Why can't you copyright a chord progression?

Common chord progressions are unprotectable primarily because they are building blocks — raw material that composers need access to in order to write music at all. They are also typically saturated with prior art: the same progression appears in dozens or hundreds of earlier works, defeating any claim of originality. The legal doctrines that defeat chord progression claims (building block doctrine, scènes à faire, prior art filtration) are empirical arguments. They work where prior art is dense. They do not work as categorical logical rules.

Can a chord progression ever be protected by copyright?

The case law does not rule it out. A chord progression that is sufficiently unusual — one that cannot be defeated by prior art — presents a different question than I-IV-V or I-V-vi-IV. Additionally, under the selection and arrangement doctrine established in Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton and applied in Williams v. Gaye, a combination of individually unprotectable elements including a chord progression may attract protection when selected and arranged in an original way. The categorical statement that chord progressions are not protectable overstates what the law actually holds.

What happened with chord progressions in the Ed Sheeran Thinking Out Loud case?

In Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran, the I-iii-IV-V progression at issue was held unprotectable. The court's analysis turned on the massive prior art record for that specific progression — it appears in numerous well-known works, making it classic building-block material. The case illustrates the point precisely: the no to chord progression copyright worked there because of prior art saturation, not because of a categorical legal rule against protecting progressions.

What is the building block doctrine in music copyright?

The building block doctrine holds that basic musical elements — common scales, standard chord progressions, generic rhythmic patterns — must remain available to all composers as raw material. Granting copyright over them would not reward creativity; it would tax every composer who uses the shared language of music. Courts apply this doctrine to filter out common elements before comparing works for substantial similarity. But building block is a factual characterization, not a legal category. Whether a given chord progression qualifies as a building block depends on how common it actually is.

Are Chord Progressions Protected by Copyright? Musicologize

Q: Are chord progressions protected by copyright?

Generally, no. Common chord progressions are not protected by copyright. Courts apply the building block doctrine and scènes à faire to treat standard progressions as public domain material available to all composers. But the rule is empirical, not categorical. It holds because common progressions are saturated with prior art. A sufficiently novel or unusual chord progression — one with no meaningful prior art record — does not meet the same fate on the same logic. And any progression, common or not, may contribute to a protectable selection and arrangement when combined distinctively with other musical elements.

Generally, the answer is no, chord progressions are not protected by copyright. You will find this in music blogs, in copyright primers, in the standard advice musicians give each other. The answer is correct in the overwhelming majority of cases. And it functions well. And it’s wrong.

What “Not Protected” Actually Means

Copyright protects original expression. It does not protect ideas, facts, or the raw material of a creative field. In music, the law treats basic harmonic vocabulary like chord progressions, scales, simple rhythmic patterns as that raw material. We refer to these and other common musical componets as “building blocks.” The building-block doctrine holds that composers must have access to a shared musical language in order to compose music at all, especially music that people will enjoy.

A chord is a building block. A progression of chords is a sequence of building blocks that then becomes, itself, a building block. It’s a metaphor. All buildings are made of materials, foundations, columns, supports, and what-have-you. But architecture’s creativity is vested in how they’re used and doesn’t foreclose the next architect from using the same building blocks or conventions.

One way musicologists and courts apply this principle is through the filtration step of substantial similarity analysis. Very broadly speaking, before comparing two works, we filter out elements that are not protectable, and what remains after filtration is the protected expression available for comparison. It’s rather like the original question and the ubiquious “no.” It’s generally valid to filter and see what’s left. I won’t get into the pitfalls and illogic of misuse of the principles here.

The result in most cases: common chord progressions, taken alone, are indeed not protectable.

Why the Rule Is Empirical, Not Categorical

The filtration step works because common progressions have prior art. Obviously overwhelming prior art. The I-IV-V progression appears in thousands of songs. Any progression common enough to qualify as a building block is common enough to be defeated on originality grounds independent of the building block doctrine itself. It simply is not original to the plaintiff.

An empirical premise that holds anywhere prior art is dense. It holds for the vast majority of progressions a songwriter would reach for in a pop, rock, soul, or R&B context. The vocabulary of popular music is well-documented. Prior art is available to defeat most claims.

But it ain’t necessarily so for any chord progression.

A chord progression with no meaningful prior art record does not lose on prior art grounds just by virtue of being a chord progression. The building block doctrine protects vocabulary in common use. It does not extend to every theoretically possible harmonic sequence regardless of how novel or unusual; quite the opposite. The universe of chord progressions is infinite. And obviously we’re being pedantic. But accurate. Most of the practically useful, harmonically coherent ones are well-explored. Most, not all. At the edge of that map the common-vocabulary argument fails because the progression in question is not common vocabulary. Pedantic but true.

The Selection and Arrangement Path

The building block doctrine addresses progressions in isolation. A separate doctrine addresses them in combination.

Under the selection and arrangement doctrine, a collection of individually unprotectable elements may enjoy copyright protection when selected and arranged in a sufficiently original way. The specific combination is the protected expression, not any single element. A kettle of fish, this one, but we’re here now, so…

Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000), established that this analysis applies in music copyright. And you may have heard of “Blurred Lines?” Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018), extended it to a fact pattern involving a chord progression, bass line, and rhythmic feel in combination — a verdict that remains contested, including by me, but whose doctrinal framework is law in the Ninth Circuit.

The implication for chord progressions: even a common progression can contribute to a protectable combination. A progression alone may be public domain but the question becomes whether the specific selection and arrangement is original, not whether any individual element is. A specific progression, voiced in a specific way, paired with a specific bass line and harmonic rhythm, over a specific formal structure, may be something more.

This path has limits and I take issue frequently here on Musicologize.

The Sheeran Case as Exhibit

Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran presented a chord progression claim directly. The progression at issue in “Thinking Out Loud” — I-iii-IV-V — was found to be unprotectable and rightly so.

The court reached that conclusion based on prior art, not on categorical exclusion or an axiom. The I-iii-IV-V progression has a documented record in popular music going back decades. It is familiar enough that I can tell you it was the first chord progression I got excited about as a kid. That iii chord is my favorite chord in the world, plain and simple. It was in the very first song I learned on guitar, and Ed wasn’t born yet. Prior art defeated the claim.

This progression, with this prior art record, in this context, was not protectable. The analysis is specific to those facts. That’s an honest version of the “rule.” The “no” to chord progression copyright holds when prior art holds. If prior art does not hold because the progression is genuinely original, the combination of elements is distinctive, how can the axiom still prevail?

So what?

Not a ton. If someone tells you chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, they are giving you a useful practical heuristic. For most progressions in most songs, it is correct. But as a forensic musicologist, I grew dissatisfied at the intellectual dishonesty of the prevalent answer to the question.

If someone, much less a forensic musicologist tells you it is an absolute rule with no exceptions, the math defeats them. The rule is a factual claim about what is and is not common. It holds where the facts support it.

But, I mean, for all intents and purposes, chord progressions, which most people think of as four or eight bars of familiar chords, perhaps cycling, are indeed not protectable.

The musical analysis is mine. Legal advice is your attorney’s. For case-specific analysis, contact Brian.