Introduction
From the moment humans listened to music for the first time, song-makers drew inspiration from those first few notes to create new songs, genres, and sounds. Music is an ever-evolving art, but as genres develop over time and evolve into modern-day sounds, one thing remains the same: musicians continue to create new sounds that build upon those who came before them. The genre of rock and roll blends sounds of rhythms from blues and country music, and jazz blends elements of blues, ragtime and marching band music.1 Hip-hop emerged in the late 1970s, inspired by African American and Latinx communities,2 as well as drawing influence from R&B, funk, soul, jazz, and rock and roll.3 While genres of music were born by altering existing genres, the practice of “sampling” or repurposing existing music surged in the 1980s.4
Once the genre of hip-hop began to take off, the practice of sampling existing tracks and repurposing those sounds in new tracks became widespread. Certain unspoken ethical rules existed amongst hip-hop producers about what was permissible sampling but for the most part, no legal licensing was obtained for the use of other artists’ sounds.5 This free rein only lasted so long, as artists who were victims of unapproved sampling began to seek recourse in the American judicial system. Thus, the righteous American courts stepped in to weigh in on whether artists may sample other artists’ music without permission—and have subsequently come to different conclusions.6
While the Copyright Act of 19767 protects artists from impermissible use when they are holders of a valid copyright, a question emerges: does copyright law, designed originally to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,”8 fortuitously cover music? Or alternatively, do corrective measures exist within the music industry that are better suited to address conflicts surrounding copying in music?
Part I of this article briefly discusses the difference between a sample and an interpolation. The two terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably, but they mean different things entirely. Knowing the difference between a sample and an interpolation is important in order to understand what legal processes are required in order to incorporate these tools into songs. Part II outlines the legal process for “clearing” samples and interpolations as the process differs for each. After setting this foundation, Part III of this article analyzes the history of sampling in music by comparing the original intention of digital synthesizers—to reproduce sounds of an instrument itself—versus the practice today of repurposing existing songs into new ones. Understanding the creation of sampling—while acknowledging the cultural significance it played in certain genres—is important to contextualize the role of sampling in a modern age.
Part IV provides an overview of “formal” challenges to sample disputes. Formal lawsuits have brought about different results depending on the location of the court deciding the cases, with some courts more effectively handling the issues than others. Lastly, Part V discusses the effectiveness of informal corrective measures and the increased role of social media in enforcing informal corrective measures. Because a work of music may draw inspiration from another song with such delicate balance heard only by those who study music itself, courts are often ill-equipped to settle disputes that arise. Instead, a more laissez-faire approach may suffice, whereby the music industry settles its disputes through informal corrective measures such as callouts on social media. These hands-off approaches, however, do not favor those who are without large preexisting fanbases, as smaller independent artists may be left behind without the assistance of formal lawsuits.
Ultimately, for music infringement, a balance must be struck. In theory, the law of copyright exists to encourage creativity among artists who seek to produce original music. But with the art of sampling where the creativity of others is built upon to produce a new, original, and equally creative sound, it is often unclear where the line should be drawn. Moreover, when modern-day social media platforms both facilitate the spread of new sounds and provide the ability for fans to baselessly accuse other artists of copying their idols’ songs, what role can (and should) courts play in addressing these conflicts? Striking a balance is far less simple than it seems because of these nuances.
I. Musical Works, Sound Recordings, & Sampling
Before understanding the difference between a sample and an interpolation, it is important to know the two elements of a song for which a copyright may be obtained. First, the elements of a musical work, or the composition, are the underlying notes, melody, rhythm, and lyrics of a song.9 The copyright for musical works tend to be held by songwriters and composers, typically managed by their music publishers.10 The other element of a song, the sound recording, comprises the actual sounds that are fixed in a recording medium.11 The copyright for the sound recording, known also as a master recording, or the “master” of a song, tends be owned by the record label.12 These two elements—the musical work and the sound recording—comprise the elements of a song.
Understanding the components of a song provides the necessary foundation to learn the differences between samples and interpolation. A sample is when an artist takes part of an existing sound recording and incorporates it into new work.13 Samples incorporate the actual sound recording of a primary source in a new work and either play that primary sound unaltered, with a change in tempo or key, or some other alteration.14 Examples are “Stronger” by Kanye West, which samples “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” by Daft Punk,15 and “Hung Up” by Madonna, which samples “Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)” by ABBA.16
An interpolation, on the other hand, is when an artist takes part of a musical work—as opposed to the sound recording—and incorporates it into a new work.17 The key difference is that the original sound recording of the primary source is not incorporated in any capacity in the new work. It incorporates components of the primary work—a melody, lyrics, or rhythm—and records new sounds that mimic elements of the primary work. Popular examples of interpolations are “Right Round” by Flo Rida, which interpolates the chorus of “You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)” by Dead or Alive,18 and “7 rings” by Ariana Grande, which interpolates “My Favorite Things” by Rodgers and Hammerstein.19 These examples incorporate the melodies and certain lyrical elements of each primary song. Interpolations can also be minute; “SOS” by SZA interpolates a very brief melodical component of “Listen” by Beyoncé.20
Understanding the distinction between musical works and sound recordings and how each component relates to samples and interpolations is essential to navigate the rights involved in creating new music. When an artist desires to include a sample or an interpolation in their new work, the rights of the artists that created the primary sample are implicated. In order to avoid copyright infringement suits, there are steps required to “clear” or authorize each of these creative tools.
