Court Rejects Trump's Copyright Claims
A federal judge on July 18 dismissed President Donald Trump's nearly $50 million lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward. The legal action centered on Woodward's use of audio recordings from interviews conducted with Trump for his 2020 book 'Rage,' which were later published in a 2022 audiobook titled 'The Trump Tapes.' The judge ruled that Trump failed to plausibly demonstrate that he and Woodward had an agreement to be co-authors of the audiobook or that Trump held any copyright interest in his responses during the interviews.
Trump had argued in the 2023 lawsuit that he repeatedly informed Woodward the interviews were intended solely for the book, not for any additional audio release. Woodward, however, maintained that no such restriction was ever agreed upon, a point that appeared to resonate with the court's findings. The dismissal marks a significant setback for Trump's legal efforts to control the use of these recordings.
Background of the Trump-Woodward Dispute
The origins of this lawsuit trace back to a series of 20 interviews Woodward conducted with Trump during his first term as president. These conversations formed the backbone of Woodward's best-selling book 'Rage,' which offered an inside look at Trump's presidency. In 2022, Woodward released 'The Trump Tapes,' an audiobook that included the raw audio from these interviews, prompting Trump's legal challenge over what he claimed was unauthorized use of his voice for profit.
Filed in 2023, the lawsuit sought damages of nearly $50 million, alleging that Woodward and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, wrongfully profited from the recordings. Trump's legal team contended that the release of the audiobook violated an understanding about the scope of the interviews' usage, though the court found little support for this claim in case law.
Implications of the Ruling
The dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against Woodward raises broader questions about copyright and control over recorded interviews, especially those involving public figures. Legal experts note that this ruling reinforces the principle that interviewees do not automatically hold copyright over their spoken words unless specific agreements are in place. For now, Woodward's use of the tapes stands as permissible under the court's interpretation of the law.
This case also underscores the ongoing tension between Trump and members of the media who have covered his presidency. While the financial and legal stakes were high, the outcome serves as a reminder of the challenges public figures face in controlling narratives derived from their own words. The decision closes this chapter of contention between Trump and Woodward, whose reporting has long been a point of scrutiny for the president.