David Powell
Updated on: October 11, 2024 9:57 pm GMT
Former President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay damages to British musician Eddy Grant over the unauthorized use of Grant’s iconic song “Electric Avenue” during a campaign video. This ruling follows a lengthy legal battle that has been ongoing for over four years, spotlighting the complexities of copyright law and the rights of artists in the digital age.
Court Ruling on Copyright Violation
In a decisive ruling from a federal judge in Manhattan, Trump was found liable for breaching Grant’s copyright by using a 40-second clip of “Electric Avenue” in a video shortly before the 2020 presidential election. The clip was featured in an animated tweet that generated 13.7 million views before being removed by Twitter, now known as X, at the request of Grant’s legal team.
Judge John G. Koeltl’s ruling confirmed that Grant, who is now 76 years old, is entitled to damages and the reimbursement of legal fees incurred during the litigation. The judge dismissed Trump’s defense, stating that the campaign’s use of the song did not fall under the fair use doctrine.
Background of the Lawsuit
Eddy Grant’s legal confrontation with Trump commenced in August 2020, after a cease-and-desist letter was issued to Trump’s campaign following the initial posting of the video. Grant’s attorneys argued that the use of his song without permission constituted a clear violation of copyright law.
Brian D. Caplan, one of Grant’s attorneys, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “As a staunch believer in artists’ rights, Mr. Grant believes that the decision will help others in their fight against unauthorized use of sound recordings and musical compositions.”
The ruling also emphasized a significant aspect of the ongoing trend where artists—many of whom have claimed their work is used without consent at Trump’s rallies—are asserting their rights. Earlier this month, another judge prohibited the Trump campaign from using the song “Hold On, I’m Coming,” co-written by Isaac Hayes, due to a similar lawsuit from Hayes’ family.
Legal Arguments and Fair Use Defense
A core element of Trump’s defense was the claim of fair use, a legal provision that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. However, Judge Koeltl refuted this argument by evaluating the four primary factors used in fair use determinations.
- Purpose and Character: The judge clarified that Trump’s use of the song was for commercial purposes, which does not qualify for fair use.
- Nature of the Copyrighted Work: “Electric Avenue” is a creative work, making it central to copyright protection.
- Amount Used: The judge noted that the majority of the song was used in the unauthorized clip, further undermining the fair use claim.
- Effect on Market: Although not explicitly detailed in the ruling, this factor generally assesses whether the unauthorized use could harm the market for the original work.
the court found that Trump’s use of the song did not meet the criteria for fair use, leading to the conclusion that he was liable for copyright infringement.
Next Steps in the Litigation
Following the ruling, discussions regarding the amount of damages Trump will owe are ongoing. Grant’s legal team is currently deliberating whether to settle the damages privately or to take the matter to trial for a jury to decide. Initially, Grant’s lawsuit sought $300,000 in damages, but this amount could rise depending on legal fees accrued throughout the four-year litigation process.
In a notable twist, both Grant and Trump were compelled to provide depositions during the legal proceedings. Trump’s former social media director, Dan Scavino, also testified and was involved in uploading the controversial video.
Grant’s victory is being viewed as a significant precedent for artists battling unauthorized use of their work, reiterating that politicians are subject to copyright laws just like any other individual or organization.
This case illustrates the evolving dynamics of copyright enforcement in an era where social media can amplify potential infringements at an unprecedented scale. As the battle unfolds, it may serve as a crucial point of reference for future copyright disputes involving prominent public figures.
In conclusion, Trump’s lawyers haven’t shared any thoughts about the Electric Avenue case yet. But this decision could have big effects on the music world and other areas, changing how people use copyrighted music in politics.
