The family of soul legend Isaac Hayes just handed Trump’s campaign a resounding legal defeat, forcing the former president to stop blasting “Hold On, I’m Coming” at his rallies despite months of defiant usage.

At a Glance

• A federal judge issued a temporary injunction prohibiting Trump from using Isaac Hayes’ “Hold On, I’m Coming” at campaign events
• The Hayes estate seeks $3 million in damages, not the falsely claimed $50 million circulating on social media
• Trump’s campaign allegedly used the song at least 133 times between 2020 and 2024 despite having no valid license
• The case remains unresolved with no damages awarded or liability assessed as of September 2024
• Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss, finding sufficient grounds for copyright infringement claims

Another Musician Stands Up to Trump

The Trump campaign has been slapped with yet another legal challenge for their apparently cavalier attitude toward copyright law. This time it’s the family of soul legend Isaac Hayes taking a stand against what they claim is unauthorized use of the iconic 1966 hit “Hold On, I’m Coming” at campaign rallies.

On September 3, a federal judge granted a temporary injunction preventing Trump from using the song at future campaign events – a clear rebuke to a campaign that seems to believe they can use any music they want regardless of the artist’s wishes.

While hysterical left-wing social media accounts like Occupy Democrats have been circulating claims that “Donald Trump lost a $50 million lawsuit yesterday for using Isaac Hayes music,” the reality is far different. No final judgment has been rendered, and the actual lawsuit seeks $3 million – not $50 million. This is yet another example of how the left distorts reality to score political points against Trump even when the actual facts would suffice.

https://twitter.com/isaachayes/status/1822749426642735492

Trump’s Failed Attempt to Dismiss

Trump’s legal team tried to get the case thrown out, arguing that the Hayes estate had no standing to sue because they had supposedly assigned their rights to music publisher Primary Wave. They also claimed protection under a blanket license from performing rights organization BMI. Both arguments fell flat when the judge examined the details. It turns out the Hayes estate had reclaimed their rights under the “termination rights” provision of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which allows creators to take back control of their work after a set period.

“The case against President Trump has ‘problems,’ a judge says, but it’s strong enough to avoid being dismissed immediately.”, says Judge Thomas Thrash Jr.

What’s particularly galling about this case is the sheer number of times Trump’s campaign allegedly used the song without permission. According to court documents, “Hold On, I’m Coming” was played at Trump rallies at least 133 times between 2020 and 2024.

That’s not a one-time mistake or oversight – that’s a pattern of deliberate disregard for intellectual property rights. And when BMI specifically excluded the song from Trump’s license after objections from the rights holders, the campaign apparently kept right on playing it.

https://twitter.com/IsaacHayes3/status/1831037128056193226

Part of a Larger Pattern

This lawsuit isn’t happening in isolation. The Trump campaign has faced similar objections from an impressive roster of musical artists who don’t want their work associated with his political message. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, ABBA, the White Stripes, Foo Fighters – the list goes on and on. It raises an interesting question: Why does a billionaire former president feel entitled to use other people’s creative work against their explicit wishes? The answer likely reveals a worldview where rules simply don’t apply to certain people.

“No damages have been awarded, and no liability has been assessed.”, says Ronald Coleman.

The legal technicalities in this case are fascinating for copyright nerds but infuriating for anyone who believes in respecting artists’ rights. The Hayes estate sold half their reclaimed rights to Primary Wave, resulting in a 25% stake each, but maintained enough control to object to Trump’s usage.

The court found that Trump’s campaign likely infringed copyright by continuing to use the song without a valid license past June 2024, despite all warnings and requests to stop. It’s the kind of arrogance that perfectly encapsulates why so many creative professionals have lined up against Trump.