A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s campaign must stop using the classic song “Hold On, I’m Coming” at its rallies. The decision comes after the family of the song’s co-writer Isaac Hayes filed a lawsuit demanding the campaign stop using the iconic track without permission.
Growing trend of artists protesting political use of music
The conflict between Trump’s campaign and the Hayes family is not an isolated incident. Many musicians have expressed dissatisfaction with political campaigns using their music without proper authorization, especially during high-profile events like presidential rallies. This particular case is emblematic of broader tensions between artists and politicians, reflecting a trend where musicians demand control over how and where their work is used.
Isaac Hayes, a renowned soul musician who co-wrote “Hold On, I’m Coming” with David Porter in 1966, does not support Trump’s use of his music, according to his son, Isaac Hayes III. The Hayes family says the campaign repeatedly ignored requests to stop playing the song, which was a staple on Trump’s rally playlist, most notably during the 2020 Republican National Convention.
Legal grounds and preliminary ruling
Judge Thomas Thrash of the U.S. District Court in Georgia blocked Trump’s campaign from playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” until the case is fully resolved. However, the judge denied a request to remove recordings of past rallies where the song was played, citing First Amendment considerations. The nuanced decision shows the complexity of copyright law, especially when it involves political speech and public events.
Despite the temporary nature of the injunction, Isaac Hayes III hailed it as a victory for his father’s legacy. Standing outside the Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse in Atlanta, he emphasized that his legal challenge was about more than just politics. “This is not a political issue; it’s a character issue,” Hayes III remarked, outlining his desire to separate the soul classic from Trump’s controversial public persona.
Trump’s campaign responds
Ronald Coleman, an attorney representing the Trump campaign, said they had already agreed to “cease further use” of the song, which effectively complies with the court order. Coleman suggested the possibility of settling the case out of court and expressed optimism about reaching a settlement with the Hayes family. He said, “We want this to be as collaborative a process as possible moving forward.”
Since the suit was filed, Trump has begun using “YMCA” by the Village People, another song that has received mixed reactions due to its frequent association with his rallies. This shift reflects the ongoing challenge of choosing music that resonates with supporters without violating the rights and wishes of the artists.
Broader implications for musicians and political campaigns
The case involving Isaac Hayes’ music is part of a larger movement by artists to prevent unauthorized use of their work in political contexts. Several other high-profile musicians, including Abba, the Foo Fighters, Celine Dion, Johnny Marr, and Jack White, have recently objected to their songs being played at Republican rallies. Their objections highlight a growing demand for greater respect for intellectual property rights and artist consent in political settings.
Historically, musicians have had mixed success in preventing politicians from using their music. While some artists have obtained injunctions, legal battles often drag on for years, costing time and resources. For example, the case of Guyanese-British singer Eddy Grant is set to be heard in a Manhattan court four years after he first objected to Trump’s use of his hit song “Electric Avenue” in a campaign video. The video, which was viewed nearly 14 million times before Twitter removed it, forms the basis of Grant’s claim for $300,000 in damages.
Legal complexities and the future of music licensing in politics
Both the Hayes and Grant cases underscore the legal complexities associated with music licensing, particularly when political figures are involved. Trump’s lawyers have consistently argued that the artists involved in these disputes do not actually hold the copyright to their own songs, a claim the opposing legal teams say is incorrect. This strategy points to a larger issue within the music industry where ownership and licensing rights are often tangled up in contracts, giving artists limited control over their creations.
In the wake of these legal confrontations, some music industry professionals have called for clearer guidelines and stricter enforcement of copyright laws. The goal is to ensure that artists’ works are not co-opted for causes they do not support. As technology evolves and the digital landscape expands, protecting intellectual property rights is becoming more important.