Family of Isaac Hayes threaten Donald Trump with lawsuit over use of song in rallies

[Still Waters]

The family of late soul and funk singer Isaac Hayes has ordered Donald Trump to stop using the Hayes-penned song Hold On, I’m Comin’ at campaign rallies.

A letter sent to Trump and his campaign team, shared by Hayes’s son Isaac Hayes III, threatens Trump with legal action if he continues to use the 1966 Sam & Dave song, written by Hayes and David Porter. It alleges copyright infringement, and also demands $3m in licensing fees incurred from the use of the song between 2022 and 2024.

Walker alleges that the song has been used so frequently that the $3m figure is “heavily discounted”. The letter also states that if a resolution is not made and a lawsuit is then issued, the Hayes family will demand damages of $150,000 per use of the song.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/aug/12/family-of-isaac-hayes-threaten-donald-trump-with-lawsuit-over-use-of-song-in-rallies

[Gromdor]

Celine Dion also was in the news ecently because Trump was using her Titanic song, "My heart will go on".  Celine Dion Calls Out Trump Campaign's Titanic Misstep | Vanity Fair

Of course there were many jokes about why Trump would use a song related to a sinking ship.

[lightly]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Celine Dion also was in the news ecently because Trump was using her Titanic song, "My heart will go on".  Celine Dion Calls Out Trump Campaign's Titanic Misstep | Vanity Fair

Of course there were many jokes about why Trump would use a song related to a sinking ship.

Especially one claimed to be Unsinkable.  

[Still Waters]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Celine Dion also was in the news ecently because Trump was using her Titanic song, "My heart will go on".  Celine Dion Calls Out Trump Campaign's Titanic Misstep | Vanity Fair

Of course there were many jokes about why Trump would use a song related to a sinking ship.

He must do that a lot. There's several musicians named in the article I posted complaining about him using their songs.

[+susieice]

He did this in his 2020 campaign also. I know the Rolling Stones were one of the bands that told him to stop using their songs.

[lightly]

 Jumpin’ Jack Flash  &  Sympathy for the Devil.   IIRC.

[Tatetopa]

Not surprising he doesn't pay for music when he doesn't pay for venues or local police.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Trump paid for the rights to the song. Hayes can send a cease and desist letter all he likes, it won't stop the legally purchased rights. 

There was a similar story in the news just a few months ago. These artists accept payment from the Trump campaign, then make a stink because they don't like his politics. I don't care what they think,  they got paid for the use of their music,  they have no right to say it can't be used!

Edited August 12 by Link of Hyrule

[+Link of Hyrule]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Not surprising he doesn't pay for music when he doesn't pay for venues or local police.

Incorrect. One thing you don't mess with is music copyright.  Trump 100% definitely paid for the music. These musicians are just salty that they don't like his politics. This topic reared up only a few months ago, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that Trump did indeed pay for the rights.  To quote an article about copyright and political rallies:

Quote

However, savvy campaign managers typically purchase the rights to play music in public for their events. These licenses grant broad access to thousands of songs which a politician can use at rallies and conventions, as long as the music is not used digitally without permission. If an artist's song is part of the licensing agreement and is played at a campaign event, they have traditionally had little legal recourse outside of sending a cease and desist letter.

https://www.lfarberlaw.com/post/can-artists-prevent-politicians-from-using-their-music

And just to confirm what action the Hayes estate has taken:

Quote

He’s just been hit with a cease-and-desist letter from the estate of Isaac Hayes, insisting that Trump stop playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” immediately — and demanding $3 million to make up for all the times he’s played it so far.

 

The Atlanta-based attorney James Walker sent the strongly-worded Aug. 11 letter, slamming Trump and his campaign for playing the Stax Records classic “without authorization from the copyright holder, despite being asked repeatedly not to engage in such illegal use by our client.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/isaac-hayes-donald-trump-cease-desist-hold-on-coming-1235076432/

A cease and desist letter, the extent of their legal recourse, according to the law article. Additionally,  every single example cited by the article from the OP are of people who only sent Cease and Desist letters because they didn't have an actual legal argument. The article even cites the honest musicians who accept they don't have a legal reason to ask him to stop but did so anyway!