II. "Clearing" a Sample
The steps required for clearing a sample are similar to the steps required to clear an interpolation, but there is an important distinction between the two.
To clear an interpolation, an artist must only obtain copyright permission from the owner of the musical work’s copyright.21 To clear a sample, an artist must obtain copyright permission both from the owner of the musical work’s copyright as well as the owner of the sound recording’s copyright. 22 This added step complicates the process because there are more players at stake that must consent to the snippet’s use in the new work. Once an artist determines whether their use of a primary work is a sample or interpolation, there are a few steps in common that must be taken in order to authorize the primary work’s use in a new song.
Once it is clear which copyright owners must consent to the use of a primary work, an artist must identify the specific players who own that copyright. This can be done by searching for the song on the United States Copyright Office Public Catalog.23 Once the proper copyright owners are identified, an artist must notify the holder or holders that they wish to incorporate a primary work into their song. Often, a song’s copyright owner is a publishing company or record label, which may add a layer of complexity to clearing the sample. Once the copyright owners are contacted, the negotiation process begins. An artist may charge fees, request royalties, limit the use to a specific context, or deny the use of the sample altogether. The process of clearing a sample, prolonged further by negotiation, may take months altogether. It can also be extremely expensive to obtain licensing, with some describing sampling as a “rich man’s game” because smaller artists may be unable to put forward the money in order to clear a sample.24 Nevertheless, the process of clearing a sample, while not ideal, is one that an artist must stomach if they desire to incorporate another artist’s work into their own.
This process was not always defined so concretely, as historically, many artists did not seek licensing for the use of samples.25 Additionally, the act of “sampling” was not always as popular as the practice is today.
III. The Emergence of Sampling
The term “sampling” was coined in the late 1970s by Kim Ryrie and Peter Vogel, inventors of the Fairlight CMI, the first source of digital recording and playback.26 “Sampling” described one of the features of the Fairlight, which allowed a user to record a few seconds of audio and loop that audio.27 The digital nature of the Fairlight, its built-in sequencer, and its unique features made the concept of sampling substantially easier than previous analog music technology.28 Subsequently, other companies began creating synthesizers that expanded access to the practice of sampling.29 In 1988, the Akai MPC was introduced to the market, a synthesizer that is still used widely today, creating a “generation of hybrid producer-musicians[.]” 30
Many artists in the hip-hop industry began using the Akai to create beats and loops without the need of a full band in a recording studio.31 While some artists used the Akai to produce their own sounds, other artists used the Akai to take pieces of music from other sources—existing songs or other sounds—and began incorporating those sound clips into their own songs. 32 This led to an explosion of the hip-hop industry, which saw a major emergence in the final quarter of the twentieth century.33
Thus, sampling other artists’ songs and incorporating those primary sources into new songs increased drastically as a practice. Now, artists like Beyoncé create entire albums based on references to prior art, sampling and interpolating existing songs to create uniquely new songs.34 However, contemporary artists are required to license the use of these prior songs, though this was not always the case. It was extremely common in the hip-hop industry—as well as in the music business generally—to use samples without permission,35 but within reason.36 Producers had a “healthy disregard” for copyright rules traditionally passed to foster creativity in music— though this unlicensed use was not without reason.37 Unspoken rules and regulations existed, such as sampling records at least ten years old, not sampling from reissues, or not sampling other hip-hop records, and others.38 Additionally, in some ways, it did not benefit record labels to bring lawsuits over sampling debates, because it risked “contributing to a situation where the ability of its own producers and artists to sample would be [hindered].”39 These unspoken rules governed the industry for a few years before artists began to sue under copyright law for the unlicensed use of their songs.
IV. Formal Corrective Measures
Litigation surrounding copyright infringement of samples and interpolations is referred to in this article as an example of a “formal corrective measure.” Using the formal procedures for invoking copyright claims through the court system relies on an outside body—separate from the music industry—to step in and resolve conflicts about song use.
Broadly, federal copyright law protects creative works from certain actions “by other persons [or groups] who have not received permission from the copyright holder.”40 In the music context, copyright law protects musical works, including any accompanying words.41 As previously discussed, there are multiple elements of a song that copyright may be obtained to protect: the musical work and the sound recording.42 17 U.S.C. § 106 provides a statutory right to protect against violations of a copyright holder’s exclusive rights to make additional copies of a work, which encompasses the musical work component.43 Alternatively, unlawful sampling of a sound recording is protected as an “infringement of the reproduction right in a sound recording.” 44 § 106 also provides copyright protection for distribution, public performance, and digital performance of copyrighted works.45
In the instances discussed below, the parties disputed the unlawful presence or use of a sound recording, spurring sample disputes. The first notable case came from the Southern District of New York, where a hip-hop artist was sued for his use of a Gilbert O’Sullivan song.
