Sample clearance basics: two owners, one process, and why "under two seconds" is a myth

You found four bars on an old record and built a track around them. Before that track goes anywhere that pays, someone has to say yes, and usually it is two someones. This guide covers the basics: what you are clearing, who you ask, how the money is usually structured, and the myths that get artists into trouble.

It is a practical guide, not legal advice. Copyright is national, most of the law below is American, with one EU ruling for contrast, and everything is as we read it on 24 Oct 2026. If you are pulling parts out of finished records with a stem splitter, our earlier piece, stem separation doesn't make samples free, covers that angle; this one is the general walkthrough.

Two copyrights in every sample

A record contains two works. The US Copyright Office's Circular 56A says sound recordings and musical compositions "are considered two separate works for copyright purposes", and that a copyright in the recording is not a substitute for the copyright in the song underneath it.

• The master is the recording itself: the actual sounds captured. The Office names its authors as the performers and the producers who captured or edited those sounds. In practice the owner is often a record label, or the artist if they self-released.
• The composition (publishing) is the melody and lyrics. Its authors are the people who wrote the music and words, and the owner is usually the songwriter or their music publisher.

Sample a piece of a record and you have copied both: the sounds, and whatever part of the song those sounds carry. So you normally need two licences, a master use licence from the recording owner and a composition licence from the publisher or publishers.

Replaying is not a loophole for both

US law limits the recording owner's rights to the "actual sounds fixed in the recording". Under 17 U.S.C. § 114(b), those rights do not extend to an "independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate" the original. That is why producers replay a part, often called an interpolation: if you record it yourself from scratch, you have not copied the master.

You have still copied the song. Re-recording the melody or a lyric needs the composition owner's permission, so an interpolation trades two licences for one, not for none.

There is no fixed-price licence for samples

Covers in the US come with a compulsory licence at a set rate. Sampling does not. 17 U.S.C. § 115 says a person may not get a compulsory licence to make records that duplicate a sound recording fixed by someone else unless that recording owner authorised it, and a compulsory licence only allows an arrangement that does not "change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work". A sample chopped into a new track usually fails both tests. Each owner can therefore name a price, set conditions or refuse.

The process, step by step

1. Identify exactly what you used. Note the original artist, track title, release and the timestamps you took. Write down whether you used the recording, replayed it, or both.
2. Find the master owner. Start with the label and catalogue details on the original release. Labels get bought and catalogues move, so treat the sleeve as a starting point, not an answer.
3. Find every composition owner. A song often has several writers and several publishers, and you need all of them to agree to their shares. Your PRO's public repertory search and the Copyright Office's public records portal can help you trace owners.
4. Send a clear request. Include a rough mix, the timestamps of the original and of your track, how you used it (looped, chopped, pitched, replayed), how you plan to release it, and your expected scale. Owners answer faster when they can hear it.
5. Negotiate terms and get them in writing. A licence should name the work, the territory, the term, the formats, the fee and any share of income, and the credit.
6. Clear before you release. Once a track is public, you are asking for permission after the fact, and you have lost the option of dropping the sample.
7. Register correctly afterwards. If the composition owners take a share of your song, that split goes into your PRO registration and your split sheet.

What it costs

There is no public rate card, for the reason above: each licence is a private deal. Two shapes are common. One is an upfront fee paid before release. The other is a share of income: a cut of the new master's earnings for the recording owner, and a share of the new composition for the publishers. Many deals combine both. How big either piece is depends on how recognisable the sample is, how central it is to your track, how famous the original is and how much you are likely to earn. We did not find a reliable public survey of typical fees, so we are not quoting one.

Pre-cleared catalogues sit at the other end. According to Record of the Day, Tracklib's standard model has "no upfront fee and predetermined royalty rates" and is aimed at self-releasing and smaller artists. In February 2025 it added a bespoke option that lets clients pay an upfront fee for a lower royalty rate, which is closer to conventional clearance. Read the current terms of any service on the day you license.

De minimis and the other myths

"Under two seconds (or one bar, or eight seconds) is fine." No US statute sets a safe length. Section 114 says nothing about duration, and the courts disagree with each other.

• In Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, the Sixth Circuit found that a two-second, pitched-down, looped guitar sample infringed the recording, and told producers: "Get a license or do not sample."
• In VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016), the Ninth Circuit looked at a 0.23-second horn hit allegedly copied into Madonna's "Vogue". It held that the de minimis exception does apply to sound recordings, found that a general audience would not recognise the snippet, and openly created a split with Bridgeport.

So even inside the US, the answer depends on where you get sued, and the Ninth Circuit's test turns on whether listeners would recognise the copying, not on a stopwatch.

"Europe is more relaxed." Not really. In Pelham (29 Jul 2019), about a short rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's "Metall auf Metall", the Court of Justice of the EU held that a recording's producer can stop a sample "even if very short". The only carve-out is a sample included "in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear", according to the case summary.

"It's fair use because I transformed it." Fair use is a defence you argue in court, not a permission you give yourself. Section 107 weighs four factors, including the purpose of the use, whether it is commercial, how much you took and how important that part is, and the effect on the market for the original. A commercial release built on a recognisable hook is a hard case to win.

"I credited the original artist." A credit is not a licence. It is often one of the terms you agree to, but it gives you no rights by itself.

"I'm not making money, so it doesn't matter." The two-licence rule applies to copying, not to profit. Being non-commercial is one fair use factor among four.

What we think

Clearance is a fair deal for the people being sampled. The session player and the songwriter on that old record are artists too, and the licence is how they get paid when their work becomes the hook of yours. Our advice is to decide early. If a sample is the whole idea of the track, start clearance while the track is still a demo, and have a replayed or original version ready in case the answer is no or the price is too high.

We also think the "seconds" myth survives because it is convenient, not because it is true. The VMG Salsoul ruling did not say short samples are safe. It said a tiny, unrecognisable snippet was not infringement, and the EU test works the same way. If you chose a sample because people will recognise it, you should assume you need to clear it.

Pre-cleared catalogues and fixed-rate royalty models are the most artist-friendly development in this area. They don't pay as much as a negotiated deal with a famous original, but they make clearance something an independent artist can actually finish. For anything outside those catalogues, budget the time, keep the paperwork, and get both licences.