In the 1959 case of Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a copyright renewal had been properly executed by an author's widow and children after his death, or if it should have been done by his executor instead. The court ruled in favor of Miller Music Corp., finding that under the Copyright Act of 1909, when an author dies before the original term of copyright expires, their next-of-kin are entitled to renew the copyright even if they were not explicitly given this right in a will or other legal document. This decision clarified who has rights to intellectual property after its creator's death and set precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to allow a renewal copyright to be assigned before it comes into existence was inconsistent with both the language and purpose of the Copyright Act. The dissent pointed out that under this law, only an author or certain specified relatives could secure a renewal copyright, which suggests Congress intended for these individuals alone to benefit from any extension of protection granted by renewals. Furthermore, they noted that allowing assignments made during an initial term to carry over into a renewal period would undermine this intent by enabling authors (or their heirs) who may be in desperate circumstances at first but later achieve success to lose out on potential benefits from their work's continued popularity.