In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).
Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:
An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by The Authors Guild, Inc., Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Novelists, Inc., Romance Writers Of America, Inc., Society Of Composers & Lyricists, Inc. and Songwriters Guild Of America, Inc.
We believe the answer must be yes. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.
That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.
Hear from SoundExchange President and CEO @mikehuppe on the Tech Talks Daily Podcast, hosted by @neilchughes, discussing advancements in music tech and our continued fight for fair protections for all creators around the world.
In a symbolic vote that spoke volumes, the U.S. Senate decisively voted 99–1 to strike the toxic AI safe harbor moratorium from the vote-a-rama for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1) according to the AP. Senator Ted Cruz, who had previously actively supported the measure, actually joined the bipartisan chorus in stripping it — an acknowledgment that the proposal had become politically radioactive.
To recap, the AI moratorium would have barred states from regulating artificial intelligence for up to 10 years, tying access to broadband and infrastructure funds to compliance. It triggered an immediate backlash: Republican governors, state attorneys general, parents’ groups, civil liberties organizations, and even independent artists condemned it as a blatant handout to Big Tech with yet another rent-seeking safe harbor.
Marsha Blackburn and Maria Cantwell to the Rescue
Credit where it’s due: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) was the linchpin in the Senate, working across the aisle with Sen. Maria Cantwell to introduce the amendment that finally killed the provision. Blackburn’s credibility with conservative and tech-wary voters gave other Republicans room to move — and once the tide turned, it became a rout. Her leadership was key to sending the signal to her Republican colleagues–including Senator Cruz–that this wasn’t a hill to die on.
Top Cover from President Trump?
But stripping the moratorium wasn’t just a Senate rebellion. This kind of reversal in must-pass, triple whip legislation doesn’t happen without top cover from the White House, and in all likelihood, Donald Trump himself. The provision was never a “last stand” issue in the art of the deal. Trump can plausibly say he gave industry players like Masayoshi Son, Meta, and Google a shot, but the resistance from the states made it politically untenable. It was frankly a poorly handled provision from the start, and there’s little evidence Trump was ever personally invested in it. He certainly didn’t make any public statements about it at all, which is why I always felt it was such an improbable deal point that it was always intended as a bargaining chip whether the staff knew it or not.
One thing is for damn sure–it ain’t coming back in the House which is another way you know you can stick a fork in it despite the churlish shillery types who are sulking off the pitch.
One final note on the process: it’s unfortunate that the Senate Parliamentarian made such a questionable call when she let the AI moratorium survive the Byrd Bath, despite it being so obviously not germane to reconciliation. The provision never should have made it this far in the first place — but oh well. Fortunately, the Senate stepped in and did what the process should have done from the outset.
Now what?
It ain’t over til it’s over. The battle with Silicon Valley may be over on this issue today, but that’s not to say the war is over. The AI moratorium may reappear, reshaped and rebranded, in future bills. But its defeat in the Senate is important. It proves that state-level resistance can still shape federal tech policy, even when it’s buried in omnibus legislation and wrapped in national security rhetoric.
Cruz’s shift wasn’t a betrayal of party leadership — it was a recognition that even in Washington, federalism still matters. And this time, the states — and our champion Marsha — held the line.
Spotify has long claimed its algorithms can spot breakout tracks and rising artists long before traditional gatekeepers notice. From Discover Weekly to Release Radar, the service positions itself as more than a music service — it’s an engine for musical discovery. You know…exposure.
In interviews, press releases, and annual shareholder letters, Daniel Ek the former pirate and future defense contractor and Spotify have boasted that their data can pinpoint the ‘next big thing,’ making Spotify the best place for discovering and nurturing new talent. They raise money on the issue and their market cap is $150.983B today. So they’re sharing the gold with the artists that they extract value from, yes?
The New Threshold Policy
Well, no. Spotify now imposes a threshold: tracks must reach roughly 1,000 streams per year to qualify for recorded music royalties. But understand this–while they don’t pay on those 1,000 streams, they do collect listener data on them and that powers their algorithm. You know, the algorithm they brag on can spot talent, kid. Because those first 1,000 streams are whatchamacallit…free goods. Or is it breakage? Or maybe a kind of packaging deduction?
