In a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on September 13, 2024, music legend Eddy Grant triumphed in a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and his campaign for unauthorized use of his 1982 hit song, Electric Avenue. The court found that Trump’s campaign had violated copyright law by using the song in a political video without permission during the 2020 presidential election.
The lawsuit, filed by Grant and his companies, Greenheart Music Limited (UK and Antigua), accused the Trump campaign of unlawfully incorporating the song in a 55-second animated video mocking Joe Biden. The video, posted on Trump’s personal Twitter account, featured a red “Trump Pence 2020” train in contrast to a handcar with Biden’s likeness, all set to Electric Avenue. The video was viewed over 13.7 million times according to court documents obtained by WMV and sparked widespread debate over the unauthorized use of music in political campaigns.
Legal Battle
Initially, Trump’s campaign attempted to dismiss the case, but the court denied this motion in 2021. The case moved forward with both parties filing for partial summary judgment. Trump’s defense argued that the use of the song was protected under the “fair use” doctrine. However, the court disagreed, stating that the campaign’s use of Electric Avenuewas not transformative and did not add any new meaning to the song, but rather used it in its entirety for political purposes.
District Judge John G. Koeltl ruled in favor of Grant, emphasizing that the Trump campaign’s use of the song was primarily for commercial gain, with the potential to harm the market for licensing the song. The ruling highlighted the fact that there is a well-established market for music licensing, and the campaign should have compensated Grant for the use of his music.
Fair Use Defense Fails
The Trump campaign’s fair use defense was a central focus of the case. The campaign argued that the use of the song was transformative, claiming it added a political message contrasting the original theme of social conditions in Electric Avenue. However, the court found that the video did not sufficiently alter or parody the song to qualify as fair use. It simply used Electric Avenue to accompany a campaign message without making any commentary on the song itself. The court also noted that the song was a major component of the video, playing for over two-thirds of its duration.
Judge Koeltl further noted that the campaign’s failure to pay the customary licensing fee for the use of the song constituted a clear commercial benefit for the defendants. While the video was not directly tied to fundraising, the commercial nature of the video was evident in its intent to promote Trump’s political campaign.
Market Harm
The court’s decision also hinged on the potential harm to the market for Electric Avenue. Grant has made significant income from licensing his music, and the widespread unauthorized use of the song in promotional videos—whether political or otherwise—threatened to undermine his ability to license it in the future. The ruling pointed out that the unauthorized use could embolden other would-be infringers, further harming Grant’s market.