A. Grand Upright
In 1991, Judge Duffy of the Southern District of New York resolved a conflict between Gilbert O’Sullivan,46 who claimed that rapper Biz Markie used both the sound recording and musical work components of O’Sullivan’s song “Alone Again (Naturally)”47 in Markie’s song “Alone Again.”48 The song “Alone Again” interpolates lyrics and melody of O’Sullivan’s track, while also incorporating the actual sound recording of the piano chords. In granting a preliminary injunction for O’Sullivan, Judge Duffy begins the opinion with a portion of the Bible: “Thou shalt not steal.”49 In response to Markie’s argument that unlicensed sampling is a common practice in the music industry, Judge Duffy finds that not only does this stealing offend the principles of the Seventh Commandment of the Bible, but that the copyright laws of America prevent this use as well.50
Grand Upright was one of the first cases to interpret the scope of copyright infringement in the context of sampling and interpolation. Some believe that this was the right outcome, that artists should obtain permission when using portions of an artist’s work in their own song. Others, however, find that a decision like this has a chilling effect on the industry, and argue that the judicial system does not have the “cultural capacity” to understand the context behind sampling.51 Criticisms such as this one pave the way for advocates of informal corrective measures, which will be explored in Part V.
Throughout the next decade, artists either put forward the money to clear samples or took the risks of obscuring samples so that the original owner would not notice their songs were being used. 52 One such example of the risks inherent in impermissibly sampling came in 2005 before the Sixth Circuit.
B. Bridgeport Music
The Sixth Circuit, which hears cases coming from Nashville—known as the songwriting capital of the world 53 —set precedent in 2005 that further strengthened copyright protections for musicians, aligning in part with Judge Duffy in Grand Upright.54 N.W.A., a hip-hop group released a song called “100 Miles and Runnin’” 55 in 1990 that sampled a two-second guitar riff from a 1975 Funkadelic track. 56 Funkadelic sued N.W.A. for copyright infringement as to the sound recording. 57 N.W.A. attempted to rely upon the de minimis doctrine, a legal doctrine that refers to something so small in importance or severity that the law will not consider it, and specifically in the music context, it involves using parts of a song in such a small amount that it would not constitute significant legal violation. 58
The Sixth Circuit opted not to allow the de minimis defense, arguing that in the context of a sound recording, a sample is a physical taking since a producer or artist intentionally samples a primary sound either to save costs, add something to the new recording, or both.59 The court came to this conclusion by reasoning that even if a small portion of the sound recording is sampled, “the part taken is something of value.”60 The Sixth Circuit bluntly stated, “[g]et a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.”61 Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit opted for a bright-line rule: any unauthorized copying of a copyrighted sound recording—no matter how trivial—constitutes infringement.62
While only binding to the district courts within the Sixth Circuit, Bridgeport Music served as further sentiment towards strict licensing, even if the sample is a two-second guitar riff that plays subtly in the background of a new track. A decade later, the Ninth Circuit took a different approach, criticizing the Sixth Circuit’s approach.
C. VMG Salsoul
In 1990, Madonna released the track “Vogue,”63 which samples a 0.23-second segment of horns from Salsoul Orchestra’s song “Ooh I Love It (Love Break).” 64 Salsoul Orchestra brought a copyright infringement actions for Madonna’s unauthorized sample of their sound recording. 65 In 2016, the Ninth Circuit revisited the de minimis exception and determined that unauthorized use of sound recordings must be substantial in order to warrant copyright infringement, relying instead on whether a reasonable juror would recognize the appropriation.66 Applying the de minimis doctrine to the case before it, the Ninth Circuit determined that a reasonable juror could not conclude that an average audience would recognize the appropriation of the 0.23-second horn sample in Madonna’s “Vogue.”67
Judge Silverman dissented from the majority’s decision, instead wanting to follow the standard set forth in Bridgeport Music.68 He viewed the majority as relying upon a popular treatise rather than the on-point decision of Bridgeport Music, and highlighted that “[i]n any other context, this would be called theft. It is no defense to theft that the thief made off with only a ‘de minimis’ part of the victim’s property.”69 He echoed the concerns highlighted by the Sixth Circuit in the intentional aspect of the taking, emphasizing that sampling is never accidental.70
Nevertheless, the three cases highlighted in Part IV emphasize a common concern: are judges equipped to handle music disputes? If judges are stepping in to say that any copying—no matter how trivial—is considered a taking, are they considering the cultural context of sampling? This lack of recognition of the cultural significance of sampling, particularly in genres like hip-hop, encompasses a misunderstanding of the creative, culturally-grounded practice which builds upon shared expression or musical dialogue rather than cut-and-dry appropriation. In the opposite sense, are judges who determine that reasonable jurors could not conclude that the average audience would not recognize a sample’s appropriation overstepping their judicial role? The judicial system may not be well equipped to handle these sample disputes through formal corrective measures.
V. Informal Corrective Measures
While copyright infringement gives artists the ability to bring legal corrective action through formal measures, there are also potential informal corrective measures—driven by the increased role of social media—that dictate what is right and what is wrong in the music industry. Many of the conflicts surrounding artists and sampling stem from the issue of consent. Wrapped in the issue of consent is another conflict about artists’ rights to their music. Many newer artists sign stringent deals that limit their rights of ownership over the copyrightable material they produce. Artists often do not have the copyright ownership of certain elements of their songs,71 which means that other artists seeking to sample songs need not seek permission from those artists to sample or interpolate.
But should this be the case? Should artists be able to use portions of another artist’s songs without seeking their permission if that original artist did all of the creative work but ultimately does not have copyright ownership because of their stringent deal? Additionally, the role of social media in modern day music consumption drives artists to be much more cognizant about the samples—or lack of samples—they rely upon. Fans of musicians often hear new songs and accuse artists of copying other artists, which may drive artists to be overcautious when it comes to licensing—even if a primary source served as mere inspiration rather than explicit sampling or interpolation.
