Copyright vs. Campaigns: A Breakdown of Eddy Grant’s “Electric Avenue” vs. Donald Trump

Aug 24, 2025 | Law Student Blog,

By Alexis Trimm, Honors College of Arts and Science Student at the University of Missouri-Columbia

In a legal dispute between an artist and a politician, Guyanese-British singer Eddy Grant successfully sued the Trump campaign for copyright infringement after his song “Electric Avenue” was used without permission in a 2020 campaign video posted on Twitter. This case demonstrates the limits on political campaigns and shows how courts evaluate claims of “fair use”— and why they were not considered as such here.

In August 2020, the Trump campaign tweeted out an animated political video that featured 40 seconds of Eddy Grant’s 1983 hit “Electric Avenue” as background music. The video, a cartoon version of then presidential candidate Joe Biden manually operating a train, quickly caught Grant’s attention because he had not given permission to use the song.

Artists protesting the use of their music in political campaigns is not unusual. However, the artist is often not successful because the music is usually played aloud at venues that have the music covered under general venue performance licenses. In this case though, Grant’s song wasn’t being played over loudspeakers at a public venue. Instead, it was used in a campaign-produced video and widely spread on social media, which changes the legal equation.

Venue performance licenses typically cover live events or public spaces and are obtained by places like arenas or convention centers. These licenses, held through performance rights organizations like ASCAP or BMI, often allow for the legal use of over 20 million songs during events, even including political ones. While artists can sometimes opt out of having their music used in political contexts through these licensing entities, doing so requires specific action by the artist. 

Without a venue license to fall back on, the Trump campaign instead turned to a different legal defense: fair use. This doctrine, outlined in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission, but not without special consideration. Fair use may work for criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, or research, but it is ultimately up to the court to decide if it applies to the case.

To determine whether something falls under fair use, judges apply a legal test based on a few key factors. They first examine the purpose and character of the use, determining if it transforms the original work such as to change its meaning and whether the new work is commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes. The nature of the copyrighted work is the next fair use factor, with factual works generally being more susceptible to fair use than creative works. The court then examines the amount and substantiality of the work used. Finally, the court will consider the effect of the use upon the potential market and how it will affect the value of the copyrighted work.

In the Grant v. Trump case, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl found that all four of these fair use factors favored Eddy Grant and that the use of “Electric Avenue” by the Trump campaign was not a fair use. To break down the ruling further, while considering the purpose and character of the use, the court noted that the Trump campaign’s use of the song was in a political advertisement, landing it in the commercial category, which leans against fair use. The use was also determined not to be “transformative,” as no change was made to the song at all and the ad just featured it as background music. When examining the nature of the copyrighted work, the court decided that “Electric Avenue” is a creative work, not factual or informative. Courts generally give stronger protection to creative works because they represent original artistic expression, and this factor again weighed against the Trump campaign.

The song played for over half of the 55-second video, which was also significant. It was not just a sample, but a central component to the tone of the video, and it was considered to be substantial. Courts will often consider short portions of works not to be fair use if the most important segment of the copyrighted work is used, and in this case, the campaign effectively used the chorus of Grant’s song, again favoring it not being fair use. The effect on the market is often one of the most critical factors in making a fair use determination.

If political campaigns could freely use Grant’s music in videos like this without licensing it, it would damage Grant’s freedom to monetize or control how and where his work is used. Especially in the context of political campaigns, the artist could face unwanted reputation risks and changes to their public image. The judge also noted that allowing such use could set a precedent that encourages other political campaigns to use unlicensed music, which could further undermine artistic control of their music.

In a clear and decisive ruling, Judge Koeltl granted summary judgment in favor of Eddy Grant, meaning the case could be decided without a full trial. This is a rare outcome in copyright cases, especially when the defense is fair use, and it demonstrates how clearly the court viewed the Trump campaign’s infringement.

This decision sent a powerful message to political campaigns about the limits of fair use and the importance of respecting copyright law. While fair use offers important protections for education, commentary, and satire, it should not just be an excuse to use copyrighted media with politically charged motives. This case also reminds those in charge of media for political campaigns that just because a song is publicly accessible doesn’t mean it can be used without permission.

For Eddy Grant, this legal win reaffirms that artists still hold power over their works, even against powerful political figures. The Grant v. Trump campaign case is a great example of copyright law in action and a warning to those wanting to use familiar works without permission. Fair use is not a loophole for convenience, but instead a carefully balanced legal principle that tipped entirely in favor of the artist in this case.

Our summer associate program is supported by: