“Putting theft on black culture”: Lizzo claims the origins of sampling laws were racially charged

Lizzo recently ignited debate by suggesting that the origin of laws governing sampling in music was affected by race. In a discussion on the Gillie & Wallo MDWG podcast, she argued that sampling rules were never just about intellectual property or music industry practice but about policing Black creativity. She insisted these laws are “racist”, been “putting theft on black culture” and pointed out how regulators and the legal system have treated the act of sampling as theft, especially when the original work comes from Black artists.

“I just feel like the theft of it all, putting theft on black culture, that's the part that kind of turns me off,” Lizzo said. “Hip-hop's medium was sampling. Sampling is a Black art that bred hip-hop. Hip-hop was born from sampling. And now sampling is synonymous with theft.”

Lizzo’s comments tap into a broader conversation in music and law about who gets to own sound, who profits and whether the legal framework around sampling developed with racial bias in mind. Her remarks have drawn responses from musicians, legal scholars and copyright experts, some of whom see merit in her claim that the law’s history is intertwined with cultural and racial power dynamics. Others caution that while sampling law certainly needs reform, its legal evolution is complex and not driven solely by race.

Lizzo claims music industry’s sampling rules have roots in racial discrimination

Lizzo’s claim rests on the idea that sampling laws were shaped not just by concerns over copyright and financial compensation but by a desire to control Black musical expression. When asked about the law around sampling, she said it had roots in discrimination and that Black artists doing sampling were more harshly penalized, more likely to be accused of theft, whereas White artists often gain praise or seen as innovators.

To be clear, there is evidence that sampling in hip-hop, rap and other Black music has been the subject of legal battles going back decades. Court cases such as Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. (1991) made sampling without clearance risky and effectively created a strong incentive to clear every snippet of sound before using it. Critics of the law say that many early precedents did not meaningfully differentiate between small transformative uses and wholesale copying which put artists of color, who were often working with limited legal resources, at a disadvantage.

Lizzo frames these laws as racially charged because they overlay legal and financial burdens on Black musicians whose art depends heavily on referencing earlier work - sometimes as homage, sometimes as criticism or transformation. She argued that the system treats sampling as theft when done by Black artists but rewards or ignores similar techniques when used by mainstream (often white) pop or rock artists. 

“It was policing Black art," she said. "I think now, of course, they had to regulate some sort of thing, and there's certain things that are fair and unfair. I get it. But when you're suing people off of a vibe, it's like, man, that's the vibe of my song.”

While there is less public scholarship directly documenting every origin law being explicitly racially motivated, there is scholarship pointing out racial disparities in who gets sued or who can afford sample clearance, and how culture critics and the press label sampling in Black music.

For instance, some musicologists and legal experts note that the concept of “fair use” and the requirement of clearance were developed in a legal system historically dominated by white ownership of copyright, which has often made it harder for less-resourced artists to defend themselves. Lizzo’s claim brings renewed attention to those structural inequalities.

Despite there being no clear, single legislative hearing or ruling that states “sampling laws are racially motivated” in so many words, her argument is still supported by a pattern of court decisions, copyright frameworks and industry practices that disproportionately burden Black musicians. Her claim that the origin of sampling law is racially charged is not conclusively proven, but it is grounded in observable inequalities and longstanding industry critique.