Source: http://www.klgates.com/sometimes-borrowing-isnt-stealing-de-minimis-sampling-of-music-sound-recordings-isnt-copyright-infringement-say-two-key-courts-in-the-united-states-and-germany-06-16-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:30:53+00:00

Document:
So in Germany, the right to use a brief sample in another creative music recording is now settled law. In the United States, despite the broad geographic reach of the Ninth Circuit, liability for music sampling remains unsettled. Because of the national (if not international) nature of almost all music licensing and distribution, potential plaintiffs in music sampling cases likely will be able to file suit in the Sixth Circuit. Let the forum shopping for music sampling copyright infringement claims and declaratory judgment actions begin! Unless and until a quartet of the current octet led by Chief Justice Roberts and the Notorious RBG grant the inevitable (barring settlement) petition for certiorari in the Ciccone case, the United States will remain but a confederacy with respect to the copyright rules governing music sampling.
 VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, Nos. 13-57104 & 14-55837, 2016 WL 3090780 (9th Cir. June 2, 2016) (affirming the district court’s rejection of the rule set forth in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005)).
 See, e.g., BBC News, “Kraftwerk loses German hip-hop copyright case in top court”, BBC News (May 31, 2016), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36415880.
 Press Release No. 29/2016, German Federal Constitutional Court, “The Use of Samples for Artistic Purposes May Justify an Interference with Copyrights and Related Rights”, (May 31, 2016), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-029.html.
 Ciccone, 2016 WL 3090780 at *1. The court also recognized that under prior precedent, the de minimis exception precluded a finding that the sampling infringed the underlying musical composition. Id. at *4 (citing Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2004)).
 Ciccone, 2016 WL 3090780 at *4 (citing cases).
 Id. at *7 (citing Sid & Marty Krofft TV Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977)). Thus, the samples’ length was relevant to the analysis only in that it made listeners more or less likely to recognize the original source, although the court found it instructive that the earlier Newton case held there to be no infringement of a music composition even though the sample was six seconds long. Id. at *5 (the samples “that were (as we must assume) taken here are much smaller than the sample at issue in Newton”).
 Ciccone, 2016 WL 3090780 at *5–6.
 Alexander Stewart, “Been Caught Stealing: A Musicologist’s Perspective on Unlicensed Sampling Disputes”, 83 UMKC L. Rev. 339, 342 (2014).
 Id. at *7-–10 (stating, inter alia, that “Bridgeport ignored the statutory structure and § 114(b)’s express limitation on the rights of a copyright holder”).
 Id. at *11 (“the possibility of a ‘physical taking’ exists with respect to other kinds of artistic works,” such as photographs, “to which the de minimis rule applies”).
 Id. at *12 (emphasis in original) (citing cases). The Ninth Circuit vacated an award of attorney’s fees to defendants because the plaintiff’s claim was premised on a legal theory “adopted [in Bridgeport] by the only circuit court to have addressed the issue” and thus was “objectively reasonable.” Id. at *2.
 Id. at *12 (citing EMI Records Ltd. v. Premise Media Corp., No. 601209, 2008 WL 5027245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 8, 2008) (denying a record company’s request for a preliminary injunction against filmmakers who had used fifteen seconds of a song, citing 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[b] for its rejection of the Bridgeport rule).
 See TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond, Memorandum and Order, Case No. 12-Civ-3529 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2013 Order re Motion to Dismiss).
 See German Federal Constitutional Court Press Release No. 29/2016, supra note 3, “Facts of the Case” section.
 Id. at “Key Considerations of the [Court] Senate,” paragraph 2(b).
 Id. at “Key Considerations of the [Court] Senate,” paragraph 1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 114
 v. 
 § 13
 v.