Hypothetical Facts: Tectonic Drift
- A beatmaker uses Stem Splitter to extract stems (drums/bass) from “Bricklayer’s Anthem”
- Converts the extracted stems to MIDI data
- Erases the original audio files
- Uses MIDI data to trigger new virtual instruments (synths, drums)
- Creates an original lo-fi track called “Tectonic Drift” using these elements
- Releases “Tectonic Drift” without attribution to the original work
Questions Posed
- Fair use or derivative work? Does using only MIDI data tilt the analysis toward transformation?
- Sound Recording Infringement: Does triggering new instruments via MIDI avoid SR infringement (§114)?
- Performance Rights: Could the rhythmic composition still implicate PA infringement (e.g., if drum grooves are authorial)?
- Chain of Infringement: Is erasing the original audio enough to break the chain of infringement—or is the MIDI itself a copy?
- Enhanced Damages: Does lack of credit create grounds for willful misattribution and enhanced statutory damages (§504)?
Brief Legal Analysis
1. Fair Use vs. Derivative Work
Answer: Likely a derivative work, not fair use. While MIDI conversion adds a layer of abstraction, the beatmaker is still using the fundamental musical elements (rhythm, structure, harmonic progression) from the original. The transformation is primarily technical rather than creative or commentary-based. Courts typically require more substantial creative transformation for fair use protection.
2. Sound Recording Infringement (§114)
Answer: Probably avoids SR infringement. Section 114 protects the specific recorded sounds. By converting to MIDI and using new virtual instruments, the beatmaker creates entirely new sounds rather than reproducing the original recording. However, this doesn’t resolve other copyright issues.
3. Performance Rights/Musical Composition Infringement
Answer: High risk of PA infringement. If the drum grooves, bass patterns, or rhythmic compositions from “Bricklayer’s Anthem” are sufficiently original and creative, they’re protected as musical compositions. MIDI conversion preserves these musical elements, making this a strong infringement claim regardless of new instrumentation.
4. Chain of Infringement – MIDI as Copy
Answer: MIDI is still a copy. Erasing the audio doesn’t break the infringement chain. The MIDI data captures and reproduces the musical composition’s essential elements (timing, pitch relationships, rhythmic patterns). Courts would likely view this as creating an unauthorized reproduction of the underlying musical work.
5. Willful Misattribution and Enhanced Damages
Answer: Potentially yes. Lack of attribution, combined with releasing under a new title, could support findings of willful infringement under §504(c)(2). This could increase statutory damages from $750-$30,000 to $750-$150,000 per work. The deliberate process of extraction, conversion, and re-release without credit suggests intentional copying rather than innocent infringement.