Covers, Samples, and Stealing: When Does Inspiration Turn Into Copyright Infringement?

TL;DR:

Adele’s “Turning Tables” got me thinking about Story of the Year’s “Until the Day I Die.” To my piano-playing brain, they sounded similar at first—enough to spark a deeper question (this time in my lawyer brain): where do we draw the line between inspiration, similarity, and infringement in music copyright law? This post explores that line through real-life cases and highlights how courts decide what musical components are protectable—and when it’s better to resolve music copyright disputes with a handshake and a co-writing credit.

Sounds Familiar:

I was working with music playing in the background when Adele’s “Turning Tables” started. The piano intro triggered something in me—it sounded eerily like a piano cover of “Until the Day I Die” by Story of the Year. Both songs start off with an arpeggiated melodic hook of a minor third (C to E♭ in the case of “Turning Tables,” B to D in the case of “Until the Day I Die”) before quickly bouncing off the seventh scale degree (B♭ and A, respectively) while the bass line walks through their chord progressions. Before it had a chance to register (or get to the verse), I immediately thought it was a piano cover because they sounded so similar. That wasn’t the case—but the moment made me think about just how blurry the boundaries are in music copyright law when it comes to melodic similarity.

The Legal Framework:

Under U.S. music copyright law, you can’t protect basic musical building blocks like chord progressions, modes, or common rhythms. What you can protect are original combinations and identifiable melodies—elements that reflect creative choices.

Courts take a fact-specific approach to music copyright infringement. They look at whether a song copied protectable elements of another work, whether the copying was substantial, and whether there was access. But even then, rulings can vary. Here’s a tour of some relevant music copyright cases:

• Dorchester Music Corp. v. NBC, 171 F. Supp. 580 (S.D. Cal. 1959): The court found substantial similarity between the melodies of two songs and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The melody was deemed a protectable and copied element.
• Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024): A claim over chord progression and syncopated rhythm failed. The court held those elements were too unoriginal to merit protection.
• Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022): A jury verdict for infringement over a short ostinato was reversed because the shared musical elements were commonplace and unoriginal.
• Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004): A three-note flute sample wasn’t enough. The court found the use was de minimis and lacked sufficient originality.
• Batiste v. Najm, 28 F. Supp. 3d 595 (E.D. La. 2014): The court drew lines around what is protectable (melody, hook) and what isn’t (beat, chords, chant). Similarities in the protected elements weren’t strong enough to support infringement.
• New Old Music Group, Inc. v. Gottwald, 122 F. Supp. 3d 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2015): This one survived summary judgment. The court found a triable issue of fact over whether copied drum elements were sufficiently original to support an inference of copying.
• Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020): Plaintiffs failed to show how musical components were arranged in a way that amounted to copyrightable expression.

Sampling: When a Few Seconds Can Cost Millions:

Beyond melodies and chord progressions, music sampling presents its own legal landmine. Courts have held that even brief, unaltered clips from a sound recording—like a vocal sample or instrumental hook—require a license from the rights holder. Examples of samples include the groovy melody from “I Keep Forgettin’” by Michael MacDonald in “Regulate” by Warren G and Nate Dogg or the chorus from “Through the Fire” by Chaka Khan in “Through the Wire” by Kanye West (with the quintessential 2000’s chipmunk filter on it). 

In Estate of Barré v. Carter, 272 F. Supp. 3d 906 (E.D. La. 2017), plaintiffs sued over the unauthorized use of YouTube recordings of the late Anthony Barré’s voice, arguing that the supposed license came from someone without authority to grant it.

And in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), the Sixth Circuit famously warned: “Get a license or do not sample.” That’s the rule—even if the sample is just a few seconds long. Music sampling lawsuits often turn on questions of originality, ownership, and licensing—and can lead to serious liability.

When Courts Aren’t Needed:

Sometimes, the artists and their teams just handle it themselves. Olivia Rodrigo added Hayley Williams and Josh Farro of Paramore as co-writers on “good 4 u” due to its similarities to “Misery Business.” No courts. No lawsuits. Just credits (and hefty royalties).

This sort of solution is becoming more common, especially in pop music where stylistic overlap is inevitable. It’s a pragmatic response to the uncertainty, cost, and unpredictability of music plagiarism claims and copyright lawsuits.

Takeaway:

There’s no bright-line rule for music copyright infringement. Courts look at originality, access, and substantial similarity—but it’s often more art than science. You can’t copyright scales, progressions, or grooves. You can copyright a distinct melody, a riff, a hook—but only if it’s more than just a generic phrase or common pattern.

In short: it’s about how the pieces are put together, and whether what you’ve built is a unique expression—or just another variation on a shared musical language.

Contact Us:

If you have questions about music copyright, music sampling, or other intellectual property litigation matters, contact Wood Law Offices, PLLC through our website or by phone.

Disclaimer:

This blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. This content is considered attorney advertising and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Sources, for the Curious (or Skeptical):

Cases:

• Batiste v. Najm, 28 F. Supp. 3d 595 (E.D. La. 2014).
• Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).
• Dorchester Music Corp. v. NBC, 171 F. Supp. 580 (S.D. Cal. 1959).
• Estate of Barré v. Carter, 272 F. Supp. 3d 906 (E.D. La. 2017).
• Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022).
• New Old Music Group, Inc. v. Gottwald, 122 F. Supp. 3d 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
• Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004).
• Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020).
• Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024).

Non-Case Sources:

• Adele. “Turning Tables.” 21, XL Recordings, 2011.
• Khan, Chaka. “Through the Fire.” I Feel for You, Warner Bros. Records, 1984.
• Mamo, Heran. “Olivia Rodrigo Credits Paramore’s Hayley Williams on ‘Good 4 U.’” Variety, 25 Aug. 2021, https://variety.com/2021/music/news/olivia-rodrigo-paramore-good-4-u-misery-business-1235048791/.
• McDonald, Michael. “I Keep Forgettin’ (Every Time You’re Near).” If That’s What It Takes, Warner Bros. Records, 1982.
• Paramore. “Misery Business.” Riot!, Fueled by Ramen, 2007.
• Rodrigo, Olivia. “Good 4 U.” Sour, Geffen Records, 2021.
• Story of the Year. “Until the Day I Die.” Page Avenue, Maverick Records, 2003.
• Warren G, and Nate Dogg. “Regulate.” Regulate… G Funk Era, Violator Records and Def Jam Recordings, 1994.
• West, Kanye. “Through the Wire.” The College Dropout, Roc-A-Fella Records, 2004. 
• Mallenbaum, Carly. “Breaking Down the Brutal Price of Olivia Rodrigo and Paramore’s Songwriting Controversy.” E! Online, 7 Sept. 2021, https://www.eonline.com/news/1301100/breaking-down-the-brutal-price-of-olivia-rodrigo-and-paramores-songwriting-controversy.

Intellectual Property Notice:

All song titles, lyrics, and musical references remain the property of their respective owners. This blog post is a free public commentary intended for educational and informational purposes. Use of these references is protected under the fair use doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 107. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994); Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007); Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1986).

F.n. - There’s an important distinction in copyright law between a musical composition (the notes, lyrics, and structure of a song) and a sound recording (a fixed performance of that composition). This article focuses primarily on compositions from the perspective of artists and songwriters. Sound recordings—typically owned or controlled by record labels—are often easier to protect because they capture a distinct, recognizable performance that’s more difficult to unintentionally copy (assuming you don’t put it through a chipmunk filter).

© Wood Law Offices, PLLC. 2025. All rights reserved.