Here’s
a
phrase
I
have
to
use
but
hate
doing
so:
let’s
go
back
to
the
2020
presidential
campaign.
During
what
was
essentially
a
multi-year
advertisement
for
just
how
absolutely
petty,
stupid,
and
disingenuous
a
political
system
could
possibly
be,
the
2020
American
presidential
election
also
featured a
video sent
out
by
the
Trump
campaign
on
social
media
that
resulted
in
a
copyright
infringement
lawsuit.
You
can
see
below
a
news
clip
that
features
the
video,
which
is
an
admittedly
fairly
funny
poke
at
his
then
rival,
Joe
Biden,
but
which
also
uses
a
healthy
chunk
of
the
Eddy
Grant
song Electric
Avenue within
it.
The
Trump
campaign
used
the
music
without
permission.
That
appears
to
have
pissed
off
Eddy
Grant,
who
filed
a
copyright
infringement
lawsuit
against
the
Trump
campaign
as
a
result.
Now,
it’s
important
to
point
out
that
this
is
unlike
many
other
infringement
claims
we’ve
seen
in
the
past
and
in
the
present
from
bands
and
musical
artists
unhappy
about
Trump
using
their
music
at
campaign
rallies
and
events.
As
we’ve
pointed
out
before,
those
uses
are
often
covered
by
licenses
that
the
venues
themselves
have
to
play
the
music.
Again,
that’s
not
always
the
case,
and
in
fact
some
of
those
licenses
give
artists
an
opt-out
for
specific
uses
by
campaigns,
but
that’s
not
the
norm.
In
this
case,
however,
there
is
no
defending
this
through
venue
licenses.
The
song
wasn’t
played
in
a
venue
at
all.
It
was
played
in
a
campaign
video
tweeted
out
by
the
campaign.
As
a
result,
the
Trump
campaign’s
defense
was
instead
fair
use.
And,
as
I
detailed
in
my
original
post
above,
the
fair
use
defense
in
this
case
is
fairly
laughable.
The
judge
overseeing
the
case
apparently
agrees,
having
found for
Eddy
Grant
on
summary
judgement.
The
court
went
through
the
four
factors
test
for
fair
use
and
found
that
every
one
of
them
was
in
favor
of
Grant
and
against
fair
use.
The
use
of
the
song
could
encourage
other
political
campaigns
to
make
use
of
Grant’s
work
unlicensed,
impeding
his
ability
to
market
his
song
in
that
way.
The
song
played
for
the
majority
of
the
video,
making
it
an
important
factor
in
the
overall
video
production.
The
song
is
obviously
a
creative
work.
And
on
the
topic
of
transformation,
well:
The
court
first
found
that
Trump’s
use
did
not
“transform”
Grant’s
original
work. In
its
words,
“the
video
is
best
described
as
a
wholesale
copying
of
music
to
accompany
a
political
campaign
ad,” .
.
.
“[T]he
video’s
creator
did
not
edit
the
song’s
lyrics,
vocals
or
instrumentals
at
all.”
Fair
use
as
a
defense
here
was
always
going
to
be
a
longshot.
And
while
I
don’t
make
a
habit
of
agreeing
with
creative
artists
in
stories
on
Techdirt
when
it
comes
to
infringement
claims,
this
one
is
fairly
straight
forward.
Trump
made
a
campaign
video,
used
an
artist’s
song
for
it,
and
didn’t
bother
to
license
it
or
get
permission.
Now
because
this
is
2024,
I’m
quite
sure
the
judge
will
be
accused
of
being
“woke”,
or
a
“communist”,
or
maybe
a
feline-consuming
person
of
some
national
origin
or
another.
Explain
it
away
however
you
like;
Donald
Trump’s
campaign
committed
copyright
infringement,
full
stop.
Trump
Loses
Copyright
Suit
Over
‘Electric
Avenue’
2020
Campaign
Video
In
Summary
Judgement
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
Elon
Musk’s
ExTwitter
Regularly
Caves
To
Censorship
Demands;
Way
More
Than
Old
Twitter
Ex-Congressmen
Pen
The
Most
Ignorant,
Incorrect,
Confused,
And
Dangerous
Attack
On
Section
230
I’ve
Ever
Seen
Court
Shuts
Down
Tennessee’s
Attempt
To
Ban
People
From
Talking
About
Abortion
Options