When Tim Kappel and Loren Wells first filed a lawsuit in 2023 aimed at helping Cyril Vetter win back control of the global rights to his 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” it was clearly a long shot. Copyright termination, the rule they were invoking, had historically only applied to U.S. rights.

But the two lawyers, founders of the boutique music industry law firm Wells Kappel, felt strongly that they had a winning argument and a perfect test case. Long shot or not, they were going to try it.

“We’ve been trying to engage with people on this issue for a long time, and we have been laughed at,” Kappel tells Billboard. “We’ve been told we’re crazy. We have been told that this is going nowhere.”

Three years later, it certain didn’t go nowhere. Vetter won his case at a district court, which issued a first-of-its-kind ruling last year that said termination applies to overseas rights just the same as domestic rights. Then in January, against the opposition of major music groups and the predictions of many copyright experts, they won again at a federal appeals court.

Though it deals with an arcane legal issue, that ruling has been the talk of the music industry. Artist advocacy groups have hailed it as a “game-changer” for musicians, allowing them to fully recapture their rights as Congress first intended. Others wonder if it will have a disruptive effect at a time when the market for music catalogs is booming.

Now, the major music companies are striking back, taking over the case with the goal of taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court. That means Kappel and Wells are once again being told they face long odds — a posture that’s just fine with them: “We’ve always viewed ourselves as the underdogs.”

As the big lawsuit moves ahead toward a potential SCOTUS showdown, the two lawyers sat down with Billboard for an extended interview — about warnings that the case will spark “chaos,” about the high court battle ahead, and about how artists are “more aware of the value of their creative properties” than ever before.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

You’ve now won two major rulings in the Vetter case. But when you first filed it, I’m sure it felt like like an uphill climb. Was that daunting?

Tim Kappel: The short answer is yes. It was daunting. And there were times leading up to the filing of the case where we certainly had second thoughts about where we stood on the law and what our chances were and what the consequences of failure would be. But ultimately, I’ve felt strongly about this issue for over a decade, and when Loren and I looked at it, the series of events were just in perfect shape for a test case. I felt like I would be doing a disservice if I didn’t follow whatever cosmic energy that was.

Loren Wells: We’re certainly not the first people to notice this issue. I think what has been daunting to a lot of people is the idea of affiliating themselves with a case like this, which is going to be scary to the industry overall. That is exactly what’s happened. I think a lot of law firms would be scared to be the attorneys who are bringing this lawsuit, knowing that it’s going to have that effect. But that’s not daunting to us. We are an artist-first firm.

Sometimes in these big test cases, we focus so much on the impact and the disruption that we forget there’s a real person at the heart of all of it. Tell me a little about Cyril Vetter.

TK: He’s a wonderful man. I’ve known him for almost a decade. He is one of the most principled people that I’ve ever met. As you might imagine, the international revenue from “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” isn’t putting anybody’s kids through college; for him, this was always about the larger issue. He’s over 80 years old now, and he’s been away from his song for more than 60 years. That’s a long time to be away from the songwriting highlight of your life. He’s never blinked, never flinched once, even when I started to flinch.

LW: He is monumentally aware that this case was not just about him. It’s not just about musicians. It’s not just about songwriters. This case is about every creative individual in the United States. Throughout all of this, he has been very mindful of that, and that clearly was part of his motivation for wanting to see this through.

When the ruling came out, the Music Artists Coalition called it a “massive win for the principle of fairness.” Setting aside complex legal issues, do you think that’s right? A basic fairness issue?

TK: Absolutely. Why would you get back anything less than you gave away? I don’t think Congress ever intended termination rights to be a vehicle through which a rights holder can slice up a copyright into hundreds of pieces and give you back a little sliver. I gave you an asset; when you return it to me, because you’re required to do so by law, give me back all of what I gave you.

LW: 35 years is plenty of time. And we know that because most music deals now are not for perpetuity. Publishing deals almost always have very healthy reversions. Most recording agreements these days are on license bases. The argument that in order to make it fair for the companies, they need to have the rights forever, that just doesn’t check out under basic logic but also under the structures of what deals look like now and the direction the industry is going. And so when we speak of fairness, of course it’s fair to the artist. But it’s also just as fair to the corporate funders, and they know that.

The industry is obviously concerned that this ruling will be very disruptive for publishers and investors and others who currently own these rights. Are those concerns valid?

LW: Disruption feels like chaos to the people being disrupted. What this ruling will do is take away some of the passive income that has been a part of their business for decades. Okay, so they’re going to have to adjust, right? It’s going to be a slow process, with plenty of time for everyone to figure out how to adjust their business models. That’s what we do in this industry.

TK: All you hear is chaos, right? But then, if you ask, well, how exactly would it create chaos? What is so wrong about treating legacy assets in the same way that you’re already treating your modern copyrights? I can appreciate and understand why that feels scary, but I do think if you’re going to cry chaos, the onus is on you to tell me what is chaotic about it.

