NEW YORK — In a recent legal decision, former President Donald Trump was found to have violated copyrights by using the song “Electric Avenue” by Eddy Grant in a 2020 campaign video without the artist’s permission. The ruling, delivered by Federal Judge John G. Koeltl, dismissed Trump’s claim that his use of the song fell under the fair use provisions, marking a significant setback for Trump amid ongoing copyright disputes with various artists.
Eddy Grant initiated legal action against Trump after the latter utilized the 1982 hit to underscore a social media campaign video that criticized Joe Biden. The use of the song without consent left Grant dismayed, especially as inquiries regarding the authorization of the song’s use began to surface.
Trump’s legal team defended the video as a transformative use of the song, arguing it was repurposed to convey a political message in a campaign context. However, Judge Koeltl firmly rejected this argument, stating the video showed minimal to no transformativeness and described it effectively as a complete replication used to accompany a political advertisement.
The controversy highlights a repeated issue for Trump, who has faced similar objections from multiple artists including Beyoncé, Celine Dion, Foo Fighters, ABBA, and Sinead O’Connor’s estate. Notably, the White Stripes and Isaac Hayes’ estate have also pursued legal actions against Trump for unauthorized use of music.
Grant’s “Electric Avenue,” known for its catchy reggae vibe, discusses the social strife of the 1981 Brixton riot in London. The song’s significant cultural background contrasts sharply with its use in a campaign video, an aspect Eddy Grant likely considered when deciding to file the lawsuit, which he did owing to Trump’s “wrongful and willful” use of the track.
In more detail, the disputed video depicted a ‘Trump’ train gaining advantage over a handcar labeled ‘Biden.’ It included audio clips from Biden’s speeches played alongside Grant’s music. Trump’s team argued that their adaptation was a critical portrayal of Biden, thereby transforming the original expressive purpose of “Electric Avenue.” However, in his 2021 conversations hinting at his leanings on the case, Judge Koeltl remarked that Trump’s interpretation of fair use was misconstrued.
By Friday, Judge Koeltl reiterated his stance, underscoring that the campaign video did not alter any fundamental elements of the song like lyrics or instrumentals, and did not justify its extensive borrowing. He noted that fair use would have been more applicable if the video critiqued Grant or the song itself, rather than targeting a political opponent.
The ruling represents a clear win for copyright enforcement in the arts community, though it leaves the determination of damages owed by Trump to Grant for future court proceedings. As debates over the boundaries of fair use continue, this case restates the obligation of political figures and their campaigns to procure proper licenses prior to using copyrighted works.
While a spokesperson and an attorney for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comments, and Grant’s legal representatives have also been unavailable for feedback, the decision underscores a developing narrative of copyright controversies involving prominent political figures. Legal analysts await the detailing of damages, which will likely add a financial chapter to the broader discussion around copyright and electoral politics. Further developments are anticipated as both parties prepare for the next steps in this high-profile copyright infringement case.