Under this no-pay-but-track model, Spotify can recognize early listener activity and harness it for its personalized playlists and marketing efforts — yet it doesn’t pay artists for those early plays until the artist meets an arbitrary 1,000 stream threshold. And realize this–an artist could have 100 tracks with 1 million streams each and 100 tracks with less than 1,000, and they won’t get paid on the less streamed tracks. So the pitch here is the track not the artist, yet another contradiction from the Spotify pitch deck.
The Conflict
This creates a troubling tension:
For Spotify: The first few hundred plays are enough for its algorithm to assess the track, recommend it to listeners, and monetize engagement. And brag on it to investors.
For Artists: Those same early plays don’t count toward royalties. The track can gain exposure across the platform, but the artist sees no income until the threshold is crossed.
What It Means
Aside from they’re scumbags? Well, if Spotify can spot a breakout track when it has only a few hundred plays, why can’t it pay for those plays? Its data and recommendations benefit Spotify — obviously, they brag on it. The free goods data makes the service more attractive, bolstering its story to investors, and enriching its user experience — long before it benefits the artist making the records. (To add insult to injury, they do have to pay the songwriters under the benighted compulsory license which they no doubt are going to try to ditch in the next CRB.)
This paradox exposes a deeper tension in the streaming model: platforms excel at extracting value from listener data but adopt a policy to let them grab that data long before it translates into royalties for creators. Talk about data is the new oil.
This paradox shines a light on how platforms monetize listener data early — and benefit from it — while delaying or denying payments for those same streams. What Spotify promotes as ‘discovery’ often operates as monetization for the platform, leaving the artist with nothing until an arbitrary threshold is crossed. The same is likely true of all the platforms that adopt Spotify’s freebie threshold model in what the antitrust lawyers call conscious parallelism, looking at you Amazon and Deezer.
What is to be Done?
If Spotify truly champions discovery, it should champion fair compensation from the first stream. The ability to spot breakout tracks early must be matched by a commitment to pay for them.
It’s time for a more transparent and equitable approach — one that recognizes the value of every stream and every listener, regardless of its place in the self licking ice cream cone.
In a world where zero royalties becomes a brag, and one second of music is one second too far.
Let me set the stage: Cannes Lions is the annual eurotrash…to coin a phrase…circular self-congratulatory hype fest at which the biggest brands and ad agencies in the world if not the Solar System spend unreal amounts of money telling each other how wonderful they are. Kind of like HITS Magazine goes to Cannes but with a real budget. And of course the world’s biggest ad platform–guess who–has a major presence there among the bling and yachts of the elites tied up in Yachtville by the Sea. And of course they give each other prizes, and long-time readers know how much we love a good prize, Nyan Cat wise.
Enter the King of Swill, the mind-numbingly stupid Budweiser marketing department. Or as they say in Cannes, Le roi de la bibine.
Credit where it’s due: British Bud-hater and our friend Chris Cooke at CMU flagged this jaw-dropper from Cannes Lions, where Budweiser took home the Grand Prix for its “One‑Second Ad” campaign—a series of ultra-short TikTok clips that featured the one second of hooks from iconic songs. The gimmick? Tease the audience just long enough to trigger nostalgia, then let the internet do the rest. The beer is offensive enough to any right-thinking Englishman, but the theft? Ooh la la.
Cannes Clown
Budweiser’s award-winning brag? “Zero ads were skipped. $0 spent on music right$.” Yes, that’s correct–“right$”.
That quote should hang in a museum of creative disinformation.
There’s an old copyright myth known as the “7‑second rule”—the idea that using a short snippet of a song (usually under 7 seconds) doesn’t require a license. It’s pure urban legend. No court has ever upheld such a rule, but it sticks around because music users desperately want it to be true. Budweiser didn’t just flirt with the myth—it took the myth on a date to Short Attention Span Theater, built an ad campaign around it, and walked away with the biggest prize in advertising to the cheers of Googlers everywhere.
When Theft from artists Becomes a Business Model–again
But maybe this kind of stunt shouldn’t come as a surprise. When the richest corporations in commercial history are openly scraping, mimicking, and monetizing millions of copyrighted works to train AI models—without permission and without payment—and so far getting away with it, it sends a signal. A signal that says: “This isn’t theft, it’s innovation.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. Give them a prize.
So of course Budweiser’s corporate brethren start thinking: “Me too.”
