Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films

Infobox Court Case
name = Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films
court = United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit


date_decided = June 3, 2005
full_name = Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al. v. Dimension Films, et al.
citations = 410 F.3d 792
judges = Ralph B. Guy, Jr., Ronald Lee Gilman, and Judith M. Barzilay (sitting by designation)
prior_actions = 230 F. Supp. 2d 830 (M.D.Tenn. 2002) (granting summary judgment for defendant), "rev'd", 383 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2004), "rehearing granted in part and opinion amended", 401 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2004)
subsequent_actions =
opinions = district court erroneously granted summary judgment for defendant on claim for copyright infringement based on fact that defendant's copying of plaintiff's copyrighted sound recording was merely "de minimis". Court of Appeals rejects "de minimis" defense to claim for copyright infringement of a sound recording.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), is a court case that has proved important in defining American copyright law for recorded music. The case centered around N.W.A.’s song “100 Miles and Runnin’” and Funkadelic's “Get Off Your Ass and Jam.” Essentially, N.W.A. sampled a two-second guitar chord from Funkadelic’s tune, lowered the pitch and looped it five times in their song. This was all done without Funkadelic's permission and with no compensation paid to Bridgeport Music, which owns the rights to Funkadelic's music. Bridgeport brought the issue before a federal judge, who ruled that the incident was not in violation of copyright law.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision and ruled that the sampling was in violation of copyright law. Their argument was that with a sound recording, an owner of the copyright on a work had exclusive right to duplicate the work. Under this interpretation of the copyright law, usage of any section of a work, regardless of length, would be in violation of copyright unless the copyright owner gave permission. In its decision, the court wrote: "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." This decision effectively eliminates the de minimis doctrine for recorded music in the Sixth Circuit, and has affected industry practice. However, the court expressly noted that the decision did not preclude the availability of other defenses, such as fair use, even in the context of "sampling." Thus, in the Sixth Circuit, defendants may not rely on the "de minimis" doctrine to say that they copied such a small amount that they are not liable for copyright infringement. However, they may still argue that their use of the sample is still a "fair use"--that is, that the use is transformative, for noncommercial purpose, copied only a small amount, the original had a thin copyright, or the copying did not harm the market for the original work or its derivatives.

The court, with this ruling, created a bright-line test resulting in any unlicensed sampling would be considered copyright infringement.

A new concept for dealing with such issues as this has been discussion in the music world on creating a Compulsory Sampling License model.

External links

* [http://www.slate.com/id/2153961/ The shady one-man corporation that's destroyed hip-hop] - article about Bridgeport and the case

* [http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html Full Text of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films] from FindLaw

*