A U.S. judge has ordered Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to cease the use of the song “Hold On, I’m Coming” at his rallies, responding to a lawsuit filed by the family of Isaac Hayes, one of the song’s co-writers. The ruling, issued by Judge Thomas Thrash in Georgia, is a temporary injunction that prevents the campaign from playing the song until the case is resolved. This legal dispute underscores the ongoing tensions between political campaigns and musicians over the unauthorized use of their work.
The song, made famous by the soul duo Sam and Dave in 1966, had been regularly featured at Trump’s events, including the Republican National Convention in July. Despite repeated requests from Hayes’ family to stop using the song, the Trump campaign continued to play it, prompting the legal action. Hayes’ son, Isaac Hayes III, expressed his approval of the court’s decision, emphasizing that his late father, who passed away in 2008, would not have supported the former president.
“This is not a political issue, this is a character issue,” Hayes III stated outside the Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia. The Hayes family’s objection is not merely about unauthorized use; it reflects a broader stance against associating their father’s legacy with Trump’s political persona.
The judge’s ruling, however, did not extend to removing recordings of past events where the song had been used. Ronald Coleman, a lawyer for Trump, noted that the campaign had already agreed to discontinue the use of “Hold On, I’m Coming.” He acknowledged the First Amendment issues at play and appreciated the court’s decision not to mandate a takedown of existing videos. Coleman suggested that the case might be resolved amicably before it reaches trial, stating, “We want this to be as cooperative a process as possible going forward.”
Isaac Hayes, alongside Dave Porter, composed “Hold On, I’m Coming” in 1966 while working as a staff writer at Stax Records. Hayes would later achieve significant fame and recognition, winning Grammy and Academy Awards for his contributions to music, with hits like “Shaft” and “Walk On By.” The estate claims that Trump’s campaign played the song 134 times after being asked to stop, and they are seeking $3 million in licensing fees for its use between 2022 and 2024.
Trump’s legal team has contested the Hayes estate’s authority to demand licensing fees, arguing that the estate does not hold the license for the song and that the campaign had appropriate permissions. Hayes’ lawyers have dismissed these claims as erroneous, further complicating the case.
The conflict between artists and political figures over the use of music at rallies is not new, and Trump’s campaign has faced similar issues before. Numerous artists, including ABBA, Foo Fighters, the White Stripes’ Jack White, Celine Dion, and Johnny Marr, have objected to the use of their songs at Republican events. While musicians can publicly denounce the unauthorized use of their work, their legal success in stopping such uses has been limited, with proceedings often dragging on for years.
A similar case involving Guyanese-British singer Eddy Grant is set to be heard in a Manhattan court soon. Grant sued Trump over the unauthorized use of his song “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video, which amassed 13.7 million views before being removed by Twitter. Grant is seeking $300,000 in damages, but as in the Hayes case, Trump’s lawyers argue that Grant does not own the copyright.
These cases highlight the complex intersection of copyright law, free speech, and the personal values of artists. For many musicians, the unauthorized use of their work in political contexts that contradict their values represents not just a legal infringement but a moral and character misalignment they are determined to challenge.
