Emily Garbutt
Updated on: October 12, 2024 2:35 am GMT
A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump is liable for damages to British musician Eddy Grant after using Grant’s song “Electric Avenue” without permission in a campaign video. The judge’s decision marks a significant moment in intellectual property rights, emphasizing that even high-profile politicians must adhere to copyright laws.
Trump’s Unauthorized Use of ‘Electric Avenue’
The legal battle centers on a 40-second animated video that depicted then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. Posted on Trump’s personal Twitter account on August 12, 2020, the video featured a clip of “Electric Avenue,” which plays prominently as Biden is portrayed in a slow-moving push cart while a high-speed “Trump-Pence” train zooms past him. The video garnered over 13.7 million views but remained live for only a few weeks, as Grant’s lawyers sent a cease and desist letter on August 18, 2020. However, the video was removed only after Grant filed a lawsuit on September 1, 2020.
Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan ruled that Trump illegally breached Grant’s copyright, leading to an obligation to pay damages and cover Grant’s legal fees. The judge also dismissed Trump’s defense, which claimed the video was protected under the fair use doctrine, a legal principle that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission under certain circumstances.
Understanding Fair Use
The fair use doctrine evaluates four main factors to determine whether a use qualifies for fair use:
- Purpose and Character: The use must not be for commercial purposes, and in Trump’s case, the video was created for political advertising.
- Nature of the Work: The court defined “Electric Avenue” as a creative work, which is afforded stronger protection under copyright law.
- Amount Used: The majority of the song was used within the animation, undermining the fair use claim.
- Effect on Market: The judge ruled the video’s use could negatively impact Grant’s ability to license his work, as it served a commercial purpose without authorization.
In the judge’s 30-page decision, he found no evidence supporting Trump’s claim that Grant’s copyright on “Electric Avenue” was invalid. Instead, the judge emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of artists and the commercial viability of their work.
Implications for Artists’ Rights
Eddy Grant expressed satisfaction with the ruling. His legal team believes this decision sets a precedent that demonstrates the necessity of respecting copyright laws, especially within the political arena. Brian Caplan, one of Grant’s attorneys, stated, “This is a complete victory for Plaintiffs as to liability.” He emphasized the ruling would provide artists and copyright holders with more power in their fight against unauthorized usage of their creations.
Grant initially sought about $300,000 in damages, but the final amount remains pending. It will depend on whether both parties can agree on a figure or if a jury trial is necessary to determine the damages.
Other Cases Against Trump’s Campaign
This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. Several artists have recently taken legal action against the Trump campaign for similar reasons:
- The White Stripes: They recently filed a lawsuit for the unauthorized use of “Seven Nation Army” in a different campaign video.
- Isaac Hayes’ Estate: They are pursuing $3 million over the alleged use of “Hold On, I’m Coming” in various Trump campaign rallies.
- Beyoncé: She sent a cease-and-desist after Trump used her song “Freedom” without permission.
These incidents suggest a growing trend among artists advocating for their rights, particularly as political campaigns increasingly incorporate music into their messaging.
The State of Copyright Enforcement
This ruling underscores the importance of copyright enforcement as it relates to music. The judge explicitly noted that if artists do not defend their work, it might embolden future infringements, further complicating the licensing landscape.
In a practical sense, the outcome of this case may lead to artists feeling more empowered to take action when their creative works are used without consent. With the explosive nature of social media and online content, artists find themselves at a critical juncture where their rights can easily be overlooked.
The ruling not only reinforces existing copyright laws but also serves as a reminder that artists’ rights must be respected, regardless of the nature or prominence of the infringer. As more artists step forward to defend their works, the landscape of music usage in political campaigns may face significant changes moving forward.
Grant’s case shows that using music without permission can lead to big legal problems. This helps protect the rights of artists in our growing digital world.
