Taking inspiration from others is a huge part of music, film, TV, and pretty much all creative work. Creatives are often encouraged to “steal like an artist”, borrowing ideas, styles, and influences rather than copying outright. Sometimes that inspiration crosses a line, and when it does, copyright law can come into play. That’s exactly what happened in a recent case before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), where a dispute over music sampling ended up clarifying the scope of the ‘pastiche’ exception.

If you create content, whether that’s music, video, advertising, or even AI generated work, this ruling will likely be important to consider in your creative process. The ruling makes adds clarity as to when you can safely reference existing works, and when you’re heading into risky territory. This article looks at:

1. The CJEU’s ruling on the pastiche exception
2. How that decision is likely to be treated in the UK
3. Three practical things you should think about if you’re creating new work

The case: CG and another v Pelham GmbH and others (Case C 590/23)

The case at hand forms part of a long‑running legal dispute involving the German electronic music group Kraftwerk and Pelham GmbH. The issue was the use of a two-second-long sample taken from one of Kraftwerk’s recordings and incorporated into a new track without their permission. While the sample was only a few seconds long, it was directly lifted from the original recording and reused in a loop.

The key question for the Court wasn’t simply whether the sample was copied, that much was accepted, but whether the use could be justified under the copyright exceptions of pastiche. Under EU law, copyright protection is balanced against certain freedoms, including the ability to reference existing works in a creative way.

The CJEU held that the pastiche exception can apply where a new work is reminiscent of an earlier one, but only where it engages in a genuine creative dialogue with the original and shows perceptible differences. In other words, the new work must clearly do something of its own. Simply taking a recognisable extract and reusing it without transformation won’t qualify. The Court was explicit that pastiche is not a general licence for sampling.

The Court’s focus on “creative dialogue” is the key take away here. It suggests that pastiche is about commentary, stylistic reference, or playful imitation. Your work needs to say something new, rather than relying on the original to carry the impact. Equally important is the idea of “perceptible differences”. If the average listener or viewer can clearly identify the copied material and that recognition is central to the work, the exception is unlikely to apply.

This makes recognisability a double‑edged sword. While referencing a well‑known work can be artistically effective, it also increases legal risk if that reference isn’t accompanied by meaningful transformation.

The impact on the UK

Copyright law in the UK is set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 30A includes an exception for ‘caricature, parody or pastiche’, which mirrors the provision considered by the CJEU.

UK courts have already started to explore what ‘pastiche’ really means. In Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd [2022] EWHC 1379, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court said that a pastiche must be noticeably different from the original work, while still imitating its style.

The CJEU’s decision backs this up. It confirms that pastiche shouldn’t be interpreted too broadly and only applies where there’s creative engagement, rather than straightforward copying. While EU court decisions are no longer binding in the UK, you can expect this judgment to be treated as persuasive and cited in future UK copyright disputes involving pastiche.

Three practical things to think about

1. Sampling and recognisability

If you’re sampling music in your own work, ask yourself two questions: how recognisable is the sample, and what are you actually doing with it? Are you transforming it, or are you relying on the listener spotting the original? If it’s the latter, the pastiche exception probably won’t save you. As a rule of thumb, if you can clearly hear the original recording as the anchor of your song, you should probably be thinking about getting a licence.

2. Film, TV and advertising

Pastiche isn’t just about music. It comes up all the time in film, TV, and advertising, where nods to existing works can be powerful. The key point is that your work still needs to stand on its own. Paying homage or making a clear stylistic reference can be fine. Recreating distinctive scenes, dialogue, visuals, or characters too closely isn’t. When in doubt, change more than you think you need to or try to obtain legal advice.

3. AI generated content

AI is becoming a standard part of the creative toolkit, but it doesn’t eliminate copyright risk. If you prompt an AI to create something “in the style of” a particular artist, you still need to look closely at what it produces. If the output looks or sounds like an effective copy of an existing work, you could still be infringing copyright. You can’t assume AI gives you a free pass, the focus will always be on the final output and how close it is to protected material.

Copyright: How we can support you

Books like Steal Like an Artist are right about one thing, creative work doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Influence is inevitable. However, the courts are making it clear that stealing like an artist only works when you’re actually creating something new.

Taking a moment to sense‑check how much you’re borrowing, how visible that borrowing is, and whether your own contribution genuinely stands apart can save a lot of time and cost later.

Our Intellectual Property team can help you assess risk early, advise on licences where needed, and support you in any disputes whether you’re enforcing your rights or responding to a claim.