A consequential copyright dispute has reached an unusual ending at the US Supreme Court: four justices did not participate, leaving the Court without a quorum.
In BMG Rights Management v. Vetter, the Court’s October 19 order affirmed the judgment under 28 USC §2109 after the remaining justices concluded the case could not be heard and determined at the next term. The statute gives that disposition the same effect as an affirmance by an equally divided Court. supremecourt.gov
The underlying dispute concerns the worldwide consequences of terminating a copyright grant.
What the Fifth Circuit decided
The litigation involves the song Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love). The Fifth Circuit upheld declarations recognizing worldwide ownership interests arising from statutory termination and copyright renewal.
Its reasoning rejected the argument that the relevant recapture operated only within the United States. The court treated the dispute as involving rights originating under US copyright law and the ownership consequences of recovering them. law.justia.com
That makes the judgment commercially important for parties assessing older worldwide grants.
But the Supreme Court’s disposition must be described precisely. It supplies no substantive reasons adopting the Fifth Circuit’s copyright analysis. Calling it an ordinary refusal to hear the case would also miss the statutory procedure used.
Why the procedural distinction matters
For rights holders, the immediate consequence is that the judgment survives. For lawyers assessing precedent, the source of the substantive reasoning remains the lower-court decision.
Those propositions can coexist. A party may obtain a decisive litigation result without securing a reasoned ruling from the country’s highest court.
For Canadian copyright counsel, the case warrants attention where transactions involve US termination rights and international exploitation. It does not establish that every worldwide grant can be unwound everywhere, or resolve how a particular claim would be treated under Canadian law.
A useful review begins with the grant, the relevant statutory provision, the ownership history and the territories in which rights are being asserted.
The outcome also illustrates a broader litigation reality: judicial participation can determine whether appellate clarification is available.
The judgment stands. The Supreme Court has not supplied the copyright reasoning.
Related coverage: Westlaw-ROSS AI Copyright Ruling: Why Competition Mattered to the Third Circuit.
Sources: Supreme Court: October 19 order list · Fifth Circuit: Vetter v. Resnik opinion .