Singer Eddy Grant is the latest artist to legally battle with former President Donald Trump regarding the unauthorized use of a song for his campaign. Grant is contesting that Trump’s campaign needs to be stopped from using his iconic 1983 hit, “Electric Avenue.”
What happened
The controversy began when Trump featured Grant’s song in an animated campaign video posted on Twitter in 2020. The clip — which mocked Trump’s then-opponent Joe Biden — depicted a Trump-branded freight train running over Biden, who was portrayed as riding a slow-moving handcar. Grant’s legal team argues that the use of his song in this context was inappropriate and damaging.
Initially, Grant filed a lawsuit seeking $100 million in damages, claiming that Trump’s use of his song contributed to “derogatory political rhetoric” that caused him significant emotional distress. However, the singer has since reduced his demand to $300,000.
Legal proceedings and arguments
The legal proceedings have seen both sides present their cases before New York federal judge John G. Koeltl, reported Deadline. During a recent 90-minute hearing, the judge explored the merits of the case and the potential for a jury trial. Trump’s legal team contends that Grant lacked the proper copyright to sue at the time of the initial filing, as he only registered “Electric Avenue” with the U.S. Copyright Office recently.
On the other hand, Grant’s lawyers argue that he owns the copyright for a 2002 greatest-hits album that includes the song, asserting that he did not need to register the song again. They emphasized that the defendants could have chosen any other song or none at all to convey their political message, suggesting that the choice to use “Electric Avenue” was deliberate and inappropriate.
Fair use defense
Trump’s legal representatives are leaning on the fair use doctrine, which allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission under specific circumstances. They argue that the inclusion of “Electric Avenue” in the campaign video qualifies as transformative political commentary protected by the First Amendment.
“I don’t see the cases out there that say you can’t do this,” Judge Koeltl replied, expressing skepticism about the defense’s claims. This comment indicates that the judge is open to considering the nuances of copyright law as it pertains to political expression.
Broader context of artist rights
This case is not an isolated incident. Many artists have taken legal action against Trump for the unauthorized use of their music during his campaigns. Recently, a federal judge in Atlanta ruled against the use of Isaac Hayes’ classic R&B song, “Hold On, I’m Coming,” in Trump’s 2024 campaign playlist. Newsweek listed other notable artists who have expressed their discontent, including Beyoncé, Earth Wind & Fire, the O’Jays, Pharrell Williams and Rihanna as well as Black folks’ white favorites Adele, Celine Dion and the estate of Sinead O’Connor.
These legal battles underscore a growing trend where artists are increasingly protective of their work, particularly when it is used in ways that contradict their values or public persona. The intersection of music and politics continues to be a contentious arena, with artists asserting their rights against political figures who may not fully understand the implications of their actions.
