美国最高法院周一驳回了一群音乐唱片公司对一项司法裁决的质疑。该裁决称，允许创作者终止版权转让并重新获得权利的法律具有全球效力，而不仅仅适用于美国版权。
The US Supreme Court rejected on Monday a challenge by a group of music labels to a judicial decision that said a law allowing creators to terminate copyright grants and reclaim their rights applies globally and not only to US copyrights.
大法官们维持了下级法院的裁决，该裁决对BMG、索尼音乐（6758.T）、环球音乐集团（UMG.AS）和华纳音乐（WMG.O）等唱片公司造成了打击。总部位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院在涉及词曲作者西里尔·维特尔与已故唐纳德·史密斯共同创作的1960年代摇滚乐歌曲《双重击打（我宝贝的爱）》的争议中，站在了维特尔一方。
The justices upheld a lower court's ruling that dealt a blow to music labels BMG, Sony Music (6758.T), Universal Music Group (UMG.AS) and Warner Music (WMG.O). The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with songwriter Cyril Vetter in the dispute involving a 1960s rock 'n' roll hit he co-wrote with the late Donald Smith called "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)."
这促使四家唱片公司的出版部门向最高法院提出上诉。这些唱片公司曾主张，如果第五巡回法院支持维特尔的裁决得以维持，将导致混乱并威胁价值数十亿美元的协议。
This prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court by the publishing arms of the four labels. The labels had argued that the 5th Circuit ruling in favor of Vetter, if allowed to stand, would cause chaos and threaten agreements worth billions of dollars.
最高法院九名大法官中有四名未参与此次上诉的审理。他们未提供回避的理由。其余大法官认为，该案无法在本届审判期内得到解决，因而维持了下级法院的裁决。
Four of the court's nine justices did not participate in consideration of the appeal by the music labels. They did not provide a rationale for their recusal. The remaining justices determined that the case could not be resolved in the coming term, resulting in the lower court's ruling being upheld.
《双重击打》由维特尔和史密斯于1962年创作，最著名的版本是摇滚乐队摇摆勋章乐队（the Swingin' Medallions）于1966年录制的。维特尔和史密斯于1963年将该歌曲的版权转让给了温松音乐出版社。史密斯于1972年在一起飞机失事中去世。
"Double Shot" was written by Vetter and Smith in 1962, and most famously was recorded by the rock band the Swingin' Medallions in 1966. Vetter and Smith transferred their copyrights in the song to Windsong Music Publishers in 1963. Smith died in a plane crash in 1972.
美国版权法的一项条款允许艺术家在特定情况下，经过数十年后终止版权转让协议并重新获得权利。例如，1978年前的版权转让必须至少已满56年，且该版权作品不得为雇佣作品。该法律的初衷是解决不知名艺术家在签署将其作品权利转让时缺乏议价能力的问题，而这些作品后来变得更有价值。
A provision of US copyright law allows artists to terminate copyright transfer agreements and reclaim their rights after decades under certain circumstances. For example, copyright grants from before 1978 must be at least 56 years old, and the copyrighted work cannot have been written for hire. The law was meant to address the lack of bargaining power for unknown artists who signed away rights to their works that later became more valuable.
援引该法律，Vetter 在 2019 年向 Windsong 发出了版权终止通知，生效日期为 2022 年。Resnik Music Group 于 2019 年后期收购了 Windsong。
Invoking this law, Vetter sent a copyright termination notice to Windsong in 2019, with an effective date of 2022. Resnik Music Group bought Windsong later in 2019.
Vetter 于 2023 年在路易斯安那州巴吞鲁日的联邦法院起诉 Resnik，指控 Resnik “拒绝放弃对 'Double Shot' 版权在美国境外的主张，并声称在所有外国拥有对该作品的独家开发权。” 美国地方法院法官 Shelly Dick 在 2025 年作出有利于 Vetter 的裁决，宣告他为其重新夺回的 “Double Shot” 版权在全球范围内的 “所有权利、所有权和利益的唯一所有者”。第五巡回上诉法院于今年一月维持了 Dick 的裁决。
Vetter sued Resnik in federal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2023, alleging that Resnik "refuses to relinquish claim to the 'Double Shot' copyright outside of the United States and purports to retain the exclusive right to exploit the work in all foreign countries." US District Judge Shelly Dick ruled in favor of Vetter in 2025 and declared him the "sole owner of all right, title and interest throughout the world" of his reclaimed "Double Shot" copyright. The 5th Circuit affirmed Dick's ruling in January.
本案涉及的音乐唱片公司在第五巡回上诉法院作出裁决后，收购了 Resnik 对 “Double Shot” 的版权权益。他们在向最高法院提交的文件中表示，下级法院关于美国版权终止法适用于国外版权的裁决 “动摇了行业 50 年的惯例”，并且 “与法律文本和既定理解严重背离”。Vetter 的律师在文件中回应称，唱片公司提出的担忧被夸大了。
The music labels involved in the current case acquired Resnik's copyright interest in "Double Shot" after the 5th Circuit's decision. They told the Supreme Court in a filing that the ruling by the lower courts that US law on copyright termination applies to foreign copyrights "unsettled 50 years of industry practice" and "sharply diverges from the statutory text and settled understandings." Vetter's lawyers responded in a filing that the concerns voiced by the labels were overblown.