Fact Check: trump said he could use eddy grant's music without repercussion because he's the president

Claim Analysis: "Trump said he could use Eddy Grant's music without repercussion because he's the president"

Introduction

The claim under scrutiny is that former President Donald Trump asserted he could use Eddy Grant's music without facing legal consequences due to his position as president. This assertion, if true, raises questions about the understanding of copyright law and the privileges associated with political office.

What We Know

1. Legal Ruling: A federal judge ruled that Trump violated Eddy Grant's copyright by using the song "Electric Avenue" in a campaign video without permission. The ruling, delivered by Judge John G. Koeltl, concluded that Trump's use did not qualify for fair use protections, which are often cited in copyright cases 13457.

2. Background of the Case: The lawsuit was initiated by Grant in September 2020, shortly after Trump used a 40-second clip of the song in a campaign video that garnered significant views on social media 68. The judge's ruling emphasized that unauthorized use of the song could harm Grant's ability to license it, highlighting the importance of copyright protections in the music industry 4.

3. Trump's Defense: While specific statements made by Trump regarding his ability to use the music due to his presidential status are not thoroughly documented in the available sources, the legal outcome suggests that such a defense was not upheld in court. The ruling indicates a clear rejection of the notion that a president can bypass copyright laws 35.

Analysis

The sources consulted provide a mix of legal reporting and news coverage regarding the lawsuit. Here’s a critical evaluation of the reliability and potential biases of these sources:

• BBC News 1: A reputable international news organization known for its journalistic standards. The article provides a straightforward account of the legal ruling without apparent bias.

• Wikipedia 2: While it can be a useful starting point, Wikipedia entries can be edited by anyone and may not always reflect the most current or accurate information. The specific claim about Trump’s assertion is not directly sourced, making it less reliable for this claim.

• Public Law Library 3: This source appears to provide a legal perspective on the ruling. However, it is essential to verify the credibility of the site and its authorship, as it may not be as widely recognized as mainstream media outlets.

• Copyright Lately 4: This site focuses on copyright issues and seems to provide a detailed analysis of the legal implications of the case. However, the niche focus could introduce bias towards copyright advocacy.

• NME 5: A music-focused publication that covers industry news. While it is generally reliable, it may have a bias towards artists and their rights, which could color its reporting on legal disputes involving music.

• The Hill 6: A well-regarded political news site that covers a range of topics, including legal issues. Its reporting on the lawsuit appears factual and relevant.

• HuffPost 7: Known for its progressive stance, HuffPost's coverage may reflect a bias against Trump, which could influence the framing of the story.

• The Guardian 8: A reputable news outlet with a global perspective, known for thorough reporting. It provides a detailed account of the case and its implications.

• Yahoo News 9 and The Wrap 10: Both sources reported on the settlement of the lawsuit, which occurred later in November 2024. These articles may provide additional context but are less relevant to the initial claim about Trump's assertions during the campaign.

Overall, while the legal ruling confirms that Trump did not have the right to use Grant's music without permission, the claim about his assertion regarding presidential immunity lacks direct evidence in the available sources.

Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified

The claim that Donald Trump stated he could use Eddy Grant's music without repercussions due to his presidential status remains unverified. The key evidence leading to this verdict includes a federal judge's ruling that Trump violated copyright law by using "Electric Avenue" without permission, which directly contradicts any assertion of immunity based on his position. However, there is a notable absence of documented statements from Trump explicitly making this claim, leaving a gap in the evidence.

The context of this verdict highlights the complexities surrounding copyright law and the limitations of presidential privilege in this domain. While the legal outcome is clear, the lack of direct evidence regarding Trump's assertion creates uncertainty.

Readers should be aware of the limitations in the available evidence and the potential biases of the sources consulted. It is essential to critically evaluate information and seek out reliable sources when assessing claims of this nature.

Sources

1. BBC News - Donald Trump loses Electric Avenue legal fight with Eddy Grant. Link
2. Wikipedia - Musicians who oppose Donald Trump's use of their music. Link
3. Public Law Library - Judge Rules Against Trump in Copyright Infringement Case Over ... Link
4. Copyright Lately - Eddy Grant Prevails in Copyright Lawsuit Against Trump Campaign. Link
5. NME - Donald Trump loses legal battle over using Eddy Grant's 'Electric Avenue' without permission. Link
6. The Hill - Eddy Grant sues Trump campaign over use of song. Link
7. HuffPost - Donald Trump Faces Legal Action Over Unauthorised Music Use. Link
8. The Guardian - Donald Trump loses legal fight over using Eddy Grant song without permission. Link
9. Yahoo News - Trump Settles Eddy Grant Copyright Lawsuit After Using ... Link
10. The Wrap - Trump Settles Lawsuit With Electric Avenue Singer Eddy Grant. Link