from the just-saying dept
The portions of "Love Break, which have been copied into Vogue and all its various "mixes," remixes," videos, YouTube versions, etc. are numerous but intentionally hidden. The horn and strings in Vogue are intentionally sampled from "Love Break" throughout.The lawsuit notes that, prior to working on Vogue with Madonna, Pettibone had, in fact, worked for Salsoul, doing remixes -- and had remixed that exact song. However, the fact that it took 22 years for Salsoul to even notice certainly raises significant questions about whether this is copyright infringement. One of the issues looked at in determining fair use, of course, is whether or not the work is transformative. You would think, if the original copyright holder didn't recognize its own sample, found in one of the most popular songs of the 90s, that's a pretty good indication that it's "transformative." It certainly isn't a substitute for the original.
Of course, the law around copyright and sampling is a complete mess, thanks to some incredibly questionable rulings, such as the Bridgeport ruling in the Sixth Circuit that claimed "get a license or do not sample." That case did not look at the fair use issues at all, and had various other problems, but these issues rarely come up in court, even in other circuits, because people (on all sides) are afraid of how it will come out. This case, for what it's worth, is not in the 6th Circuit.
There are also questions about the statute of limitations -- and that's another area where copyright law is a mess, but it certainly seems like that would not stop this particular lawsuit, based on a variety of factors.
Either way, the fact that it took so long for the copyright holder to even notice seems like it should be evidence enough to dump this lawsuit in the first place, though that's unlikely to happen.