Politics
How Beyonce, Springsteen and Trump could help rewrite copyright law
Former President Donald Trump’s machinations to avoid accountability have prompted new legislation not just in criminal law, but also in copyright law — where his taste in playlists may have a far more expansive legal effect.
While Trump is frequently described as a force of divisiveness, his choice of music for his rallies and campaign commercials has brought together a wide coalition of artists from multiple genres and eras in complaining about the allegedly unauthorized use of their material. An only partial list of artists includes Neil Young, BeyoncéFoo Fighters, ABBA, the White Stripes, Celine Dion and, most recently, the estate of Isaac Hayes.
As one noted legal expert puts it: “Trump is the greatest abuser of musical property rights, ever, in terms of people running for president.”
Trump’s choice of music for his rallies has brought together a wide coalition of musical artists from multiple genres and eras in complaining about his allegedly unauthorized use.
Trump is a recidivist offender, having also drawn objections in 2016 from artists including Bruce Springsteen, who objected to Trump playing “Born in the USA.” Rather than taking legal action against Trump, the “Boss” publicly endorsed Trump’s opponent — Hillary Clinton — which resulted in Trump’s attendees booing every time the song was played. Trump’s 2016 campaign use of “Start Me Up” also drew threats of legal action by the Rolling Stones.
But despite all these complaints, lawsuits have been rare. Guyanese-British singer songwriter Eddie Grant sued Trump in 2020 for using Grant’s 1983 hit song “Electric Avenue” in a Twitter video mocking Trump’s then-opponent Joe Biden, seeking damages and attorney’s fees for unauthorized use of the song. This September, following a lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes against Trump for unauthorized use of his song “Hold On, I’m Coming,” a federal judge granted an emergency injunction against Trump’s further use of the song as the litigation continues.
The relative paucity of lawsuits versus the number of complaints may be explained by the legal complexities involved.
Artists who want to stop Trump from using their music typically start with a cease-and-desist letter, which puts the offender on notice of legal action if they don’t stop using the song. If the letter doesn’t work, then the artist must file suit — and that’s where it gets tricky, because of music licensing agreements as well as the much misunderstood legal doctrine of “fair use.”
At first glance, it seems easy enough for campaigns to get legal authorization to use particular songs. That is because performing rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI sell licensing packages offering access to millions of songs. While most large venues have bought such packages, a lawsuit against Newt Gingrich’s use of Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger” (made famous in “Rocky III”) found a hole in this protection by specifically targeting use of the music at small venues, not large ones.
But even when the campaign obtains a licensing package, the artists can complain to the organization if they object to the use of their song, and the organization will then contact the campaign asking them to stop. If the campaign refuses to stop using the song, the artist may bring several different types of claims — most typically copyright infringement but also claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement. The latter is often premised on the idea that using the artist’s music may imply the artist endorses the candidate.
The use of music played at rallies is a far more straightforward legal issue than it is in the digital world.
As a defense to the copyright claim, defendants may adopt the tactic the Trump campaign used with the lawsuit filed by Isaac Hayes’ estate, in which Trump argued he had a blanket license from BMI and also claimed use of the song was allowed under the fair use doctrine. Trump also tried to argue that Hayes did not own enough of the copyright.
The fair use doctrine grants an exception to copyright protections when taking into account four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the potential market value or value of the work. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how much wiggle room exists in these factors.
It’s obvious that the above process is complicated, lengthy and expensive for the artists to bring. However, the trend for suits has been on the upswing since 2008, when Jackson Browne sued John McCain and the Ohio Republican Party for use of his song “Running on Empty.” Browne won damages, and McCain apologized. Two years later, Talking Heads’ front man David Byrne sued then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist; he won damages and forced Crist to make a public apology. These two suits were critical to make campaigns realize they could be forced to pay damages, and some experts believe they opened the way for more legal action by artists against campaigns. In 2010, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were both forced to stop using music by Survivor and K’Nann, and in 2011 Don Henley stopped former Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s use of his music with only a letter.
The use of music at rallies is a far more straightforward legal issue than it is in the digital world. The case of Grant v. Trump brought by Eddie Grant involved use of the song with animation in a video posted on Twitter. The suit started in 2020 and only just concluded in Grant’s favor.
With digital and online use, it is far easier for content creators to argue under the fair use doctrine that the way in which the music is being used escapes copyright infringement claims — think YouTube reaction videos. And the increasing sophistication of AI generated content in images and video will complicate this even further.
Most campaigns may not want to be dragged into legal suits and possibly face damages. Trump does not seem to care. So his litigious tendencies are likely to break new ground as copyright law faces technological advances.
Most campaigns may not want to be dragged into legal suits and possibly face damages. Trump does not seem to care.
Campaigns want to use popular music for the same reason we like to listen to it — it moves people — and that reaction is how artists make a living from their work. But the challenge posed by the speed and reach of the digital age is how the law can evolve to protect the original work and how much of the artist’s own beliefs matter.
Tom Morello, of Rage Against the Machine, once wrote in his criticism of former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s use of the group’s music: “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the machine our music rages against.” That sentiment and the risks of distortion posed by our age resonates perfectly with Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris right after her debate with Trump.
The law provides one tool for artists to prevent their work and beliefs from being hijacked. Another — and perhaps even more powerful one — is to use their voices and platforms to directly speak out and leave no doubt as to how they view the purpose of their art.
Shan Wu is a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor who served as counsel to then-Attorney General Janet Reno.
Politics
Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.
President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.
In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.
Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.
Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.
“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.
Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.
“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.
He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”
Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.
“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”
The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.
In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.
“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.
He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”
The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.
“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.
Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.
“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.
He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”
While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.
“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”
Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.
Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.
“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.
He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”
Missouri’s Supreme Court suspended a congressional map that state Republicans drew last year that would have netted the GOP an additional House seat, likely keeping the seat in Democratic hands this November.
The court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a referendum petition organized by Democrats to put the new congressional maps to a vote was incorrectly deemed insufficient by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and ordered that the gerrymandered map be put to a vote in the fall.
Voters will ultimately decide the fate of the new lines in November. But in the meantime, it cannot be in place for the midterms, meaning Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s original Kansas City-based district will likely stay in Democrats’ hands this fall.
Construction crews could begin the excavation process for what will be President Donald Trump’s massive 250-foot-tall arch in as soon as the next two weeks, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Thursday.
The monument — which will be erected in a traffic circle at the head of the Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River, coming between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery — has generated controversy as concerns emerged about the design and traffic congestion during construction.
The arch would take two to three years to construct on the proposed schedule, according to documents released in June.
“We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck,” Burgum said in a social media post.
The 250-foot-tall arch will be among Trump’s most visible projects, as the administration continues its attempts to remake Washington. Critics, however, have voiced fears that the structure may be too large, and overshadow other monuments, like the Lincoln Memorial on the other side of the Potomac River.
The proposed arch will dwarf the Arc de Triomphe in Paris in size. It is unclear at this time how much construction will cost; the National Endowment for the Humanities earmarked $15 million for the monument.
“This will be one the the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington National Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World,” Burgum said.
The monument will be constructed on land overseen by the National Park Service, and critics have argued Trump’s latest project requires explicit congressional approval. However, the Interior secretary continues to rebut these claims.
Instead, Burgum echoed previous statements and said historically “Congress and various congressionally chartered commissions decreed that a monumental work should adorn Columbia Island,” the traffic circle where the monument is planned to be constructed.
“Despite Congress’s intent, the site became and remains today a barren traffic circle lacking any monumental treatment and significant historic value,” he said.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words