible comment, send posts to Music@variety.com.
One afternoon in the summer of 1962, Cyril convened and Don Smith around a piano to write a song. The result was a playful melody entitled “Double Shot (of my child’s love).” Filled with so many double enenders as the duo could squeeze in, became the song, with Bruce Springsteen’s words, the “Greatest Fraternity Rock Song of All Time.” During the following decades, countless artists recorded their own versions, of the swinging medallions, met No. 17 on Billboard Hot 100 and it remains an indelible piece of pre-counter-Culture Americana to this day.
After the song’s completion, however, Vetter and Smith knew nothing about the possible value of their work. Without legal guidance of any kind, they sold their rights in the composition to a music publisher in exchange for a single dollar. Although their creation went into the Pantheon of American music, the duo never had another hit song, and they both moved on to other careers.
Such stories are too common. Many creators of important cultural works sell (or give away) their interests early, when the value of their efforts is still unknown and unaware. With this in mind, for almost 200 years, the US Copyright Act has provided all “writers” (songwriters, artists, photographers, playwrights, etc.) the ability to regain rapidly allocated rights. Copyright ACT from 1909 divided a copyright life into two 28 -year terms, with the “renewal” period reserved for the Creator or their heirs. After the Supreme Court weakened this protection (considering that writers were able to allocate their rights of renewal at the same time as the first assignment), Congress explicitly rejected the court’s decision in the Copyright Act 1976, which still regulates our country’s copyright protection today.
Legislators provided a new, simpler solution: writers now have the clear and relentless right to terminate all assignments after a certain number of years. For most authors, it is 35 years after the assignment was done. For authors of before 1978, as a “double shot”, it is 56 years.
In 2022, they exploited these protection and ended his previous allocation of copyright in “Double Shot.” (Smith passed away in 1972.) After the first resistance, the then owner of the song, Resnik Music Group, agreed that the closing was valid but refused to recognize its full scope. By claiming that Vetter’s termination only came into force in the United States, resnik continued to assert the exclusive right to use copyright in all 180 nations that the United States has international copyright relationships. In practice, this would provide resnik control – and actually veto power – over many common exploits that cannot be strictly limited geographically.
Vett was unwilling to accept this premise and brought an action and sought an explanatory judgment that his dismissal returned everything he had assigned. As his lawyers, we proudly handed in the trial on his behalf.
In first of its kind, Judge Shelly Dick decided that Cyril’s position is supported by the law. About the right of renewal under the law of 1909, the court stated that “the right of renewal provides the author or his heirs a whole new property, away from all rights granted by the author under the original copyright.” With regard to termination rights under the 1976 Act, the Court ruled that “a termination of a worldwide contribution results in the recovery of worldwide rights; In other words, worldwide rights were covered by the completed grant, so rights return all over the world. “The judge’s decision returns to give the full range of rights that he unfortunately transferred in his youth. We think this is what Congress thought.
To be clear, many publishers and labels in the music industry support Resnik’s position – it gives them eternal control over valuable assets. But the laws on copyright recovery were designed to benefit creators and their heirs, not business owners. Some in the industry have accused Judge Dick’s decisive fact that sowing “chaos” in the international music industry. In our opinion, this is both hyperbolic and speculative. But to the extent that the decision has a financially disturbing effect on the industry, companies may have become too comfortable to retain rights that Congress clearly believed should be returned.
Other offenders have suggested that the judge simply does not “get it” when it comes to copyright or the music industry. This knee-print rejection reflects a hubris that we believe our industry can do without. Whether you agree or not, Judge Dick’s decisive in favor of our client is undoubtedly careful and motivated. It gives a basic fair result that protects people themselves who make all our jobs possible in the first place.
We encourage all our industry mates to read the decision with an open mind and with the creator’s best interests in the heart. At a time when so many in the music industry publicly claim that they put artists and songwriters first, this ruling gives an opportunity to prove it. Instead of continuing to fight against the authors’ interests, the industry should wholeheartedly embrace their efforts to get a real second chance to take full advantage of their works. We really do.
