Copyright Protection of MIDI Files

Posted on by

While there isn’t a single “MIDI case” that stands out the way White-Smith v. Apollo did for piano rolls, the U.S. copyright doctrine has evolved through software and digital music cases to treat MIDI files as protectable embodiments of musical works. Courts and commentators consistently apply 17 U.S.C. §102 (original works fixed in a tangible medium) to MIDI, and case law around software object code and digital sampling provides the backbone for this analysis.

⚖️ Case Law & Doctrinal Support

  • White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908)
    • Piano rolls were held not to be “copies” because they weren’t human-readable.
    • Congress responded with the 1909 Act, creating compulsory mechanical licenses.
    • This is the historical anchor for comparing MIDI and AI weights1.
  • Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (3d Cir. 1983)
    • Landmark case holding that object code (binary software) is copyrightable even if not human-readable.
    • This precedent is crucial: it shifted the law from “human readability” to “machine intelligibility.” MIDI, like object code, is machine-readable and thus protectable.
  • Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (6th Cir. 2005)
    • Established that digital sampling of even small portions of sound recordings can infringe.
    • Reinforces that digital encodings of musical works (whether audio or instructions) are legally significant2.
  • Wikilegal Analysis (Wikimedia Foundation)
    • Notes that MIDI files contain performance instructions (pitch, volume, instrument type) and qualify as “fixed” works under §102.
    • MIDI is treated as a reproduction of the musical composition, even though it isn’t a sound recording3.

📊 Comparison Table

TechnologyCourt TreatmentKey Case(s)
Piano Rolls (1908)Not “copies”White-Smith v. Apollo
Object Code (1983)CopyrightableApple v. Franklin
MIDI Files (1980s–)Protectable as musical work embodimentApplied via §102 + software precedents
Digital SamplingInfringing useBridgeport Music v. Dimension Films

🔑 Takeaway

MIDI files are protected because courts now recognize machine-readable formats as “copies.” The shift came with Apple v. Franklin and later reinforced by sampling cases like Bridgeport. While no famous “MIDI case” exists, the doctrinal path is clear: unlike piano rolls, MIDI is intelligible, reproducible, and fixed — so it falls under copyright.

Sources: 231

References (3)

1Cases | Music Copyright Infringement Resource. https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/cases-2/

2Music Copyright Showdowns: The Landmark Cases Changing the Industry. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/resources/magazine/2025-nov-dec/music-copyright-showdowns-landmark-cases-changing-industry/

3Wikilegal/MIDI Files – Meta-Wiki. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/MIDI_Files