Speaking of industry fears: Literally hours before this call, the major music companies used an unusual maneuver to take over the case, with the explicit goal of taking it to the Supreme Court. How do you feel about that, and about the potential fight ahead?

TK: I understand why they’re why they’re doing it. And credit to them for being transparent as to why they’re doing it. I appreciate their concerns, and I appreciate why they view it as an important thing that they should be involved in. I have no idea what the Supreme Court is going to do. Ultimately, we don’t control what cases they take up.

When we won at the district court, we were told we had no chance at the appeals court. Now of course people are saying if it goes to the Supreme Court, we have no chance there. I’m not in the business of predictions. What I’m going to say is that I like our argument better than I like theirs, and we are willing to take this wherever it goes, wherever it needs to go, and will argue our case before whoever wants to hear it.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, which of you two is getting up there at the lectern?

LW: [Points at Tim]

TK: [Laughing] I think we’ll keep our strategy to ourselves at this point. The real question is, who are they going to get? Whoever they get is going to be a formidable opponent, someone whose oral arguments I’ve probably listened to more times than they have.

You wrote an op-ed on a recent ruling dismissing Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group, lamenting that recording artists are often denied termination due to “work for hire” clauses. Why was that an issue you wanted to raise alarm bells about?

TK: It’s such a such an important decision that we get reversed, because it’s the first time that a court has looked and deferred to the [work for hire] language of the contract rather than looking to what the actual law says. We believe recording artists deserve termination rights for the same reasons that songwriters deserve termination rights. And we’re far from done when it comes to our work in the termination space.

LW: Artists are now more aware of ownership and more aware of the benefits of ownership. It’s becoming front and center to a lot of artists and their teams. And so this issue just could not be punted down the field infinitely. At a certain point, we had to face it.

Is that the Taylor Swift effect? She fought her fight over her masters, and now everybody knows how this stuff works…

TK: We actually get asked that a lot! We’ll be talking about termination rights and people will ask “Is this like the Taylor Swift thing?” And it’s obviously a different legal issue. But you’re right: She has brought the issue of ownership of your intellectual property assets to the public to an extent that it really had never been before.

LW: There’s been a confluence of factors. All the M&A activity, the rise in catalog acquisitions. It’s all connected. Artists are just much more aware of the value of their creative properties, and they want to get the benefit of that.

Let’s end on a very broad question: What’s the most important legal issue facing artists and songwriters in 2026?

LW: I’ll give a boring answer that’s the same one I would have given you ten years ago. I’m a deal guy. What I do for a living is protect artists and make sure that they get the benefit of the value of their work, that they understand what deal they’re entering into and that they are set up for the longest term career. So to me, the most pressing issue is, and has always been, those first deals that they enter into. These recent termination lawsuits are just an example why it’s so important.

Do we have to worry about AI? Of course. We have to understand how AI is being incorporated into recording agreements. Major labels are sending around AI addendums right now, which artists have to be thoroughly vetting. But the fundamentals that underlie the music business, that fundamental transaction that’s at the heart of everything? That has always been there, that will always be there. And that’s still the most important decision that any creative person has to make.

If anyone understands the struggle of balancing constructive criticism with audience feedback as a judge on American Idol, it’s Luke Bryan — which is why the country star came to Carrie Underwood‘s defense after she was booed by fans on the show in March.

On the Wednesday (April 8) episode of the official American Idol podcast, the two musicians appeared alongside co-judge Lionel Richie to break down parts of season 24 so far — including the moment Underwood was met with boos when she questioned a contestant’s choice to perform an original song on the competition’s “Hollywood Week in Music City – Part 2.” Shortly afterward, the vocalist had written on X, “Boo me. I don’t care.”

Underwood said the same thing on the podcast. “I don’t care,” she told host Danielle Fishel. “I can’t lie, I’m a terrible liar. As a fan of the show, if there was ever somebody that kind of had an off night and everybody’s like, ‘Oh, my God that’s so great,’ I’m sitting at home being like, ‘What? Liars!’”

But even though Underwood isn’t losing any sleep over the negative reception, Bryan jumped in to defend his costar. “It’s tough to do as a judge,” he said on the podcast. “It takes a lot of confidence in yourself, and you don’t want to say something that’s going to tank them in the competition. It’s just something that they need to be thinking about if they go forward.”

The “Play It Again” singer had also come to her defense in the moment. When fans started booing on the March episode, Bryan was sure to point out to the crowd that Underwood knows what she’s talking about, having won the show’s fourth season and all. “She only won this,” he said at the time. “She knows.”

American Idol is currently down to 11 finalists on season 24. The next episode airs at 8 p.m. on Monday (April 13) on ABC and will be available for streaming the next day on Hulu.

Watch Underwood and Bryan discuss the booing above.