Government

White Stripes Join Long List Of Artists Telling Trump To Get Bent

Making Copyright Law Great Again.

By  
on
White Stripes in Concert – July 24, 2007

(Photo by Stephen Lovekin/WireImage)

Yesterday, the White Stripes joined the long list of artists suing Donald Trump, whose campaign seems to take a “record first, license later” approach to media releases.

This time, Trump’s comms team expropriated the iconic riff from the band’s 2003 song “Seven Nation Army” and released it on social media in an August 29 video of Trump boarding a plane with the caption “President @realDonaldTrump departs for Michigan and Wisconsin!” Was it a secret reference to the former president’s wish to bring Russia back to the G7, despite the protestations of the other member nations that we do not reward nations that invade their neighbors? Or was it simple theft?

The suit is a fun read:

As a self-professed sophisticated and successful businessman with decades-long experience in the entertainment industry (not to mention being on the receiving end of numerous copyright claims by musical artists whose work he used without permission), Defendant Trump and the other Defendants, his agents, knew or should have known that the use of the 7NA Works in the Infringing Trump Videos was unauthorized, and, therefore, violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Copyright Act.

The artists Jack White and Meg White note that they put Trump and his henchman on notice that they oppose the use, since they publicly declared they were “disgusted by that association” when Trump played their music at campaign rallies in 2016. They add that they reached out to the campaign to protest the most recent video and received no response.

This case would appear to be qualitatively different from the one filed recently by the estate of Isaac Hayes, which claims to own the rights to the song “Hold on, I’m Comin'” sung by Sam and Dave. In that case, the plaintiffs allege that Trump lacks a performance license to use the song at rallies — typically a blanket authorization covering multiple works. The court preliminarily enjoined the campaign from playing the work pending further proceedings.

Sponsored

In contrast, the Whites assert that Trump should have negotiated an individual synchronization license with them directly — or tried to anyway — since this was not a public performance but a produced video. They claim significant damages, for the cost to license the song, “direct and indirect financial contributions from the public in response to the Infringing Trump Videos,” and “sales of campaign and related merchandise.”

But all is not bad news for the candidate. The case was assigned to Judge Mary Vyskocil, a Trump appointee who was highly receptive last year to attempts by his congressional allies Jim Jordan and James Comer to harass District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the false business records indictment. Maybe Her Honor will be receptive to whatever transformative/parody/fair use/reporters privilege argument Trump and his sparklemagic lawyers cook up.

White v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,