A. BeyoncéRENAISSANCE Appropriation
A modern day example of this phenomenon is inherent in two of Beyoncé’s songs on her seventh studio album, RENAISSANCE.72 “BREAK MY SOUL”73 and “ENERGY”74 each utilized interpolation of prior songs, but neither original artist was notified that their song would be used.
“BREAK MY SOUL” interpolates portions of “Show Me Love” by Robin S.,75 a song commonly sampled for its unique melodic instrumental.76 Singer Robin S. did not know that her “Show Me Love” had been used in Beyoncé’s song until after the song came out.77 Beyoncé did not need to seek permission from Robin S., though, because Robin S. does not have any copyright ownership over the musical work to “Show Me Love.”78 Beyoncé instead obtained permission from the song’s two songwriters, who are credited on “BREAK MY SOUL.”79 Thankfully for Beyoncé, Robin S. felt gratitude for the homage,80 despite not knowing her song would be interpolated until after the fact. 81
Gratitude was not the same reaction that Kelis had when she realized her song “Milkshake”82 was interpolated on “ENERGY” without her permission. She took to Instagram to blast Beyoncé and Pharrell Williams, one of the producers on Beyoncé’s track, calling the use an act of theft.83 Kelis felt slighted that Beyoncé did not approach her for permission, saying that they have “met each other, . . . know each other, . . . [and] have mutual friends.”84 Much like Robin S., though, Kelis does not have copyright ownership in her performance of “Milkshake,” which Kelis claims is a result of Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo lying and tricking her into a bad deal when she was a younger artist, leaving them with all of the rights to her music.85 Therefore, Beyoncé technically did not need to seek her legal approval to interpolate “Milkshake.”86 Within a week, the interpolation was removed from the song, but Beyoncé did this quietly without acknowledging Kelis publicly.87
The stark difference in reaction between Kelis and Robin S. shows how volatile the practice of unapproved sampling can be. On one hand, Robin S.’s acknowledgement and gratitude toward Beyoncé’s sample was itself a potential incentive to sample; after all, receiving recognition from older artists may have affirmed Beyoncé’s decision. On the other hand, Kelis calling out Beyoncé resulted in the removal of what Kelis viewed as an unapproved sample. Despite neither song being impermissible sampling—that is, unlawful—the industry corrected the apparent harm. Beyoncé seemingly gave into public pressure after Kelis expressed anguish for using a sample of her song and stripped reference to “Milkshake” from the track, thus exemplifying this informal corrective measure.
But what about when artists do not believe they have done any wrong? In these two instances surrounding Beyoncé, it is clear that Beyoncé was interpolating the songs. When an artist believes they are creating original work, but fans or artists call out the original work as a copy of another’s work, how does the industry respond?
B. Social Media as a Catalyst
The success of social media as a catalyst in artists seeking justice when they believe another artist has copied their work depends on many factors. The success of the artist accusing another of copying is a large factor, but so too is the success of the artist who is facing backlash. Another factor is the actual similarity between the two works. If the general populace on a social media platform do not think that two tracks are similar enough to warrant an accusation of copying, the act of calling out an artist may result in more backlash against the accusing artist than the accused. Additionally, the demographic of fans contributes to the success of social media as an informal corrective measure. If artists have a “cult following,” those fans may be much more eager to call out other artists for copying. All of these factors create a delicate balance that is hard to navigate, especially since artists do not have control over the actions of their fans.
In 2019, Ariana Grande released “7 rings”—a song that admittedly interpolates “My Favorite Things” by Rodgers & Hammerstein—received backlash from four artists who accused Grande of copying their respective songs.88 Princess Nokia, one of the artists who accused Grande of copying, took to social media to call out Grande, arguing that the two tracks sound too familiar to be coincidental.89 However, the apparent similarities and vocal frustration from other artists did not affect the critical performance of Grande’s song, as “7 rings” has amassed over 2.6 billion streams on Spotify alone. 90
Other social media callouts have been met with more success. Olivia Rodrigo released her studio album SOUR in 2021,91 which contains three songs that were called out by fans as having striking similarities to other songs. Rodrigo has previously spoken about how other artists like Taylor Swift and Hayley Williams from Paramore inspire her songwriting,92 but fans of Swift were quick to accuse Rodrigo of copying two of her songs on “deja vu"93 and “1 step forward, 3 steps back.”94 Additionally, fans of Paramore accused Rodrigo of copying Paramore on Rodrigo’s song “good 4 u.”95 Behind the scenes, Rodrigo retroactively added writing credits to the three songs, granting royalties to the writers of Swift and Paramore’s respective songs.96
Social media callouts have led to an increase in retroactive adding of songwriters to tracks.97 This behavior in the music industry is potentially evidence of a self-correcting measure that does not involve the judicial system. Social media, however, may not always provide the correct outcome when it comes to music disputes. While artists benefit greatly from interacting with fans on social media, there are certainly times where fans perceive their relationship with musicians as closer than reality, creating a grey area between “friends” and “fans.”98 Artists face issues surrounding social media use like invasions of privacy boundaries or overly emotional and at times parasocial audience members, where fans may cross the line in attempting to “call out” artists for copying.99 An individual who believes that an artist has copied another artist may feel perfectly comfortable taking to social media to call out the copying, asserting as fact that the latter song has copied the former.100 Moreover, fans may not even be right in their claims. Like judges, the average music listener may lack the musical expertise to accurately assert that a song has substantially copied another artist’s song. When an individual believes they have uncovered a copied song and take to social media, misinformation spreads rapidly. This is exacerbated by the flow of misinformation on social media which generates “echo chambers” whereby individuals have accepted a claim as true and rarely corrects their false perception.101 Thus, social media callouts may not provide all the answers to settling music disputes.
