A year and a half after Cher won a legal victory preserving her right to publishing royalties from her songs with Sonny Bono, Sonny’s widow Mary Bono is now challenging the ruling on appeal.

Mary has been fighting in court to stop paying royalties to Cher under the so-called termination right, under which artists and their heirs can win back control of intellectual property decades after signing it away. But a California federal judge ruled last year that termination rules do not apply to Sonny & Cher’s 1978 divorce settlement, which gave Cher a permanent 50% cut of publishing revenue from 1960s hits like “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.”

While U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled in Cher’s favor back in May 2024, the decision wasn’t made official until a final judgment entered this past November. Mary Bono’s attorney, Daniel Schacht, appealed that judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday (Dec. 22).

Termination rights have become a hot topic in music law in recent years. Incorporated into the federal Copyright Act, the legislative provision allows artists who sign away their publishing or master recordings to claw back those ownership rights after 35 years.

Last year, Sony Music and Universal Music Group (UMG) both reached class action settlements with musicians who wanted to regain control of master recordings. And this past May, Salt-N-Pepa sued UMG for rejecting the legendary hip-hop duo’s attempt to exercise their own termination rights.

In the Cher case, which dates back to 2021, Mary Bono argued that she should be able to invoke her termination rights to cancel Sonny’s assignment of royalties to Cher in the divorce settlement.  

But Judge Kronstadt ruled in 2024 that the divorce agreement was a contract for financial compensation, not a grant of intellectual property that is subject to termination. “A right to receive royalties is distinct from a grant of copyright,” the judge wrote.

Mary’s attorneys will now challenge this reasoning at the Ninth Circuit. At the time of the ruling, Schact told Billboard that Judge Kronstadt “got the law wrong on copyright terminations” and that the decision set a dangerous precedent for the music industry.

“His ruling, if left standing, would hurt songwriters and creators by allowing not just former spouses, but also publishers and labels, to circumvent the Copyright Act and keep shares of royalties even after terminations,” Schact said back in 2024.

Schact did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday, nor did Cher’s lawyers.