A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled against former President Donald Trump in a copyright infringement case involving the use of the song “Electric Avenue” by Eddy Grant. The judge found Trump liable for damages, effectively ending the case before trial, with only the amount of compensation left to be determined.
The lawsuit, filed by Grant in 2020, centered on a campaign tweet posted by Trump. The tweet contained a 55-second animated video that featured Biden slowly moving along a railway track in a handcar while a “Trump-Pence” train sped past. Approximately 40 seconds of Grant’s hit song “Electric Avenue” played in the background of the video.
In his 30-page decision, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl rejected Trump’s defense claims and ruled in favor of Grant on two key points. First, the judge confirmed that the song was properly copyrighted. Second, he dismissed Trump’s argument that the use of the song constituted “fair use.”
The ruling revealed that Dan Scavino, Trump’s former director of social media and deputy chief of staff for communications, was responsible for uploading the video to Trump’s personal Twitter account on August 12, 2020. Scavino testified that he had seen the video on a Trump supporter’s social media page and received approval from Trump to post it.
The video garnered significant attention, with over 13.7 million views, 350,000 likes, and 139,000 retweets. Despite receiving a cease and desist letter from Grant’s lawyers, the video was not removed until Grant filed a lawsuit on September 1, 2020.
In his decision, Judge Koeltl methodically addressed the four factors used to determine fair use exemptions to copyright. He found that Trump’s use of the song was for commercial purposes rather than non-profit, educational, or research purposes. The judge also noted that “Electric Avenue” is a creative work entitled to strong copyright protection, and that a substantial portion of the song was used in the video.
Furthermore, the judge concluded that widespread unauthorized use of Grant’s music in promotional videos could significantly damage the artist’s ability to license his work and receive compensation. He emphasized that there was no public benefit resulting from the use of “Electric Avenue” in the campaign video, as any song or even no song at all could have conveyed the same political message.
Grant’s attorneys, Brett Van Benthysen and Brian Caplan, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, describing it as a complete victory for their client. They indicated that Grant hopes the decision will help other artists and copyright owners defend against similar
infringements.
The case now moves to the damages phase, where the parties may either agree on a settlement or proceed to a jury trial to determine the amount of compensation. Grant’s initial lawsuit sought $300,000 in damages, but this figure could increase if Trump is required to cover the artist’s legal fees accumulated over four years of litigation.
Both Trump and Grant were compelled to provide depositions during the legal proceedings, along with former Trump adviser Dan Scavino. As of now, it remains unclear whether the parties will reach an agreement on damages or if the case will proceed to a jury trial for a final determination.
The ruling serves as a significant victory for copyright holders and may have broader implications for the use of copyrighted material in political campaigns and social media content. It underscores the importance of obtaining proper permissions and licenses when using copyrighted works, even in the context of political speech.