“Trump Hit with Legal Blow: Judge Rules He Illegally Used ‘Electric Avenue’ in Campaign Video—The Verdict Will Surprise You!”

As Trump faces a wave of complaints from musical artists, a judge rules against him in a years-old case over his unauthorized use of Eddy Grant’s famed 1980s jam.

Donald Trump infringed copyrights by using Eddy Grant’s iconic “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video without permission, a federal judge ruled Friday (Sept. 13), rejecting Trump’s argument that he made legal fair use of the song.

Grant sued Trump in 2020 after the then-president used his 1982 hit in a social media video attacking Joe Biden. Grant said he reacted with “dismay” when he began receiving inquiries asking if he had approved the Republican candidate’s use of his music.

Trump’s lawyers had argued the video was shielded under copyright’s fair use doctrine, which allows for the “transformative” re-use of protected works in certain situations. But in Friday’s ruling, Judge John G. Koeltl sharply rejected that argument.

“In this case, the video has a very low degree of transformativeness, if any at all,” the judge wrote. “The video is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad.”

Following the ruling, Grant’s attorney Brian D. Caplan said his client was “gratified” by the judge’s decision: “As a staunch believer of artist’s rights and the ability to control their creative output, Mr. Grant believes that the decision will help others in their fight against the unauthorized use of sound recordings and musical compositions. Politicians are not above the law and the court reaffirmed that.”

A spokesperson and an attorney for the Trump campaign did not immediately return requests for comment.

Trump has repeatedly faced blowback amid the 2024 election from artists who don’t want him to use their music. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA, and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out or threatened action, and the White Stripes and the estate of Isaac Hayes have both filed lawsuits against him and his campaign.

Four years earlier, Grant filed a similar case over Trump’s “wrongful and willful” use of “Electric Avenue,” a funky, reggae-infused track about the 1981 Brixton riot, named for a road running through that London neighborhood. The song reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 in the summer of 1983 and ultimately spent 22 weeks on the chart.

The video at issue, shared by Trump on Twitter, featured a red “Trump” train outrunning a handcar driven by Biden, as audio clips of Biden’s speeches played above Grant’s 1982 hit. Grant’s attorneys said the campaign had refused to remove the clip even after they were warned — meaning that Trump was acting as if he was “above the law.”

Facing those allegations, Trump’s legal team argued that the video amounted to fair use, claiming the campaign had transformed Grant’s song into a vehicle to criticize Biden. In 2021, Judge Koeltl hinted that he would likely reject that argument on the grounds that it “misapprehends” how fair use works, but he said it was too early to decide the issue.

On Friday, the judge made good on his warnings, largely adopting the same rationale as his 2021 decision. He noted that Trump’s video “did not edit the song’s lyrics, vocals, or instrumentals at all” and had “offered no justification for their extensive borrowing.”

Trump’s attorneys had argued that the video had “transformed Grant’s original conception of ‘Electric Avenue’ as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure.” But the judge was entirely unswayed by that defense — saying that it would only count as fair use if Trump had used the song to attack Grant, not Biden.

“The animation does not use ‘Electric Avenue’ as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and it makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant,” Judge Koeltl wrote, quoting directly from his earlier decision.

Friday’s ruling means that Trump and his campaign have been held legally liable for copyright infringement, but it leaves undecided the amount he must ultimately pay Grant in damages. That issue will be resolved in future proceedings.