This is the Musicologize music copyright case library. Each page is a structured, answer-first reference to a canonical case — CourtListener-grounded, doctrine-tagged, and written from a forensic musicology perspective.
The decisions collected here define how courts evaluate music copyright claims. They are organized by doctrine. Each page explains what the court held, why the doctrine matters, and what a forensic expert does with it.
Substantial Similarity: The Extrinsic/Intrinsic Test
These cases define what courts compare when evaluating whether one song copied another. The Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic/intrinsic framework governs the leading cases in this group.
- Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) — “Blurred Lines” / “Got to Give It Up.” The deposit copy rule, selection and arrangement, and the inverse-ratio rule before it was eliminated.
- Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020, en banc) — “Stairway to Heaven” / “Taurus.” Led Zeppelin won. The en banc court eliminated the inverse-ratio rule and held a descending chromatic scale is not protectable by itself.
- Gray v. Perry, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022) — “Dark Horse” / “Joyful Noise.” Katy Perry won. An 8-note descending scale is a commonplace building block and not protectable.
- Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) — “One of Those Love Songs” / “Thank God I Found You.” The case that established the extrinsic test covers all objective musical elements.
- Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024) — “Thinking Out Loud” / “Let’s Get It On.” Ed Sheeran won. Chord progressions are not protectable; common rhythmic patterns are scènes à faire.
Subconscious Copying and Access
These cases govern the access element and what happens when a composer reproduces a prior work without conscious intent.
- Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) — “My Sweet Lord” / “He’s So Fine.” George Harrison found liable despite no conscious copying. The origin of the subconscious copying doctrine.
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) — “Love Is a Wonderful Thing” (Isley Brothers, 1966) / “Love Is a Wonderful Thing” (Michael Bolton, 1991). Access through radio play; subconscious copying affirmed.
- Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) — “Let It End” / “How Deep Is Your Love.” Bee Gees won. Striking musical similarity alone, without access, cannot sustain a verdict.
Sampling: Sound Recording Copyright and De Minimis
These four cases define the law of digital sampling. Bridgeport and VMG Salsoul represent the unresolved circuit split.
- Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005, en banc) — Sixth Circuit: no de minimis defense for digital sampling of sound recordings. “Get a license or do not sample.”
- VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016) — Ninth Circuit: de minimis IS available for sound recording sampling. Directly contrary to Bridgeport. Circuit split unresolved.
- Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) — Beastie Boys’ “Pass the Mic” sampled James Newton‘s “Choir.” Sound recording licensed; musical composition not. Composition elements found de minimis.
- Batiste v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2020) — Paul Batiste / Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. Filtration at the pleading stage. Plaintiff must identify specific protectable expression after filtering out genre conventions.
The musical analysis is mine. Legal advice is your attorney’s.