Following a landmark court ruling that musicians can enforce U.S. copyright termination rules across the globe, the major music companies are now using an unorthodox legal maneuver to get the Supreme Court to overturn it: Buying out the guy who lost the case.

The first-of-its-kind decision, issued in January, adopted a novel legal theory that artists can use termination rights to regain not only their American copyrights, but also their overseas rights to the same songs, overturning decades of legal precedent and industry practice.

Related ‘Watershed Ruling’: Appeals Court Says Musicians Can Win Back Their Copyrights Globally, Not Just in the U.S. New Levels Strike Global Partnership With Virgin Music Group, Signs Hooligan Hefs & More Bad Bunny's Australia Debut Sets Attendance Benchmark in Sydney

Artists and advocacy groups hailed the decision as a “game-changer for music creators,” but it was no win for the labels and publishers that stand to lose rights via termination. In court filings, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) have warned that it will disrupt “a half-century of settled industry norms.” And worse yet for them: Since no major music companies were involved, they have no way to appeal the ruling.

So, the majors got creative.

In a Thursday (March 26) court filing obtained and first reported by Billboard, units of all three major music companies (Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment) and BMG announced they had purchased the disputed copyright from Robert Reznik — the owner of the small music publisher who lost the landmark case to songwriter Cyril Vetter — and would take over the case.

And they were upfront about why they did it: “The publishers have made this acquisition for purposes of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter,” using the legal term for taking a case to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The court should grant such a substitution here, thereby allowing the publishers to protect their newly acquired interest by seeking Supreme Court review.”

Reps for the four music companies either declined to comment or did not return requests for comment.

In a statement to Billboard, Vetter’s attorney Tim Kappel said the majors taking over defense of the case was “a reflection of what we already knew about the importance of this case.”

Related ‘Game-Changer for Music Creators’: Artist Advocates Hail Big Copyright Ruling

“It’s not a shock that legacy music publishers are concerned,” Kappel said. “Their deals were designed to maintain perpetual control over assets like . But their intentions are irrelevant. It’s only the intentions of Congress that matter, and on that front, we continue to believe that Cyril has the stronger arguments no matter who we’re up against.”

Termination is a 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 rights in 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 January’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected that longstanding precedent. Siding with Vetter in his quest to win back ownership of the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” the court said Congress had written the termination statute with the goal of correcting “unequal bargaining power,” and thus clearly did not intend for authors to win back “only half of the apple” when they invoke the law.

If adopted in courts across the country, the ruling would be a boon for artists and songwriters. It was celebrated by groups like Irving Azoff’s Music Artists Coalition (MAC), which called it a “seismic shift” that would be “fundamentally altering the economic landscape” for musicians. But it was met with silence by labels and publishers, who believe it is legally wrong and will inject uncertainty into the industry at a time when streaming royalties and catalog values are booming.

Related The Next Termination Battle: It’s Time To Change Sound Recording Contracts (Guest Column)

“ decision unsettles the bedrock understanding of foreign exploitation rights against which tens of thousands of agreements respecting recorded music and music publishing copyrights have been drafted, negotiated, and executed,” attorneys for the RIAA and NMPA wrote in a court filing ahead of the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

Thursday’s move to swap in the major labels for Resnik as the defendant in the case is an unusual legal tactic. Influential cases move through the court system every day, but companies that are concerned about their potential impact rarely buy out the defendant in order to litigate them.

Companies and industry groups instead often file amicus briefs, or “friend of the court” filings, in landmark cases, allowing them to argue their positions and warn of potential collateral damage. They also sometimes fund legal teams behind the scenes, allowing a small litigant without resources to continue fighting an important case up the appellate ladder.

The fact that the labels went further in Vetter’s case and directly took over the litigation underscores that they view the case as a crucial precedent that must be overturned. One possible explanation is that Resnik was not going to appeal the ruling at all, leaving unchallenged a decision they think could be undone by the Supreme Court. Resnik’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.

The deadline to file a petition with the Supreme Court is April 13, 2026, though the labels indicated in court documents that they plan to request an extension of time to take the case to the high court.