Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Ninth Circuit “Strikes A Pose” For Madonna And Music Sampling In “Vogue” Copyright Dispute

By Ira S. Sacks & Julia R. Lissner on June 7, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a copyright decision that rocks the music industry and splits from the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit recently held that Madonna’s mega-hit “Vogue” did not violate copyright rights by sampling a 0.23-second horns segment of the 1980’s song  “Love Break.” In VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone, the divided appellate court affirmed the Central District of California’s ruling that “de minimis” copying does not constitute copyright infringement, even if the plaintiff proves actual copying.

Applying this standard, and after listening to the audio recordings, the majority agreed with the district court that Vogue did not infringe Love Break because an average audience would not “recognize the appropriation of the horn hit” in Madonna’s 1990’s dance song. The majority further reasoned that “[i]f the public does not recognize the appropriation, then the copier has not benefitted from the original artist’s expressive content” and, therefore, there is no infringement.

The dissent rejected the majority’s application of the “de minimis exception,” and opined that “the pertinent inquiry in a sampling case” should not be “whether a defendant samples a little or a lot, but whether a defendant sampled at all.”  The dissent explained that “[i]n any other context, this would be called theft” and that it should be of “no defense to theft that the thief made off with only a ‘de minimis’ part of the victim’s property.”

That said, query whether the answer lies in between: sometimes a de minimis sample is infringing and sometimes it is not. The answer should depend on whether an average audience would recognize the appropriation.  Should the Ninth Circuit have affirmed on that basis?

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is significant because of the split it creates with the Sixth Circuit’s bright-line rule in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films:  “For copyrighted sound recordings, any unauthorized copying—no matter how trivial—constitutes infringement.”  Now, with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, there are “inconsistent rules among the circuits [that] lead[s] to different levels of protection in different areas of the country, even if the same alleged infringement is occurring nationwide.”  As a result, this likely is an issue to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Until then, the Ninth Circuit has made it easier – or at least less risky – for artists and their producers to sample small portions of other musicians’ sound recordings.

Photo of Ira S. Sacks Ira S. Sacks

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade…

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade practices, and trade secrets. Ira’s clients include fragrance and fashion companies as well as national scientific laboratories, real estate developers, and financial institutions.

Read more about Ira S. SacksEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Julia R. Lissner Julia R. Lissner

Julia Lissner represents public and private companies and individuals in a wide range of business disputes in state and federal courts nationwide. She has extensive experience in preparing cases for bench trials, jury trials, arbitrations, and mediations; handling appeals; and conducting internal investigations.

Read more about Julia R. LissnerEmail
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Marks, Works, and Secrets
  • Organization:
    Akerman LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo