Juralogium Emblem
JuralogiumThe Architecture of Law
Back to Taxonomy Directory
Taxonomy/Copyright/#micro-sampling-quantization
#micro-sampling-quantizationActive Circuit SplitCopyright & Expressive Media Law
Read on Primary Statutory Source

Sound Recording De Minimis vs Zero-Tolerance

Statutory Hook: 17 U.S.C. § 106 & § 114

The inter-circuit split between the Sixth Circuit (zero tolerance license rule) and Ninth Circuit (allowing de minimis sound recording sampling).

Doctrinal Framework & Legal Mechanics

In Bridgeport Music (2005), the Sixth Circuit established a bright-line zero-tolerance rule for sound recordings: 'Get a license or do not sample.' Conversely, the Ninth Circuit in VMG Salsoul (2016) rejected Bridgeport, holding that the ancient common law maxim de minimis non curat lex applies equally to sound recordings under 17 U.S.C. § 114. This creates significant national uncertainty for neural audio synthesis, token quantization, and micro-audio sampling models.

Inter-Circuit Tension & Jurisdictional Split

Sixth Circuit applies strict zero-tolerance liability even to unrecognizable micro-second guitar samples, while Ninth Circuit permits trivial sampling that an average reasonable audience would not recognize as appropriated.

Explore All Active Circuit Splits
Benchmark Precedents (2)
Leading judicial decisions governing this sub-discipline

Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films

Decided / Filed (2005)
External Benchmark Precedent

VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (Madonna)

Decided / Filed (2016)
External Benchmark Precedent
Engineering & Architecture Compliance Advisory
When training audio diffusion or music generation models on master sound recordings, assume the strict Sixth Circuit rule applies if the service operates nationally. Clear sample licenses or rely on licensed or synthetic audio datasets.
Cross-Entity Knowledge Graph Matrix
Associated Doctrines:
Transformative Use Standard
Codified Statutes:
Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use
Lexicon Definitions:
De Minimis Non Curat Lex