Former President Donald Trump has settled a lawsuit over the unauthorized usage of Eddy Grant's song "Electric Avenue" in a 2020 campaign video. This legal conclusion came after a federal judge's recent ruling that the use of the song was copyright infringement. The terms of the agreement, however, remain undisclosed.
According to the Daily Caller, in a significant ruling, a copyright dispute involving Donald Trump and Eddy Grant’s music concluded with a settlement after the court deemed the usage improper.
The lawsuit originated when Donald Trump's campaign team utilized the 1982 hit "Electric Avenue" by Eddy Grant in a political video without securing permission. This video, broadcast during the 2020 election cycle, featured animation depicting a red train labeled with Trump’s name overtaking a slower handcar driven by then-opponent Joe Biden, with parts of Biden's speech audio overlaid.
Grant's attorneys requested the removal of the video which the Trump campaign did not adhere to. This lack of compliance prompted legal actions based on the accusations that Trump's use of the song constituted an unauthorized copyright violation. The unfolding legal battle centered around these claims, spotlighting the use of copyrighted songs in political campaigns.
The defense for Trump argued that the campaign video transformed the song into a critique of Biden, suggesting that this modification constituted a fair use under copyright laws. However, this interpretation was not upheld in court.
In his September decision, the judge opposed the fair use defense put forward by Trump's legal team, stating that the fair use argument could only stand if the critique were directed at the artist, Eddy Grant, rather than Joe Biden. This precise delineation by the judge further clarified the limitations of the fair use doctrine in the context of political commentary through copyrighted music.
The judge noted the campaign video’s lack of transformative elements, characterizing the attempt as “wholesale copying for a campaign ad.” These comments were crystallized in his decision which underscored the limited scope of transformation that the video represented.
Eddy Grant, when asked about the use of his song, expressed “dismay.” His reaction, coupled with legal outcomes, highlights ongoing tensions between artists and political entities over copyright use without explicit consent.
This issue is not isolated; several other artists, including Beyoncé, Celine Dion, and representatives for Sinead O'Connor and Isaac Hayes, have also voiced opposition to Trump's use of their music in ongoing and past campaigns.
The judge in this case was quoted criticizing the use of the song in the animation, affirming that the work did not aim to critique or parody the song itself but merely used it as a backing track for political messaging, which does not qualify as fair use.
This lawsuit and its settlement may set a significant precedent for how campaign teams handle copyrighted material moving forward. The interaction between copyright law and political expression remains a key point of contention, likely leading to more cautious approaches in future political campaigns regarding the use of copyrighted music.
Moreover, the undisclosed settlement between Trump and Grant’s representatives marks the end of this particular legal skirmish but underscores a wider legal and cultural discussion about intellectual property rights and political expression.
The settlement of this copyright infringement case closes a chapter on a high-profile dispute involving a former president and a well-known musician. The judgment and subsequent agreement emphasize the importance of respecting artists' copyrights in political campaigns.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities and potential repercussions of using copyrighted materials without authorization in the public and political spheres.