In De Sylva v. Ballentine, Guardian (1955), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Copyright Act of 1909, a child born out of wedlock has inheritance rights to their father's copyrighted works if they have been acknowledged by him and would be considered an heir under state law. The case involved songwriter Buddy DeSylva and his illegitimate son Peter Ballentine who sought renewal rights to his father’s musical compositions after he passed away in 1950. The court held that "children" as used in Section 24 of the Copyright Act includes any person whom state law would consider an author's child for purposes of intestate succession, regardless whether they were legitimate or not at birth.

In the dissenting opinion for De Sylva v. Ballentine, Justice Felix Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 24 of the Copyright Act. He argued that this section should not be read to include an author's children as statutory beneficiaries under a renewal copyright unless they are specifically named in his will or there is no surviving spouse. The majority’s decision, he believed, was based on assumptions about Congress' intent rather than clear legislative language and precedent. Furthermore, he contended that it could lead to unfair results by allowing children from previous marriages to share equally in copyright renewals with a surviving spouse and minor children who were dependent on the deceased author at the time of death.