Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder
United States Supreme Court
469 U.S. 153 (1985)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Ted Snyder authored a musical composition in 1923 that was assigned to Mills Music, Inc. (plaintiff) about a decade later. Then, in 1940, the parties entered into a written agreement pursuant to which Mills acquired the renewal right therein in exchange for the distribution of certain royalties to Snyder. Mills thereafter issued over 400 licenses to various record companies authorizing the use of the song in sound recordings. These record companies prepared and exploited separate derivative works, for which, pursuant to the licenses, the record companies were obligated to remit royalties to Mills. Mills, in turn, was obligated to remit a portion of those royalties to Snyder. When Snyder died, his widow and his son (the Snyders) (defendants) succeeded to his interest in this arrangement with Mills. In 1978, the Snyders served Mills with a notice of termination in accordance with Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act and demanded that all royalties on the derivative works be remitted to them. The disputed funds were placed in escrow, and an interpleader action was initiated. The district court held for Mills. The appellate court reversed after concluding that the Snyders’ termination caused the ownership of the song to revert to them and, therefore, the termination carried with it Mills’s right to collect royalties under the licenses to the record companies. Mills appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.