Germany’s highest civil court has ruled that the unlicensed use of a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk’s 1977 recording Metall auf Metall qualifies as a pastiche under German law from June 2021 onwards.
The decision ends the latest stage of the long-running dispute over Moses Pelham’s use of the sequence in Sabrina Setlur’s 1997 hip-hop track Nur mir. It gives sample-based music a more defined route to relying on the pastiche exception in Germany, but it does not mean producers can freely lift recognisable recordings without permission.
Key Takeaways
- Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof found that the sample impaired Kraftwerk’s rights, but fell within Germany’s pastiche exception after that provision was introduced in June 2021.
- The ruling follows an April 2026 Court of Justice of the European Union clarification that pastiche requires recognisable creative engagement with an existing work.
- Moving a sample into another genre is not enough on its own; the new work must remain noticeably different while creating an artistic or creative dialogue with the source.
- Sample clearance remains the lower-risk route for commercial releases, particularly where a producer cannot confidently rely on a narrow, fact-specific exception.
What the court decided
The case concerns a rhythm sequence lasting around two seconds from Metall auf Metall, which Pelham used as part of the beat for Nur mir. The dispute has lasted for almost 30 years and has passed through German and European courts.
According to the legal analysis of the German ruling, the Bundesgerichtshof concluded that the use affected Kraftwerk’s rights, but was covered by the pastiche exception newly introduced into German law in June 2021. As a result, the use was not infringement from that point onwards.
The court applied guidance issued by the CJEU in April 2026. The European court said pastiche is not a broad exemption for any creative reuse of copyright material. Instead, it can apply where a new creation evokes an existing work, is noticeably different from it, and uses protected material in a recognisable artistic or creative dialogue. The CJEU’s press release on the Pelham case provides the court’s underlying explanation of that test.
In this instance, the German court considered that moving an electronic-music element into a hip-hop context created the required dialogue. It also found that listeners familiar with Kraftwerk’s original could recognise the borrowed element.
Pastiche is not a general sampling exemption
The practical detail for producers is the word “recognisable”. This was not a decision saying that any transformed, chopped, pitched or processed sample becomes lawful. The reasoning depends on a specific relationship between the source recording and the new track: the borrowed material must be creatively engaged with, while the resulting work must remain noticeably different.
That makes pastiche a potentially relevant defence in a dispute, rather than a predictable clearance substitute at the point of production. A court would still need to assess the recording, the way the extract has been used, the context of the new work and whether a genuine artistic dialogue exists.
Producers working with samples should also separate creative workflow from release risk. It may be fine to experiment with a recognisable loop while writing, arranging or testing a beat. Once that beat is intended for commercial release, label delivery, sync pitching, DJ distribution or client work, the absence of clearance can become a financial and operational issue.
A rights claim can delay a release, complicate a producer agreement or reduce the value of a track catalogue. If a vocalist, artist or label asks whether a beat is clear, “it might be a pastiche” is unlikely to be a satisfactory business answer. Producers building beats from records can still use techniques covered in our guide to creating beats from scratch with samples, but should keep a clear record of every source used and whether permission has been obtained.
What this means in Germany, the EU and the UK
The ruling directly concerns German law and the German implementation of the pastiche exception. It is therefore not a universal permission for unlicensed sampling across all territories.
The CJEU’s interpretation is important in the EU context, but how any exception applies will depend on the law and facts in the relevant country. The UK has its own pastiche provision within its fair-dealing framework, covering caricature, parody and pastiche. However, post-Brexit, CJEU decisions are not binding on UK courts, even though they may be considered persuasive.
That territorial uncertainty matters for releases that will be distributed globally. A producer based in London may be working with an artist, label or distributor whose release reaches Germany and other EU markets immediately. One territory’s exception should not be treated as a worldwide rights strategy.
The case also concerns sampling from an existing recording, rather than DJ performance permissions or platform licences. DJs preparing mixes, livestreams and recorded sets face separate questions around music use and distribution, covered in Product London’s guide to DJ licensing and copyright.
Clearance remains the practical release route
The Kraftwerk ruling gives courts and rightsholders a clearer framework for assessing pastiche where a sample is recognisable and creatively recontextualised. It may affect how rights owners assess potential claims, especially where the new track plainly comments on, evokes or engages with the source.
It does not remove the cost, uncertainty and delay of defending an infringement claim. For most commercial producers, the safer workflow remains to clear a sample before release, replace it with an original replay or sound-alike created without copying protected audio, or build the part from licensed sample-library material.
The most useful lesson is not that two seconds is safe, or that switching genres makes a sample lawful. The question is whether the particular use meets a demanding pastiche test in the relevant jurisdiction — something best resolved before a release, not after one becomes successful.