The legendary rock duo, White Stripes have sued former President Donald Trump over grounds of copyright infringement-one of the boldest legal moves. The reason behind the lawsuit is basically Trump using their hit song “Seven Nation Army” during his political rallies and campaigns without any permission. The White Stripes, comprised of Jack and Meg White, have been speaking their minds for a long period of time, and their suing Trump only goes on to depict standing up against something that they feel is an oppressive ideology.
In the lawsuit, it said that Trump used “Seven Nation Army” without permission and distorted the band’s ideals and message. The White Stripes do raw, blues-infused rock music, and for their entire career, they have spoken in opposition to any kind of political movement which they deem fascist or authoritarian in tone. What that underscores here is the fact that the use of their music at his rallies further infringes upon their intellectual property rights and continues to align them with ideals they despise.
The band released a statement, including words from Jack White that Trump’s use of their song was “an affront to everything we stand for.” He continued, “We do not want our music to be used to promote fascist, racist or oppressive ideas. This is a matter of principle and we will not bend.
That ruling opens some very interesting questions, as far as music, politics, and the future of copyright law go. Often enough, artists find their work co-opted into service for this or that political figure or movement without permission, which invariably is followed by court actions such as that between The White Stripes and Trump. Other musicians in recent weeks who have filed lawsuits against Trump for one reason or another include Neil Young and the Rolling Stones.
It does, however, reflect a new trend within the music industry, whereby more artists are willing to sue, knowing their works have been used to promote some political ideologies that they find abhorrent. As this case winds its way through the courts, it’s likely to prompt wider debate about the responsibilities of politicians in making use of copyrighted material and the rights of artists to control how their work is used in the public sphere.