Conclusion
As music evolves over the years, it is important to reflect on the corrective measures in place to protect creativity, which includes an acknowledgement of what role the courts should play. Sampling sits uniquely at the intersection of creativity and appropriation. Whether the courts should apply a bright-line rule or acknowledge the de minimis exception raises a fundamental question: should this even be before the court? Cases in the past few decades demonstrate the stark difference in approach and the stifling effects on creativity dangerous decisions may have. The utilization of Biblical commandments—combined with a zero-tolerance approach to sampling—serves as a reminder that perhaps the music industry should rely on other mechanisms to address copying.
When artists like Beyoncé, Ariana Grande, and Olivia Rodrigo face backlash not from the courtroom—but from fans over social media—accountability may be taken in an extra-legal medium. But this informal corrective measure only works if artists embrace the influence they admittedly rely upon. Moreover, fans may not always get it right. An individual may blindly believe that an artist is guilty of copying another artist’s song without a second glance. This is especially crucial when considering the role of social media in spreading misinformation. Therefore, social media and public perception may pressure artists to address concerns of copying—even if they believe they are innocent—in order to avoid a formal lawsuit, but also to avoid the negative attention sparked from social media. For example, had Olivia Rodrigo’s team not granted songwriting credits retroactively to Taylor Swift and Paramore, Swift and Paramore may have relied upon the judiciary to correct the perceived harm. However, a formal lawsuit might bring more negative attention to all parties involved. For Rodrigo, a lawsuit may cause individuals to blindly believe she copied Swift and Paramore without due credit, whereas a lawsuit for Swift and Paramore may cause individuals to believe they are overly litigious or hungry for money. Thus, that a fan believes an artist has copied another and takes to social media to call it out—resulting in a “correction” whereby an artist retroactively adds songwriter credits to the “copied” artist—is not always the proper outcome. An artist who believes they have not copied another artist may seek to have their day in court to clear their name.
Thus, the courts may still have a role to play in correcting harm in the music infringement context. Judges may be perfectly well equipped to settle sample disputes, as the issue of whether an artist sampled a song or not is fairly cut and dry—the artist either used the original sound recording or they did not. However, when a dispute arises over copied rhythm, notes, or lyrics, judges may lack the musical expertise required to detect copying or the lack thereof. In contrast, instances of alleged copying in this manner may require a jury to settle the dispute. Nevertheless, as long as the courts strike a balance between artist rights and creativity, the current system may be just fine. Artists, on the other hand, have to navigate both the legal doctrine of copyright law, as well as the ethical codes of social media that shape what they should do.
The ultimate conclusion is that sampling may not always be stealing. But even when an artist samples only a little, the ripple effects—both legal and cultural—can be substantial.
* J.D. Candidate (2026), Northeastern University School of Law (NUSL). Thank you to Professor Roberts at NUSL for inspiring the conception of this article. And a special thank you to my parents for instilling (forcing) musicality upon my sisters and me as kids – life would be much more boring with untuned ears!
1 See The Symphony of Change Tracing the Evolution of Music Genres,Musicians Inst. Coll. of Contemp. Music (Jan. 24, 2024), https://www.mi.edu/in-the-know/symphony-change-tracing-evolution-music-genres/.
2 Id.
3 Hip Hop’s Early Influences, Oxford Afr. Am. Stud. Ctr., https://oxfordaasc.com/page/2447 (last visited Apr. 3, 2025).
4 See A Brief History of Sampling in Music, ProducerTech (Oct. 19, 2020), https://www.producertech.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-sampling-in-music (discussing history of sampling and emergence of hip hop sampling in 1979); Meagan Lea Auger, An Overview of Sampling, The Univ. of B.C. Intell. Prop. L. 422 (Feb. 23, 2023) (“But sampling really took off in the 1970s when it began to be used by hip-hop artists.”).
5 See Laurent Fintoni, Don’t Kick the Ethics out of Sampling: Picking Up the Bullets from The Weeknd’s Clash with Portishead, Fact Mag. (Aug. 2, 2013), https://www.factmag.com/2013/08/02/ethics-sampling-portishead-weeknd/2/ (detailing the existence of an “unspoken set of rules and regulations that governed the practice. You can’t sample records that aren’t ten years old at least. You can’t sample from reissues. You can’t sample another hip hop record. You can only sample from vinyl. And so on and so forth.”).
6 See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005); VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016).
7 Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
8 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
9 See What Musicians Should Know about Copyright, U.S. Copyright Off., https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/#:~:text=When%20you%20record%20a%20song, are%20separate %20copyright%2Dprotected%20works. (last visited Apr. 3, 2025).
10 Soundcharts Team, 6 Basics of Music Copyright Law: What It Protects and How to Copyright a Song, Soundcharts Blog (Dec. 31, 2023), https://soundcharts.com/blog/music copyrights#:~:text=It%20is%20held%20by%20songwriters,also%20 partially%20own%20the%20copyright).