I'm open to being wrong, if he used this song without proper copyright he should be held accountable. But we had this same discussion in March about Sinead O'Connor, and just as I said in that thread,  if he's guilty he should be held accountable, but no one showed evidence that he broke the law then, either. A cease and desist letter is not a lawsuit, and if Trump actually broke the law, I guarantee you there'd be a lawsuit!

Edited August 12 by Link of Hyrule

[Gromdor]

22 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Incorrect. One thing you don't mess with is music copyright.  Trump 100% definitely paid for the music. These musicians are just salty that they don't like his politics. This topic reared up only a few months ago, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that Trump did indeed pay for the rights.  To quote an article about copyright and political rallies:

https://www.lfarberlaw.com/post/can-artists-prevent-politicians-from-using-their-music

And just to confirm what action the Hayes estate has taken:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/isaac-hayes-donald-trump-cease-desist-hold-on-coming-1235076432/

A cease and desist letter, the extent of their legal recourse, according to the law article. Additionally,  every single example cited by the article from the OP are of people who only sent Cease and Desist letters because they didn't have an actual legal argument. The article even cites the honesty musicians who accept they don't have a legal reason to ask him to stop by did so anyway!

I'm open to being wrong, if he used this song without proper copyright he should be held accountable. But we had this same discussion in March about Sinead O'Connor, and just as I said in that thread,  if he's guilty he should be held accountable, but no one showed evidence that he broke the law then, either. A cease and desist letter is not a lawsuit, and if Trump actually broke the law, I guarantee you there'd be a lawsuit!

They are suing him for $3 million in unpaid licensing fees...

[+Link of Hyrule]

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They are suing him for $3 million in unpaid licensing fees...

You mean to say that they are alleging they will sue him in a cease and desist letter? That would be an accurate reflection of what has happened. You can claim whatever damages you want in a cease and desist letter, it is not a legal lawsuit and is not legally binding in any way! I guarantee you they aren't suing him, and they won't sue him. I will wait to be proven wrong and will happily admit I'm wrong if it happens. But I went through the same argument back in March (see the thread I linked), according to everyone in March, Trump was going to be sued! They just want the media exposure to try and get Trump to stop, that's all they have. 

By all means, show me evidence of the lawsuit and I will retract everything I've just written and if proven will condemn Trump for not following appropriate copyright. I have a feeling I won't need to retract, however. 

Edit: The article title from the OP simply says Hayes THREATENS to sue. Other articles online say more along the lines of "Hayes and Dion denounce Trump's use of their music". You won't find any lawsuit attempting to sue Trump for this money, it's all bluster and talk. They know Trump paid for the rights to use their music legally! That's why they can only send a Cease and Desist letter - it's all they have, now it's up to Trump whether to listen or not, if he doesn't they have no legal recourse. 

Double Edit: Just had a closer look through the Sinead O'Connor thread, I was arguing with YOU about the legality of what Trump was doing with her. You never did manage to prove that Trump did the wrong thing in that thread, either. 

Edited August 12 by Link of Hyrule

[psyche101]

I seriously hope one of these artists find a loophole to curb Trump.

What sort of an ahat uses an artist's work to promote themselves against the will of the artist.

Just screams arrogant rich bully. What a twerp the expired orange is. Disgusting person.

[Tatetopa]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Just screams arrogant rich bully. What a twerp the expired orange is. Disgusting person.

Millions of people seem to admire arrogant rich bullies and wish they were one.  Seems a lot of people would like to lie their way through life, be rude without consequence and grab women by the p****.  

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Incorrect.

Well, you could be right about the music.  Maybe its just the venues and local security he doesn't pay for. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well, you could be right about the music. 

