Donald Trump is a man with serious legal issues. He’s in the middle of a 2020 election obstruction case, he’s been federally charged with illegally hoarding classified documents, and he’s still facing a racketeering case in Georgia. Now he’s facing the music.
and
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Atlanta sided with Isaac Hayes’s estate and issued a temporary order banning Trump from playing the Sam & Dave soul classic “Hold On, I’m Coming,” co-written by Hayes. Meanwhile, a Manhattan judge on Friday heard oral arguments in Guyanese-British musician Eddy Grant’s lawsuit over the Trump campaign’s use of his ’80s hit “Electric Avenue.”
Music industry experts and copyright law attorneys say the cases, as well as Trump’s decision to continue playing certain songs despite artists’ requests that he desist, underscore the complex legalities of copyright infringement in today’s digital, streaming and licensing era — and could set an important precedent on the use of popular music in political campaigns.
“We’re having this discussion now because of Donald Trump,” said Dana Gorzelany-Mostak, associate professor of music at Georgia College and co-creator of Trax on the Trail, a research project that studies music in U.S. presidential campaigns. “This has been a reoccurring narrative really in all three of his campaigns.”
“You have attorneys weighing in and talking heads and musicians and fans,” she added. “That … is a kind of noise that I think has become the Trump soundtrack.”
Skip to end of carousel
End of carouselStyle is where The Washington Post explains what’s happening on the front lines of culture — including the arts, media, social trends, politics and yes, fashion — with wit, personality and deep reporting. For more Style stories, click here. To subscribe to the Style Memo newsletter, click here.
Tuesday’s preliminary injunction came after Hayes’s estate argued that Trump’s use of “Hold On, I’m Coming” not only constitutes copyright infringement, but also suggests a false association that tarnishes the late artist’s legacy.
Trump’s team challenged the estate’s copyright ownership, but the plaintiffs say they retain a 50 percent interest in the song, which grants them the authority to pursue a claim. Even if the estate could prove ownership, Trump’s team countered, the campaign’s use of the song qualifies as fair use. While the case is in litigation, the judge’s preliminary ruling bars Trump from using “Hold On, I’m Coming” at campaign events but allows existing videos featuring the song to remain available.
During oral arguments in that case, Trump’s lawyers again invoked a fair use defense for featuring Grant’s “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video that shows a high-speed Trump train overtaking a slow-moving Joe Biden handcar. The defendants argued that the video qualifies as fair use because it did not serve a commercial purpose and its satirical political message didn’t alter the song’s meaning. Grant’s attorneys countered that a synchronization license, a legal agreement specifically for visual media content, should have been obtained to use the song in the video. According to Brian D. Caplan, one of Grant’s attorneys, it’s not certain when the judge will make a decision.
“Trump is the greatest abuser of musical property rights, ever, in terms of people running for president,” said Lawrence Iser, an attorney who has represented multiple music artists in copyright infringement cases against politicians. (The Trump campaign did not respond to questions about its use of music during campaign rallies and the legal disputes with artists, nor did it respond to other related questions.)
Having mounted three presidential campaigns with political rallies as a central fixture of his strategy, Trump has faced grievances from dozens of artists who have publicly objected to their music being played at his events. In 2020, as complaints against him peaked, prominent musicians including Mick Jagger, Sia, Steven Tyler and Lorde signed an open letter demanding that politicians seek permission before playing their music at public events. That same year, Neil Young sued Trump for copyright infringement but voluntarily dismissed the case in December.
The current election cycle has sparked a new wave of public outcry from music acts. And some of the campaign’s recent selections have baffled artists who say their songs don’t align with the Republican’s platform (though it may reflect Trump’s scramble to appeal to broader voter blocs). For instance, French singer-songwriter Yoann Lemoine, known by his stage name Woodkid, has repeatedly called on Trump to stop featuring “Run Boy Run” in campaign materials, citing the song’s context.
“Run Boy Run is a LGBT+ anthem wrote by me, a proud LGBT+ musician,” Lemoine wrote on X. “How ironic.”
Similarly, the campaign’s use of Beyoncé’s racial justice anthem “Freedom” has raised eyebrows. Permission to use the song had already been granted to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in July, and Beyoncé’s label threatened legal action against Trump’s team after it appeared in a 13-second video that was posted to X in August.
Also last month, Celine Dion’s management team and record label issued a statement disavowing any endorsement of Trump’s campaign after “My Heart Will Go On” was played at a rally in Montana. “In no way is this use authorized and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use,” the statement read. ” … and really, that song?”
