What did Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films hold about digital sampling?

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), held that there is no de minimis defense to digital sampling of a copyrighted sound recording in the Sixth Circuit. Any unauthorized copying of a fixed digital sample — regardless of length — constitutes copyright infringement. The rule: get a license or do not sample.

Does the de minimis doctrine apply to music sampling?

It depends on the circuit. In the Sixth Circuit (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee), Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films holds that there is no de minimis defense for digital sampling of sound recordings — any copying is infringement. In the Ninth Circuit (California), VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (2016), holds that the de minimis doctrine is available. The circuit split is unresolved as of 2026.

What is the circuit split on music sampling?

Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films (6th Cir. 2005) holds that any digital sample of a sound recording requires a license, regardless of length. VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (9th Cir. 2016) holds that de minimis sampling of a sound recording is not infringement in the Ninth Circuit. These two rules are directly contrary. The Supreme Court has not resolved the split as of 2026.

Does Bridgeport apply to Nashville music?

Yes. Tennessee is within the Sixth Circuit, and the Bridgeport rule applies there. Nashville-based sound recording rights holders whose works are sampled without clearance can bring claims under the Bridgeport no-de-minimis rule. Any sample, however brief, requires a license under the governing law of the jurisdiction.

Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films Musicologize

In the Sixth Circuit, there is no de minimis defense to digital sampling of a copyrighted sound recording. Any unauthorized lifting of a fixed digital sample — however brief — is copyright infringement. The rule is absolute: get a license or do not sample.

That is the holding of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), decided en banc. It governs states in the Sixth Circuit: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which includes Nashville. It is directly contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s rule in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone. The circuit split between Bridgeport and VMG Salsoul is the most significant unresolved question in the law of digital sampling as of 2026.

The sample at issue

The case arose from a two-second sample from “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” by George Clinton, Jr. and the Funkadelics. That sample was digitally altered — pitch-shifted down, looped, and used as a background element in “100 Miles and Runnin'” by N.W.A. The sample was brief. It was processed. It was not prominently featured. Under the Ninth Circuit’s de minimis analysis, it might well have been found to be a trivially small taking that a reasonable listener would not identify.

The Sixth Circuit rejected that framework entirely for sound recordings.

The bright-line rule and why the Sixth Circuit adopted it

The court’s reasoning begins with the text of 17 U.S.C. § 114, the sound recording copyright provision. Section 114 grants owners the exclusive right to reproduce the sound recording, which the court interpreted as a right against any digital lifting of the fixed expression. A sampler who takes even a small portion of a sound recording has reproduced a portion of the recording. The de minimis doctrine, the court held, has no application here: when the reproduction of a specific fixed recording is at issue, the question is whether any reproduction occurred, not whether the reproduction was substantial enough to matter.

The court also offered a pragmatic rationale. The sound recording’s value is in its fixed, reproducible character. A digital sample is literally a copy of a piece of the recording — a numerical representation of the specific audio waveform that the copyright owner invested in creating. Allowing a de minimis exception would mean that the practical value of the sound recording copyright erodes as samples get shorter: the shorter the sample, the harder it is to prove substantiality, and the easier it is to extract commercial value from a recording without payment. The bright-line rule prevents that erosion.

The consequence for sampling practice

The holding is sometimes summarized as “get a license or do not sample,” which is accurate but incomplete. The full consequence is: in the Sixth Circuit, there is no minimum length below which a sample becomes legally free. One note from a recording, if it is a recognizable fixed copy of the recording’s audio, is an infringement. The practice of taking very short, highly processed samples and relying on their brevity as a defense does not work in the Sixth Circuit.

This has direct implications for Nashville, which is within the Sixth Circuit. Sound recording samples in country, rap, and pop productions that originate or are distributed from Tennessee are governed by this rule. A sample clearance strategy built on the assumption that short samples are free is legally incorrect in that jurisdiction.

The circuit split

The Ninth Circuit, in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016), held that the de minimis doctrine is available to sound recording copyright infringement claims. A 0.23-second sample that a reasonable listener cannot identify is not actionable in the Ninth Circuit. The two rules are directly contrary. A sample that is legal in California may be infringing in Ohio. As of 2026, the Supreme Court has not resolved the split.

The practical advice for anyone who samples: know where the plaintiff can sue. If the rights holders are in Nashville and distribute in the Sixth Circuit, the Bridgeport rule applies. If the case will be in California, VMG Salsoul applies. If you are in a circuit that has not spoken, Bridgeport provides the more conservative and defensible planning assumption until the split is resolved.

The musical analysis is mine. Legal advice is your attorney’s.