I'm open to be proven wrong, so far no one has. I've been trying to find evidence in two threads now (this one, and the one back in March about Sinead O'Connor). So far I have been right, but it only takes one lawsuit to prove me wrong. 

 

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe its just the venues and local security he doesn't pay for. 

Maybe, but that's not relevant to the thread topic. 

Edited August 13 by Link of Hyrule

[Agent0range]

4 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Trump paid for the rights to the song.

Can you source this?

Edit to add, I just googled it.  I can't find anywhere that Trump paid for the rights.

Edited August 13 by Agent0range

[the13bats]

Why would convicted felon man wanna use a song whos artists hates him when he can use music by artists who worship him like kid rock or nugent?

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Why would convicted felon man wanna use a song whos artists hates him when he can use music by artists who worship him like kid rock or nugent?

That's what crappy people do. Just to flex their monetary power. 

Ethics and morals don't factor. Not does simple common decency.

It's taunting the artist IMO.

[psyche101]

The family’s attorney, James Walker, claims that the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee “have willfully and brazenly engaged in copyright infringement” by using the song at rallies “over one hundred times.” They are demanding payment of at least $3 million, plus a removal of all videos featuring the song and a statement that Hayes’ family and estate never authorized its use. Walker wrote that the Trump campaign also “have not obtained a license or other authorization” to use the song

https://deadline.com/2024/08/isaac-hayes-trump-hold-on-copyright-infringement-1236037793/

 

 

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

53 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Can you source this?

Edit to add, I just googled it.  I can't find anywhere that Trump paid for the rights.

If I'm wrong, I will happily recant. But based on past experience I 100% expect Trump to have paid for the rights. He has paid for the rights of every other song that he's used, and every time someone has accused him of stealing music, it turns out he's paid for it. So the short answer is I don't have a source explicitly stating that Trump paid for it, but until I actually see a lawsuit the only reasonable response is that this is just another in a long line of butt hurt musicians who don't like Trump legally using their music. They put it in a Cease and Desist letter to make it sound all official, but they know deep down that they don't have a legal argument because Trump did pay them for their music, even if they didn't realise that their song was bundled in with thousands of other songs that Trump bought the rights for. 

Maybe I'm wrong and this is the one song that Trump uses that he's never paid for. Stranger things have happened. 

[Tatetopa]

Apparently Celine Dion also thinks her music is being used without permission.   Just goes to show how out of touch musicians are I guess.

[Gromdor]

23 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

If I'm wrong, I will happily recant. But based on past experience I 100% expect Trump to have paid for the rights. He has paid for the rights of every other song that he's used, and every time someone has accused him of stealing music, it turns out he's paid for it. So the short answer is I don't have a source explicitly stating that Trump paid for it, but until I actually see a lawsuit the only reasonable response is that this is just another in a long line of butt hurt musicians who don't like Trump legally using their music. They put it in a Cease and Desist letter to make it sound all official, but they know deep down that they don't have a legal argument because Trump did pay them for their music, even if they didn't realise that their song was bundled in with thousands of other songs that Trump bought the rights for. 

Maybe I'm wrong and this is the one song that Trump uses that he's never paid for. Stranger things have happened. 

You must have Psyche on ignore.  I'll link him:

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The family’s attorney, James Walker, claims that the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee “have willfully and brazenly engaged in copyright infringement” by using the song at rallies “over one hundred times.” They are demanding payment of at least $3 million, plus a removal of all videos featuring the song and a statement that Hayes’ family and estate never authorized its use. Walker wrote that the Trump campaign also “have not obtained a license or other authorization” to use the song

https://deadline.com/2024/08/isaac-hayes-trump-hold-on-copyright-infringement-1236037793/

 

 

 

It says that Trump does not have a license or other authorization.

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

You must have Psyche on ignore.  I'll link him:

 

It says that Trump does not have a license or other authorization.