11 See U.S. Copyright Off., supra note 9.
12 Soundcharts Team, supra note 10.
13 Sampling, Interpolations, Beat Stores and More: An Introduction for Musicians Using Preexisting Music, U.S. Copyright Off., https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/educational-materials/Sampling-Interpolations-Beat-Stores-and-More-An-Introduction-for-Musicians-Using-Preexisting.pdf (last visited Apr. 9, 2025).
14 See Sean M. Corrado, Care for a Sample? De Minimis, Fair Use, Blockchain, and an Approach to an Affordable Music Sampling System for Independent Artists, 29 Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 181, 187–89 (2018) (discussing various popular samples and how the sampling artists altered sampled clips).
15 DAFT PUNK, Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger, on Discovery (Virgin Records 2001); Kanye West, Stronger, on Graduation (Roc-A-Fella Records & Def Jam 2007); see Stronger by Kanye West, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Kanye-West/Stronger/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
16 ABBA, Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight), on Greatest Hits Vol. 2 (Polar Music 1979); Madonna, Hung Up, on Confessions on a Dance Floor (Warner Records Inc. 2005); Hung Up by Madonna, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Madonna/Hung-Up/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
17 U.S. Copyright Off., supra note 13.
18 Dead or Alive, You Sping Me Round (Like a Record), on Youthquake (Epic Records 1985); Flo Rida, Right Round, on R.O.O.T.S. (Poe Boy Music Grp. & Atlantic Records 2009); see Right Round by Flo Rida feat. Kesha, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Flo-Rida/Right-Round/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
19 Rodgers and Hammerstein, My Favorite Things, in The Sound of Music (Broadway 1959); Ariana Grande, 7 rings, on thank u, next (Republic Records 2019); see 7 rings by Ariana Grande, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Ariana-Grande/7-Rings/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
20 Beyoncé, Listen, on B’Day (Columbia Records, Music World Entertainment, & Sony Urban Music 2006); SZA, SOS, on SOS (TDE & RCA Records 2022); see SOS by SZA, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/SZA/SOS/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
21 U.S. Copyright Off., supra note 13.
22 Id.
23 See Public Catalog, U.S. Copyright Off. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First (last visited Apr. 10, 2025).
24 David McNamee, When Did Sampling Become So Non-Threatening?, The Guardian (Feb. 16, 2008), https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/feb/16/whendidsamplingbecamesono.
25 See Fintoni, supra note 5.
26 Steve Howell, The Lost Art of Sampling: Part 1, Sound on Sound (Aug. 2005), https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/lost-art-sampling-part-1.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 See Alexander Aciman, Meet the Unassuming Drum Machine that Changed Music Forever,Vox (Apr. 16, 2018), https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/16/16615352/akai-mpc-music-history-impact.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 See, e.g., Musicians Inst. Coll. of Contemp. Music, supra note 1.
34 See Beyoncé, RENAISSANCE (Parkwood Ent. & Columbia Records 2022).
35 See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Recs., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“[T]he defendants in this action for copyright infringement would have this court believe that stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their conduct here should be excused.”).
36 Fintoni, supra note 5.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 David M. Bagdade, Digital Sound Sampling: A Re-Evaluation After Grand Upright Music, DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L., Fall 1992, at 1 (emphasis added).
40 Maria Pollack, Litigating Copyright Infringement of Recorded Songs, 136 Am. Juris. Trials97, § 2 (2014).
41 Id. § 3.
42 See supra Part I.
43 17 U.S.C § 106.
44 Pollack, supra note 40, § 11.
45 Id. §§ 12–14.
46 See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
47 Gilbert O’Sullivan, Alone Again (Naturally) on Alone Again (Naturally) [Single] (MAM Records 1972).
48 Biz Markie, Alone Again, on I Need a Haircut (Cold Chillin’ Records & Warner Records Inc. 1991); see Alone Again by Biz Markie,WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Biz-Markie/Alone-Again/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
49 Grand Upright, 780 F. Supp. at 183 (quoting Exodus 20:15).
50 Id.
51 See, e.g., Chuck Philips, , Songwriter Wins Large Settlement in Rap Suit: Pop Music: Following a Court Ruling, Biz Markie and Warner Bros. Agree to Pay Gilbert O’Sullivan for Rapper’s ‘Sampling’ of ‘Alone Again (Naturally)’,L.A. Times (Jan. 1, 1992), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-01-01-ca-1136-story.html.
52 See, e.g., McNamee, supra note 24 (describing sampling after the original sampling lawsuits as “risky business and a rich man’s game, with record labels regularly checking if their musical property had been [stolen].”); Bagdade, supra note 39, at 4 (discussing the steps record labels took in the aftermath of Grand Upright to ensure they avoided a similar fate, ranging “from inserting additional clauses in their artist recording agreements, which contractually placed the responsibility for unlicensed samples on the artist, to requiring artists to submit lists of samples used and to obtain clearances for each prior to the release of the album”).
53 See The Story of Nashville’s Music History,Nashville Music City, https://www.visitmusiccity.com/nashville-trip-ideas/story-nashvilles-music-history (last visited Apr. 12, 2025).
54 Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).
