Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled against Kraftwerk in its long-running dispute with producer Moses Pelham over a two-second extract from the group’s 1977 track ‘Metall auf Metall’. The court found that Pelham’s use of the fragment in Sabrina Setlur’s 1997 single ‘Nur mir’ could qualify as a permitted pastiche.
The decision concerns a very specific use and legal exception, rather than creating a general right to sample without permission. It is nevertheless important reading for European producers: the case addresses whether a short, recognisable recording can be reused creatively without a licence under the pastiche provision introduced into German law in 2021.
Key Takeaways
- The dispute concerns a two-second rhythmic passage from Kraftwerk’s ‘Metall auf Metall’, used and looped in ‘Nur mir’.
- Germany’s Federal Court of Justice ruled that Pelham’s use was permissible as pastiche, following guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
- Pastiche is not a blanket sampling exemption: the relevant test concerns a work’s creative relationship with, and recognisable difference from, the original.
- The ruling does not erase the practical value of clearing samples, especially where a release is commercial, internationally distributed or does not clearly fall within a copyright exception.
The case behind the ruling
Pelham used a short passage from Kraftwerk’s ‘Metall auf Metall’ in the production of Setlur’s ‘Nur mir’, slowing the audio slightly and looping it across the track. Kraftwerk brought the dispute in 1999, beginning a sequence of hearings and appeals through German and European courts.
The legal issue was never simply whether the sample was two seconds long. It was whether the use of part of an existing sound recording infringed Kraftwerk’s rights, and, following changes in German copyright law, whether it could be protected as pastiche.
Earlier this year, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that pastiche can cover works which evoke an existing work while remaining noticeably different and engaging with it in a recognisable artistic or creative dialogue. Sampling can form part of that process, but the exception is not a catch-all permission to reuse copyrighted recordings. The court’s published materials are available in its press release on the Kraftwerk sample dispute.
Applying that approach, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice found that transferring Kraftwerk’s electronic rhythmic element into a hip-hop context amounted to creative reinterpretation. Resident Advisor’s report on the earlier European ruling provides useful context on the case’s route through both court systems.
Why the two-second detail matters to producers
Very short samples have long been a source of uncertainty in production. A fragment may be tiny in duration but still carry a distinctive drum hit, synth texture, vocal phrase or rhythmic identity. In a loop-based production, its repetition can also make it more central to the finished record than the waveform length suggests.
This ruling rejects the idea that duration alone decides the issue. But it does not establish the opposite proposition either: that a producer can take any two-second loop, change the tempo and call it pastiche.
The reported reasoning turns on the relationship between the new work and the source material. Pelham’s use was found to have placed the electronic element into a different genre as part of a creative reinterpretation. Whether another sample use meets that threshold will depend on its own context and on the law that applies to the release.
That distinction is especially relevant for beatmakers working from old records, library CDs, ripped stems or downloaded sample packs of uncertain origin. An audio file being short, processed or buried in a mix does not itself make the use safe. Conversely, the case confirms that sampling is capable of being part of an artistic dialogue under the relevant European framework.
Sample clearance remains the lower-risk route
For producers preparing a label release, a sync pitch, a catalogue sale or a track intended for broad DSP distribution, sample clearance remains the more predictable option where copyrighted audio is recognisable and no clear exception applies. Clearance may involve rights in both the underlying composition and the master recording, which can be controlled by different parties.
The Kraftwerk decision is also rooted in European and German copyright rules. Producers should not assume that the pastiche analysis transfers directly to the UK, the US or every territory in which their music may be heard. Different jurisdictions have different exceptions, court tests and remedies.
There is an additional historical wrinkle in this case. Kraftwerk’s representatives said that Pelham remains liable for damages awarded in earlier German proceedings, and that the latest ruling does not overturn that order. That is a useful reminder that a long-running dispute can produce different outcomes for different periods of use when the governing law changes.
What to watch next
The most useful takeaway is not to treat this as a new licence-free sampling rule. Producers using third-party recordings should keep clear notes on every sample’s source, identify whether they have a valid licence, and seek specialist legal advice before relying on an exception for a commercial release.
For sample-based artists, the ruling does offer firmer recognition that creatively transformative reuse can be legally meaningful under the pastiche exception. The difficult part remains proving that a particular use fits it. EDM.com’s report on the German court decision includes the reported details of the Federal Court of Justice’s latest finding.