A chord progression by itself is not protected by copyright, so you can reuse any standard sequence — a 12-bar blues, a I–V–vi–IV pop loop, a ii–V–I jazz turnaround — without permission and without legal risk. Copyright law and the U.S. Copyright Office both treat chord progressions as common musical building blocks that no one can own. The catch, and it matters, is that a shared progression can become evidence in an infringement case when the melody, rhythm, and arrangement layered on top also line up with someone else’s song.1U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices – Chapter 800
Why Chord Progressions Sit Outside Copyright
Copyright protects the specific expression of a musical idea, not the idea itself. The statute explicitly excludes ideas, concepts, systems, and methods from protection.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 102 – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General A chord progression is the harmonic idea underneath a song, not the song itself.
The Copyright Office says this directly. Its Compendium lists “chord symbols based on standard chord progressions” alongside scales and arpeggios as examples of common property musical material that cannot support a copyright registration. Adding chords to a melody only counts as copyrightable authorship when those chords go beyond “standard chords in common sequences such as C, F, G, C.”1U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices – Chapter 800
There’s a practical reason for this. The ear only finds a limited number of chord combinations pleasing, so musicians reuse them constantly. The pool of useful progressions is shallow, and letting one songwriter claim ownership over a common sequence would freeze everyone else out of an entire genre.3Music Copyright Infringement Resource. Chord Two related doctrines back this up: the idea-expression dichotomy, which keeps harmonic frameworks on the “idea” side of the line, and scènes à faire, which holds that genre-standard elements aren’t protectable.
What Courts Have Actually Ruled
The case law lines up with the Copyright Office position, with one loud outlier that later courts have distanced themselves from.
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (2020)
The estate of Spirit guitarist Randy Wolfe sued Led Zeppelin, arguing that “Stairway to Heaven” copied a descending chromatic bass line from Spirit’s “Taurus.” The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled for Led Zeppelin. Common musical elements — “descending chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes” — are unprotectable “building blocks” that “belong in the public domain and cannot be exclusively appropriated by any particular author.” Handing exclusive rights to the first person who used a common element, the court said, “would frustrate the purpose of the copyright law and curtail the creation of new works.”4Justia Law. Skidmore v. Zeppelin, No. 16-56057 (9th Cir. 2020)
Gray v. Hudson (2022)
Marcus Gray sued Katy Perry, claiming her “Dark Horse” copied a repeating ostinato from his “Joyful Noise.” A jury awarded $2.8 million. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the musical elements at issue “consist entirely of commonplace musical elements” and that the similarities “do not arise out of an original combination of these elements.”5Justia Law. Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. 2022) Even a short repeating figure combining pitch and rhythm was deemed too ordinary to protect.
Swirsky v. Carey (2004)
This is the case that speaks most directly to chord progressions. The Ninth Circuit held that “although chord progressions may not be individually protected, if in combination with rhythm and pitch sequence” they show substantial similarity, infringement can be found.6Harvard Law School. Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) A shared progression alone won’t sustain a claim. A shared progression stacked with a similar melody and rhythm will.
Williams v. Gaye (2018)
The “Blurred Lines” verdict cut the other way. A jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams infringed Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” awarding roughly $5.3 million in damages, later adjusted by the district court to include a 50% running royalty on future revenues.7Justia Law. Williams v. Gaye, No. 15-56880 (9th Cir. 2018) The songs shared more of a groove and feel than any specific melodic content, and the outcome alarmed songwriters. The Ninth Circuit later stepped back from the broader implications in Skidmore, stressing that “commonplace elements firmly rooted in a genre’s tradition” cannot be owned.4Justia Law. Skidmore v. Zeppelin, No. 16-56057 (9th Cir. 2020)
How a Court Actually Compares Two Songs
Courts don’t just play the two tracks and vote on vibes. In the Ninth Circuit, which handles most music cases, infringement runs through a two-part test. The extrinsic test is an objective, element-by-element comparison of the protectable features in each work. The intrinsic test is a subjective assessment of whether an ordinary listener would find the works substantially similar in total concept and feel.8U.S. Courts for the Ninth Circuit. 17.19 Substantial Similarity – Extrinsic Test; Intrinsic Test
Most claims live or die on the extrinsic test. Courts filter out common elements — scales, arpeggios, standard chord progressions, genre conventions — and look at what’s left. If the only similarities are unprotectable building blocks, the case fails no matter how alike the songs feel to a casual listener. Protection for original expression “does not extend to ideas, concepts, common or trite musical elements, or commonplace elements firmly rooted in genre’s tradition.”8U.S. Courts for the Ninth Circuit. 17.19 Substantial Similarity – Extrinsic Test; Intrinsic Test
When a Shared Progression Becomes a Problem
Two songs can share an identical harmonic framework and pass the extrinsic test cleanly, so long as their melodies, rhythms, and arrangements diverge. The line moves when the progression comes wrapped in other similarities. Matching melodic contour, matching rhythmic phrasing, matching structural choices — pile enough of that on top of a shared progression and you have the “combination” the Swirsky court was talking about.
Put another way: the progression is the floor plan, and everyone builds on the same few floor plans. Copyright cares about the house you put on top. If your house looks like someone else’s from the street, the fact that the foundation was public doesn’t save you.
Playing a Progression Yourself vs. Sampling
One boundary worth naming. If you play a common chord progression yourself in your own arrangement, you need no license from anyone. The progression isn’t protected, and you aren’t touching anyone else’s recording.
Sampling is different. Music rights split into two separate copyrights: the composition (melody, lyrics, and harmonic structure) and the master recording (the specific recorded performance). Lifting audio directly from an existing recording implicates both, and you may need clearance regardless of what the sampled passage contains, because the master recording is its own protected work. Interpolation — re-recording elements yourself — typically only involves the composition copyright, and if what you’re re-recording is just a common progression, no license is needed at all.
A Working Rule for Songwriters
Start with whatever progression inspires you. The 12-bar blues, the I–V–vi–IV loop, the ii–V–I turnaround, and every other standard sequence belong to everyone, and the Copyright Office and the courts have said so repeatedly.1U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices – Chapter 800 Then write a melody, rhythm, and arrangement that are genuinely yours.
A useful gut check: strip the chords away and listen to what you have left. If you can still hear the other person’s song in your melody, phrasing, and rhythmic feel, you’ve gone too far. If what remains sounds distinctly like your own work, the shared progression underneath is not going to sink you.