55 N.W.A., 100 Miles and Runnin’, on 100 100 MILES AND RUNNIN’ (Ruthless Records & Priority Records 1990); see 100 Miles and Runnin’ by N.W.A.,WhoSampled https://www.whosampled.com/N.W.A/100-Miles-and-Runnin%27/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
56 Funkadelic, Get Off Your Ass and Jam, on Let’s Take It to the Stage (Westbound Records 1975).
57 Bridgeport Music, 410 F.3d at 796.
58 See De Minimis Copyright Infringement in Music, Talks On Law, https://www.talksonlaw.com/blog/a-split-on-de-minimis-copyright-infringement-in-music (last visited Apr. 12, 2025).
59 Bridgeport Music, 410 F.3d at 802.
60 Id. at 801–02.
61 Id. at 801.
62 See id. at 799–800.
63 Madonna, Vogue, on I’m Breathless: Music from and Inspired by the Film Dick Tracy (Sire Records & Warner Records Inc. 1990); see Vogue by Madonna, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Madonna/Vogue/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
64 Salsoul Orchestra, Ooh I Love It (Love Break), (Salsoul Records 1983).
65 VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2016).
66 Id. at 878, 880–81.
67 Id. at 879–80.
68 Id. at 888 (Silverman, J., dissenting).
69 Id.
70 Id. at 889.
71 See, e.g., Mehera Bonner et al., Taylor Swift and Scooter Braun’s Drama, Explained, Cosmopolitan (Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a29807801/taylor-swift-scooter-braun-scott-borchetta-tyrannical-control-amas-netflix-doc/ (discussing the widely publicized feud between Scooter Braun and Taylor Swift, the former acquiring Taylor Swift’s masters in 2019, prompting Swift to re-record her older albums).
72 Beyoncé, RENAISSANCE (Parkwood Ent. & Columbia Records 2022).
73 Beyoncé, BREAK MY SOUL, on RENAISSANCE (Parkwood Ent. & Columbia Records 2022).
74 Beyoncé, ENERGY, on RENAISSANCE (Parkwood Ent. & Columbia Records 2022).
75 Robin S., Show Me Love, on Show Me Love (Big Beat Records, Inc. & Atlantic Records 1993); see BREAK MY SOUL by Beyoncé, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Beyonc%C3%A9/BREAK-MY-SOUL/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
76 According to an online sample curator, 74 songs sample “Show Me Love.” Show Me Love (Stonebridge Mix) by Robin S., WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Robin-S./Show-Me-Love-(Stonebridge-Mix)/ (last visited Oct. 13, 2025). See, e.g., Charli xcx, Used to Know Me, on CRASH (Asylum Records, Atlantic Records, & Warner Records Inc. 2022); See also Used to Know Me by Charli XCX, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Charli-XCX/Used-to-Know-Me/ (last visited July 20, 2025); Don’t Wanna Go Home by Jason Derulo, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Jason-Derulo/Don%27t-Wanna-Go-Home/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
77 See Thania Garcia, Robin S Thanks Beyoncé for ‘Giving Me My Flowers’ by Sampling ‘Show Me Love’ on ‘Break My Soul’, Variety (Jun. 22, 2022), https://variety.com/2022/music/news/robin-s-beyonce-break-my-soul-sample-show-me-love-1235301152/.
78 Id.; see also Elias Leight, Robin S.’s ‘Show Me Love’ is Back in the Spotlight – As Are Old Disputes Over its Credits, billboard (Aug. 17, 2022) https://www.billboard.com/music/features/robin-s-show-me-love-writing-credits-1235127678/ (discussing Robin S.’s lack of ownership in the publishing for “Show Me Love.”).
79 See Garcia, supra note 77.
80 Id. (discussing that during an interview Robin S. stated “[t]hank you so much for giving me my flowers while I’m still alive. I am honored, and I’m excited to see what else can happen.”).
81 Id. (“Robin also revealed that there was no formal contact between her and Beyoncé before the song was released.”).
82 Kelis, Milkshake, on Tasty (Star Trak Entertainment & Arista Records 2003); see ENERGY by Beyoncé feat. BEAM, WhoSampled, https://www.whosampled.com/Beyoncé/ENERGY/ (last visited July 20, 2025).
83 Cheyenne Roundtree, Kelis Calls Out Beyoncé for ‘Theft’ Over Using ‘Milkshake,’ But Her Real Beef Lies in Years-Old Feud With Pharrell, Rolling Stone (July 29, 2022), https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/kelis-calls-out-beyonce-over-using-milkshake-but-her-real-beef-is-with-pharrell-1390071/.
84 Id. (“‘It’s not hard. She can contact me, right?’ Kelis said. ‘It’s common decency.’”).
85 Id.
86 See id. Kelis took issue with the lack of consent as one thing, but she also noted the racial component of being two Black female artists in an industry where Black women are consistently exploited.See Lauren Huff, Kelis Calls Out Beyoncé’s Sampling of her Song on Renaissance: ‘It’s Not a Collab, it’s Theft’, Ent. Wkly. (Aug. 2, 2022), https://ew.com/music/kelis-calls-out-beyonce-renaissance-sample/. She contrasted this lack of consent with that of Ashnikko, a young white artist who wanted to sample “Milkshake” in her song, and emphasized that Ashnikko understood the common decency that Beyoncé should have had in creating “BREAK MY SOUL.”
87 See Thania Garcia, Beyoncé Removes Kelis’ ‘Milkshake’ Sample From ‘Energy’ on Spotify, Variety (Aug. 3, 2022), https://variety.com/2022/music/news/beyonce-removes-kelis-energy-renaissance-1235331702/.