As Austin songwriter Guy Forsyth wrote in Long Long Time, “Americans are freedom-loving people, and nothing says freedom like getting away with it.” That lyric, in this context, resonates like a manifesto for scumbags.
The Immorality of Virality
For artists and the musicians and vocalists who created the value that Budweiser is extracting, the campaign’s success is a masterclass in bad precedent. It’s one thing to misunderstand copyright; it’s another to market that misunderstanding as a feature. When global brands publicly celebrate not paying for music–in Cannes, of all places—the very tone-deaf foundation of their ad’s emotional resonance sends a corrosive signal to the entire creative economy. And, frankly, to fans.
Oops!… I Did It Again, bragged Budweiser, proudly skipping royalties like it’s Free Fallin’, hoping no one notices they’re just Smooth Criminals playing Cheap Thrills with other people’s work. It’s not Without Me—it’s without paying anyone—because apparently Money for Nothing is still the vibe, and The Sound of Silence is what they expect from artists they’ve ghosted.
Because make no mistake: even one second of a recording can be legally actionable particularly when the intentional infringing conspiracy gets a freaking award for doing it. That’s not just law—it’s basic respect, which is kind of the same thing. Which makes Budweiser’s campaign less of a legal grey area and more of a cultural red flag with a bunch of zeros. Meaning the ultimate jury award from a real jury, not a Cannes jury.
This is the immorality of virality: weaponizing cultural shorthand to score branding points, while erasing the very artists who make those moments recognizable. When the applause dies down in Yachtville, what’s left is a case study in how to win by stealing — not creating.
The latest twist in the long-running AM radio saga comes from a new alliance: cars and music. Automaker trade groups Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Consumer Technology Association, and Zero Emission Transportation Association are shoulder to shoulder with the musicFIRST Coalition and SoundExchange in urging Congress to link the “AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act” with the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). If we’re going to mandate AM radios be placed in new cars then music played on those radios should pay the people who made that music. It’s unfair and fundamentally inconsistent to require one without the other, so broadcasters should pay artists.
What Is the American Music Fairness Act?
If you haven’t run across it yet, AMFA is bipartisan legislation sponsored by our champion Senator Marsha Blackburn in the Senate and our long-time ally Rep. Darrell Issa in the House of Representatives that would finally require AM/FM radio stations to pay performance royalties to recording artists and performers when their recordings are played over the air. Currently, the U.S. remains the only democracy that allows terrestrial radio to make billions from music without compensating performers.
Why Artists Get Left Out
As incredible as it may seem, under U.S. copyright law, terrestrial radio must pay songwriters and publishers—but not performers or sound recording rights holders. That means backup singers, session musicians, and producers receive zero compensation, even when their work drives–literally–billions in broadcast revenue. This is what allows the National Association of Broadcasters shillery to claim “we pay for music” and then try to pit artists against songwriters. That dog won’t hunt, but that never stops them from trying.
The musicFIRST Coalition, including SoundExchange and tons of artists and creators, has been front and center pushing Congress to close this loophole for years and we have been right there with them along with our friend Blake Morgan and his #IRespectMusic campaign.
“Mandating AM radio without addressing the performance royalty issue would perpetuate an inequity that denies hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to countless recording artists every year. Congress should not pass a mandate for radio without ensuring appropriate royalties for artists… They deserve to have their hard work respected and valued with fair compensation — like they receive in every other industrialized country.” —SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe
The Math on AMFA
U.S. radio plays over 240 million songs annually without compensating performers
The music industry could gain an estimated $200–300 million annually if Americans were paid for domestic and foreign broadcast plays
Aligns U.S. copyright with global norms—terrestrial radio already pays performers in virtually every other developed nation.
What is to be done
If Congress is going to mandate AM radio in every car, it can’t ignore the rights of the very artists who create the content. By demanding performance royalties through AMFA, we can preserve public safety benefits while ensuring creators are paid for their work. This is a rare chance for Congress to get it right—fairness and infrastructure can go hand-in-hand.