I do have psyche on ignore. But I am aware of the allegation that Trump didn't pay for it. If he truly didn't have the rights to it, this would be a lawsuit right now, not a cease and desist. As noted, I am open to be proven wrong, but this quote isn't proof. It's proof that the Hayes estate has CLAIMED Trump doesn't have the rights to it. Did they ask him? How do they know he didn't buy the rights to the song? Musicians rarely have control over who buys the rights to their music, which is why occasionally musicians have gone on record to ask Trump not to use their music. Sometimes they claim he hasn't got permission, sometimes they call for the moral high road, but he has always had permission in the past. 

A cease and desist letter is not legally binding, so they can make any claim they like, it doesn't prove it to be so, and every evidence we've seen in the past has shown that Trump ALWAYS pays for music copyright, every single time. As such, I actively don't believe the Hayes estate. I think they are overstating their case in the hope of getting Trump to back down, and if pushed they won't do anything because Trump did pay for the copyright. If I'm wrong, I will happily recant and agree that Trump did the wrong thing - copyright is a big issue, if he didn't pay for the licence then the musicians definitely deserve compensation for their work. 

I don't expect a lawsuit to happen for that reason. If it does and Trump has a case to answer, I'll be the first to say he did the wrong thing. 

Edited August 13 by Link of Hyrule

[Hankenhunter]

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Incorrect. One thing you don't mess with is music copyright.  Trump 100% definitely paid for the music. These musicians are just salty that they don't like his politics. This topic reared up only a few months ago, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that Trump did indeed pay for the rights.  To quote an article about copyright and political rallies:

https://www.lfarberlaw.com/post/can-artists-prevent-politicians-from-using-their-music

And just to confirm what action the Hayes estate has taken:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/isaac-hayes-donald-trump-cease-desist-hold-on-coming-1235076432/

A cease and desist letter, the extent of their legal recourse, according to the law article. Additionally,  every single example cited by the article from the OP are of people who only sent Cease and Desist letters because they didn't have an actual legal argument. The article even cites the honest musicians who accept they don't have a legal reason to ask him to stop but did so anyway!

I'm open to being wrong, if he used this song without proper copyright he should be held accountable. But we had this same discussion in March about Sinead O'Connor, and just as I said in that thread,  if he's guilty he should be held accountable, but no one showed evidence that he broke the law then, either. A cease and desist letter is not a lawsuit, and if Trump actually broke the law, I guarantee you there'd be a lawsuit!

Lol, you're not the brightest bulb in the Christmas lights, are you PA?

[+Link of Hyrule]

8 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Lol, you're not the brightest bulb in the Christmas lights, are you PA?

There's a whole wikipedia page about Trump's use of music from artists who disagree with him. Up to this point, Trump had the legal rights to play the music in every single case. If this case is different it will be the first time Trump has ever not paid for the copyright to music at his rallies. Considering that the Hayes estate has said that the real reason these artists haven't sued is because it was more trouble than it's worth, I have come to the conclusion that the Hayes estate is simply lying about the lawsuit. 

 

Quote

“Most of these artists just don’t want to take time or any of the smaller artists don’t have the money resources. And to know how Mr. Hayes is in that rare category where he understands copyright, he understands how you protect yourself, how you protect your publishing. So he knows this just as well as anybody else, if not better,” Walker explained.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/isaac-hayes-iii-why-threatening-trump-over-copyright-1235972743/

The quoted part is just a straight up lie (or at least a misunderstanding by Walker), every single time Trump has been accused of copyright infringement it turns out Trump has had the legal right to the song. If the rights to this song weren't purchased, it would be the first time Trump has EVER done that!

Note that saying he doesn't have "permission" is not the same as saying he had the legal right. Trump often buys the rights to the music in bundles of thousands of songs, the musicians themselves are almost always unaware that Trump has paid for them until after he plays it at his rally, at which point they claim he didn't get "permission" (which means he didn't explicitly ask the artist if it was ok, he just paid for the rights to use it and then used it as per the rights he purchased). 

Prove me wrong. I'll wait. 

Edited August 13 by Link of Hyrule