88 See Kelli Johnson & Elizabeth Ford, Exclusive: Rapper Suing Ariana Grande for Copyright Infringement for ‘7 Rings’ Speaks Out, Fox 11 L.A. . (Jan. 23, 2020), https://www.foxla.com/news/exclusive-rapper-suing-ariana-grande-for-copyright-infringement-for-7-rings-speaks-out (describing rapper IAMJOSHSTONE who brought Grande to federal court alleging copyright infringement of his song “You Need it You Got It”); see also Princess Nokia, Mine, on 1991 Deluxe (Letter Racer Studio 2017); Soulja Boy, Pretty Boy Swag, on The DeAndre Way (SODMG, Collipark Music, Interscope Records 2010); 2 Chainz, Spend It, on Codeine Cowboy (Disturbing tha Peace Records 2011).
89 See Matthew Strauss, Princess Nokia Accuses Ariana Grande of Copying Her on New Song “7 rings”, Pitchfork (Jan. 18, 2019), https://pitchfork.com/news/princess-nokia-accuses-ariana-grande-of-copying-her-on-new-song-7-rings/.
90 Ariana Grande Spotify Top Songs, Kworb, https://kworb.net/spotify/artist/66CXWjxzNUsdJxJ2JdwvnR_songs.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2025).
91 Olivia Rodrigo, Sour (Geffen Records 2021).
92 See Jem Aswad, Olivia Rodrigo Adds Paramore to Songwriting Credits on ‘Good 4 U’, Variety (Aug. 25, 2021), https://variety.com/2021/music/news/olivia-rodrigo-paramore-good-4-u-misery-business-1235048791/.
93 Olivia Rodrigo, deja vu, on SOUR (Geffen Records 2021); see Deja Vu by Olivia Rodrigo, WhoSampled https://www.whosampled.com/Olivia-Rodrigo/Deja-Vu/ (last visited July 20, 2025). Fans of Swift believed that this song interpolated “Cruel Summer.” See Taylor Swift, Cruel Summer, on LOVER (Republic Records 2019); see, e.g., Andria Moore, Olivia Rodrigo’s Music Video For “Deja Vu" Took Me Back to Multiple Taylor Swift Songs BuzzFeed (Apr. 2, 2021), https://www.buzzfeed.com/andriamoore/olivia-rodrigo-new-music-video-similar-to-taylor-swift; Christina Cannady, Music Analysis: The Bridges of “Cruel Summer” and “Deja Vu” Are Too Similar, Baylor Lariat (Apr. 13, 2021), https://baylorlariat.com/2021/04/13/music-analysis-the-bridges-of-cruel-summer-and-deja-vu-are-too-similar/.
94 Olivia Rodrigo, 1 step forward, 3 steps back, on SOUR (Geffen Records 2021); see 1 Step Forward, 3 Steps Back by Olivia Rodrigo, WhoSampled https://www.whosampled.com/Olivia-Rodrigo/1-Step-Forward,-3-Steps-Back/ (last visited July 20, 2025). Fans of Swift believed that this song interpolated “New Year’s Day.” See Taylor Swift, New Year's Day, on Reputation (Big Machine Records 2017); see, e.g., Discussion posted by u/Careful-Guitar2478, Reddit (r/OliviaRodrigo), 1 step forward and 3 steps back sounds like New Years day by Taylor Swift (2022), https://www.reddit.com/r/OliviaRodrigo/comments/vsmjc6/1_step_forward_and_3_steps_back_sounds_like_new/; Carolyn Twersky, [Updated] Olivia Rodrigo Explains How She Ended Up Interpolating Taylor Swift’s Song On Her New Album,Seventeen (June 2, 2021), https://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/music/a36490970/taylor-swift-olivia-rodrigo-collab-on-olivia-album-sour/.
95 Olivia Rodrigo, good 4 u, on SOUR (Geffen Records 2021); see Good 4 U by Olivia Rodrigo, WhoSampled https://www.whosampled.com/Olivia-Rodrigo/Good-4-U/ (last visited July 20, 2025). Fans of Paramore believed that this song interpolated “Misery Business.” See Paramore, Misery Business, on Riot! Fueled By Ramen, LLC 2007); see, e.g., Discussion posted by u/rogue_worlds, Reddit (r/stsos),Olivia Rodrigo “Good 4 U”, Paramore “Misery Business[”] (May 24, 2021), https://www.reddit.com/r/stsos/comments/nk3bt8/olivia_rodrigo_good_4_u_paramore_misery_business/ (“Feels like a total rip off… right?”).
96 See Aswad, supra note 92.
97 Id.
98 See Nancy K. Baym, Fans or Friends?: Seeing Social Media Audiences as Musicians Do, 9 J. AUDIENCE & RECEPTION STUD. 286, 301 (2012) (“Musicians must navigate whether to disclose as though they were speaking to friends or fans, and they must manage audience members who are overly emotional in ways both affectionate and hostile.”).
99 See id. at 302–07.
100 See, e.g., supra notes 93–95 (discussing fans who take to social media sites like Reddit to call out similarities between songs and assert copying).
101 Michela Del Vicario et al., The Spreading of Misinformation Online, 113 Procs. Nat’l Acad. Sci. U.S. Am. 554, 554-55 (2016).