In a recent ruling pronounced on September 11, 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has restrained former US president and the present Republican candidate Donald J. Trump, and his campaign organization (“Defendants/Trump”), from using the song “Hold On, I’m Coming” in their campaign events/rallies, in response to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Isaac Hayes Enterprises, LLC (the “Plaintiff”), the song’s co-writer.
The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit with a motion for preliminary injunction claiming that the song, in which the Plaintiff owns a copyright interest, and which became a hit in 1966 by the Miami-based soul duo Sam and Dave, has been regularly performed at Trump’s campaign events since 2020, without a valid license. Plaintiff also asserted that Trump continued unauthorizedly performing the song at campaign events even after he was notified by Broadcast Music, Inc., from whom Trump had obtained licenses for performing music at rallies/events, by an email that the song had been excluded from the Defendants’ license.
The Defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the use at the rallies/events was under a valid license and that the use in the videos posted by Trump on social media constituted fair use. The Defendants relied on a copy of the music license from BMI to perform music at Trump’s events. Further, the Defendants disputed Plaintiff’s ownership over the copyright in the song.
The court examined the license and observed that the license specifically provided that any work(s) could be excluded from the scope of the license if BMI were to receive a notice by the songwriter of such work(s) objecting to the use by the licensee. In view of this, the court observed that, as BMI had emailed to the Defendants duly informing that the song had been “excluded from the Agreement” forthwith pursuant to receiving the Plaintiff’s objection, the continued performance of the song at Trump’s rallies amounts to copyright infringement.
The court also found that, given the consistency with which the Plaintiff’s song was being performed at Trump’s events, which are also being frequently aired on TV and other media, the risk of association of the Plaintiff with Trump’s campaign was imminent and cannot be said to be remediable through mere damages, necessitating an injunction in Plaintiff’s favour. However, the court refused to grant injunction on videos of Trump’s campaign which already exist in various media. The Defendants’ argument of their right of political speech being inhibited by an injunction was also rejected by the court, and it held that balance of equities and public interest would both be served by granting an injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, since it was already established that any use of the song by the Defendant would be, in any case, without a valid license.
Isaac Hayes Enterprises, LLC, et al., v. Donald John Trump, individually, et al., [CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:24-CV-3639-TWT]
Comentários