Last week, Abba and its recording label, Universal Music, demanded that Trump stop using the Swedish band’s songs on the campaign trail. The same day, Jack White announced that his lawyers would be filing a lawsuit after one of Trump’s aides posted a campaign video featuring “Seven Nation Army,” a song by his band The White Stripes. “Law suit coming from my lawyers about this (to add to your 5 thousand others.),” White wrote on Instagram.
White and bandmate Meg White filed the lawsuit on Monday. The suit accuses Trump of trying to earn financial support “on the backs of the Plaintiffs,” which they said was a “flagrant misappropriation” of their work. The Whites said the Trump campaign, which did not respond to a request for comment, used the song without their permission.
Obtaining the rights to use a song at a political event is pretty straightforward. Political campaigns, like festivals and event organizers, buy licensing packages from performing rights organizations (PROs), which offer legal access to millions of songs for politicians to use at their rallies or events. DJs holding an event at your local park require the same licenses that politicians do, experts said.
“You have to do your due diligence about each respective party — the actual owner and administrator of the underlying copyright — and get the proper clearances,” said Heidy Vaquerano, a Los Angeles-based attorney who specializes in music law.
The most common PROs for artists include the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Media Inc. (BMI), the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) and Global Music Rights (GMR). These organizations offer licensing rights to millions of musical works.
When artists don’t want a politician using their music (as with the Hayes estate with Trump), they will contact their PRO, which will then ask the campaign to stop using the music. The campaign must oblige immediately, according to legal experts.
In most cases, the politician will drop the song from their playlists. But if the campaign continues to use the song, the artist has some legal options — such as suing for copyright infringement, which could cost the politicians millions of dollars in damages.
Or artists can make “false endorsement” complaints, saying the politician is unfairly using their likeness and images to make it appear that they’re endorsing that candidate. Experts don’t see much legal merit there, though, since playing music at a rally doesn’t always equal an endorsement.
“Just because you’re playing a Travis Scott song, you’re not saying, ‘Hey, Travis Scott endorses me,’” said Justin M. Jacobson, a music and entertainment law attorney based in New York.
Take, for example, the situation with the Foo Fighters. Lead singer Dave Grohl complained on social media that Trump had used the band’s song “My Hero” at a rally in Glendale, Ariz. (Trump’s campaign later said they obtained the licensing rights for the song). If the campaign has the licensing rights, there’s little the Foo Fighters can do without telling their PRO to remove their song from the package, experts said.
“It’s like if you had a big thing that’s playing Foo Fighters and they said, ‘We’re endorsed by the Foo Fighters’ on a jumbotron, then that’s definitely a violation,” Jacobson said.
With social and digital media, as seen in the Grant case, it’s a different story. Experts said campaigns need explicit consent from the artist’s record label and publisher (as well as anyone who has copyright ownership of the song, which could be dozens of artists in some cases) for the right to use the song in digital videos or tweets without legal repercussions. If a politician doesn’t have permission from all parties involved and uses the music, then the artist can take legal action (or demand payment for future use of the song), experts said.
“Generally, as with most things in business, money talks,” Jacobson said.
Trump is far from the only offender. The use of popular music in campaigns has been an issue for candidates as far back as 1984, when Ronald Reagan played Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” and told the crowd that he and the legendary singer-songwriter shared the same American Dream. Springsteen disagreed, telling fans at a Pittsburgh show that Reagan hadn’t been listening close enough. “Born in the U.S.A.” is a protest song about the Vietnam War and the U.S. government’s treatment of veterans — though it has long been misinterpreted as a patriotic anthem.
While it has largely been Republican presidential candidates — including George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — who have taken the heat from musicians, Democrats have had some run-ins, too. In 2008, Barack Obama was also asked to refrain from playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” at events — this time by Sam Moore, one half of the Sam & Dave duo. Obama’s campaign agreed to stop.
Iser, the copyright attorney, represented Jackson Browne in a 2008 case against John McCain. Browne sued McCain for allegedly using his song “Running on Empty” without permission in a presidential campaign commercial. McCain and Browne reached a settlement in July 2009, with McCain, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Committee all apologizing to Browne and pledging “to respect and uphold the rights of artists and to obtain permissions” for copyrighted works in the future.
Less than a year later, Iser represented Talking Heads lead singer David Byrne in a case against former Republican Charlie Crist, who had used the band’s 1985 song “Road to Nowhere” in Florida Senate race campaign ads. Crist apologized, too.
But Trump, unlike others, doesn’t seem quick to apologize. “Trump is a litigious guy. He likes to litigate,” Iser said. “So, the usual checks and balances that we have as lawyers — ‘Hey, we’re going to sue you. You don’t want to spend that money’ — it doesn’t really apply to Trump.”
