Image via Shutterstock
***
In the age of digital media platforms, sampling music has become more accessible and legally challenging than ever. Sampling has long been a cornerstone of genres like hip-hop, electronic, and pop music, where artists reuse and repurpose audio from older works to create something new. What began as a tool that allowed artists to incorporate old sounds into their new projects has become a major point of discussion and dispute in the contemporary music space. Borrowing even a few seconds of a recording without permission can result in major lawsuits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The legal framework surrounding the sampling of music, though it protects the intellectual property of artists, may also hinder the creativity of others. As the practice continues to evolve, the conflict between encouraging artistic practice and protecting intellectual property raises an important question: Where do we draw the line between inspiration and infringement?
Sampling as a practice originated in the 1940s, when producer Pierre Schaeffer spliced together pieces of recorded tape, enabling him to remix audio. It rose to prominence in the 1980s, particularly in the hip-hop genre, where producers learned to loop vinyl records. This method soon became a central theme in mainstream music, but also sparked the beginning of discussions surrounding the legal consequences of sampling music.
As the commercial value of sampled music increased, so did the legal scrutiny. One of the most significant court decisions came in Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films (2002). Hip-Hop group N.W.A. used a 2-second snippet of Funkadelics’ “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” in their 1990 single “100 Miles and Runnin.” The ruling of copyright infringement on the part of N.W.A was appealed. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that any unauthorized sampling, no matter how minimal, constituted copyright infringement. It was in this decision that Judge Ralph Guy famously wrote, “Get a license or do not sample.” He further noted that this decision did not “stifle creativity” in any way. The rigidity of this decision was key in defining copyright law for recorded music, and continues to influence how artists approach sampling today. Most notably, it requires artists to be financially able to secure licenses if they wish to use sampling in their work.
Later court rulings introduced further nuance to this decision. In VMG Salsoul v. Madonna (2016), singer Madonna was sued for copyright infringement after using a horn section from Salsoul Orchestra’s 1982 song “Ooh I Love It (Love Break)” in her hit song “Vogue.” The judge ruled in Madonna’ favor, who used the de minimis doctrine as her defense, wherein only a minimal and insubstantial part of the original work had been copied. This expanded the creative abilities of artists who had previously been limited by the Bridgeport decision. Nonetheless, these cases have established a legal environment in which the burden and cost of sampling falls on the creator—inhibiting their ability to create the music they may want.
It certainly does not help that the explosion of digital media platforms has made sampling more widespread, but not more legally accessible. The process of clearing samples is more expensive and time-consuming than ever. As a result, only major-label or well-funded artists have the funds to utilize samples in their music. Independent musicians, by contrast, are often left to either avoid sampling entirely or risk potential lawsuits.
As a result, legal battles over sampling have intensified in recent years, providing insight into how this system disproportionately affects smaller artists. In 2024, Sony Music secured over $800,000 after suing rapper Trefuego. According to Sony, Trefuego’s viral-hit “90mh” used an unauthorized sample of Toshifumi Hinata’s “Reflections,” of which Sony owns the copyright. The instrumental to Trefuego’s song was a pitched violin motif sampled from Hinata’s song. A Texas judge ruled in favor of Sony, ordering Trefuego to pay the corporation nearly $803,000 in damages. To 21-year-old Trefuego, the decision was detrimental to his up-and-coming career.
For independent artists, the challenges of navigating sample clearance can be overwhelming. Legally, sampling requires two different types of clearance: the original master recording, typically owned by the music label under which a song is published, and the underlying composition, which is owned by the writer of a song. The process of obtaining these permissions can involve contacting multiple entities, paying fees, and sometimes even waiting months for approval. After all, the holders of the master recording and compositions still have a right to decline an artist’s request to sample. The process can be extremely difficult and impractical for smaller artists with fewer resources.
The current system not only limits access to creative tools, like sampling, which once acted as the foundation for music innovation, but reinforces inequality in the creative space. Those with expansive resources, industry connections, and strong legal teams have the ability to obtain sample clearance. This sidelines smaller musicians, who were once the pioneers of sampling practices in the first place. Moving forward, artists and lawmakers should collaborate to create a legal environment that supports both intellectual property and creativity, as innovation is hindered when creativity is forced to wait for permission.
There have been some promising suggestions to remedy this battle between copyright protection and music innovation. First is the integration of a reformed compulsory licensing system. Under the current model, artists are able to sample a work by paying a fee and obtaining explicit permission from its creator. Some musicians, including John Oswald and Negativland, have spoken out against this system, saying that transaction costs of licensing are “impossibly high,” and don’t offer much monetary benefit to original artists. Another potential remedy, and likely the best for fostering creative liberty, might be a blanket licensing system, which would allow rights-holders to sell the rights to use an entire catalog of music, from which people can select which songs they wish to use. Under this system, it would be much easier to obtain the right to a sample, as there is less discourse required with the owner of a particular song. Of course, this method comes with problems of its own. With the widespread implementation of blanket licensing, many are forced to pay much more than they would have had they chosen to obtain the rights to just one song, and many artists are reluctant to include their songs in a blanket licensing catalog as they have less control over the means by which their music is used.
***
This article was edited by Samantha Poillucci and Cristina Palmieri.
Lauren Gracia 
Cooper Toland 
Anita Boniface