The U.S. Supreme Court case Fred Fisher Music Co. et al. v. M. Witmark & Sons in 1942 revolved around the issue of copyright renewal rights under the Copyright Act of 1909, specifically whether an author could assign their renewal rights to a third party before those rights had vested (i.e., before the initial term of copyright had expired). The plaintiffs, music publishers who were assigned these future interests by authors, sued for infringement when other companies published and sold versions of songs during what would have been the renewal period if properly renewed by authors themselves or their heirs as per previous interpretation of law. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that an author could indeed transfer his potential interest in this second term prior to its existence and such assignment was valid even if made long before it came into being or even if he died prematurely without leaving any widow or children behind - thus affirming validity of agreements between original composers and plaintiff publishing companies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fred Fisher Music Co. et al. v. M. Witmark & Sons argued that the majority's decision to allow authors to renew their copyrights, even if they had sold their rights before renewal was due, contradicted previous legal interpretations and could lead to unfair outcomes for those who purchased such rights under existing laws. The dissenters believed that this ruling would retroactively change contractual agreements made in good faith between copyright holders and buyers, which is fundamentally unjust as it disrupts settled expectations based on prior law interpretation at the time of contract formation.