If you believe artists deserve fairness when their music plays on the radio, now is the time to act:
America’s core copyright industries add $2 trillion dollars to our GDP and employ more than 11 million workers. Sign onto our letters to Congress and the President urging them to protect creators from unlicensed #AI training on copyrighted works! https://t.co/rpPVRolovUpic.twitter.com/GVLyNM16yA
— Copyright Alliance (@Unite4Copyright) June 16, 2025
The biggest of Big Tech are scraping everything they can snarf down to train their AI–that means your Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, websites, Reddit, the works. Congress has to stop this–if. you are as freaked out about this as we are, join in the Copyright Alliance letter campaign here. It just takes a minute to send a personalized letter to Congress and the White House urging policymakers to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair compensation in the AI era.
Songwriter and publisher Cyril Vetter is at the center of a high-stakes copyright case over his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” with massive implications for authors’ termination rights under U.S. law. His challenge to Resnik Music Group has reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and creators across the country are showing up in force—with a wave of amicus briefs filed in support including Artist Rights Institute. Let’s consider the case on appeal.
At the heart of Vetter’s case is a crucial question: When a U.S. author signs a U.S. contract governed by U.S. law and then later the author (or the author’s heirs) invokes their 35-year termination right under Sections 203 and 304 of the U.S. Copyright Act, does that termination recover only U.S. rights (the conventional wisdom)—or the entire copyright, including worldwide rights? Vetter argued for the worldwide rights at trial. And the trial judge agreed over strenuous objections by the music publisher opposing Cyril.
Judge Shelly Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed. Her ruling made clear that a grant of worldwide rights under a U.S. contract is subject to U.S. termination. To hold otherwise would defeat the statute’s purpose which seems obvious.
I’ve known Vetter’s counsel Tim Kappel since he was a law student and have followed this case closely. Tim built a strong record in the District Court and secured a win against tough odds. MTP readers may recall our interviews with him about the case, which attracted considerable attention. Tim’s work with Cyril has energized a creator community long skeptical of the industry’s ‘U.S. rights only’ narrative—a narrative more tradition than law, an artifact of smoke filled rooms and backroom lawyers.
The Artist Rights Institute (David Lowery, Nikki Rowling, and Chris Castle), along with allies including Abby North (daughter-in-law of the late film composer Alex North), Blake Morgan (#IRespectMusic), and Angela Rose White (daughter of the late television composer and music director David Rose), filed a brief supporting Vetter. The message is simple: Congress did not grant a second bite at half the apple. Termination rights are meant to restore the full copyright—not just fragments.
As we explained in our brief, Vetter’s original grant of rights was typical: worldwide and perpetual, sometimes described as ‘throughout the universe.’ The idea that termination lets an author reclaim only U.S. rights—leaving the rest with the publisher—is both absurd and dangerous.
This case is a wake-up call. Artists shouldn’t belong to the ‘torturable class’—doomed to accept one-sided deals as normal. Termination was Congress’s way of correcting those imbalances. Terminations are designed by Congress to give a second bite at the whole apple, not the half.
Stay tuned—we’ll spotlight more briefs soon. Until then, here’s ours for your review.
— MusicTechPolicy.com (@MusicTechPolicy) May 13, 2025
The red line is the actual mechanical rate in pennies (nominal rate) compared to the blue line which is the inflation-adjusted rate (real rate). Notice that during periods without a COLA adjustment like we won for physical and CDs in CRB 4 (aka Phonorecords IV), the blue line is less than the red line.
An important feature of this graph is that the blue line continues the downward slope until it is saved by an increase in rates followed by a cost of living adjustment or stair step increases (some of which were due to a COLA).
As soon as the COLA comes off, the downward slope returns, meaning the buying power of the statutory rate declines. This is to be expected due to inflation–the downward slope will be more pronounced in times of high inflation.
Notice that this places a blank space on the area of the graph between the red and blue lines. That blank space represents lost revenue due to a fixed rate that is not adjusted for inflation. It is theoretically and industrywide loss of revenue.
It would be possible for songwriters to make the same calculation for streaming if the Copyright Office were required to publish the results of the CRB’s streaming mechanical calculation. This would be much easier because there has never been a COLA for streaming mechanicals, although there clearly ought to be.
One place to start making that case might be to calculate the industrywide loss from the failure to adjust for inflation in the rates the government forces us to take.
Remember, 5% of 100% of SoundExchange royalties are paid to the AFM/SAG-AFRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund. The Fund in turn pays a share of that royalty payment to the nonfeatured musician and vocalist performers. You need to check if the Fund is holding any royalties for you through their searchable index here.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.