Kenny vs. Donald: When ‘Danger Zone’ Meets the Legal Zone

Oct 21, 2025

Over the weekend, Donald Trump posted an AI-generated video on Truth Social that shows him in a fighter jet, wearing a crown, and dumping a poop over American “No Kings” protesters. The soundtrack is Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone,” a Top Gun era anthem that was dropped in without permission. The clip riffed on the movie’s visuals, spread fast across platforms, and lit up the discourse.

Loggins responded publicly, called it an unauthorized use, said he was never asked and would have declined, demanded removal, and reminded people that music should bring us together, not fuel division. Reports indicate he’s exploring legal options, joining a long list of artists who have objected to political uses of their work without consent.

I thought it would be interesting to share with my readers what rights of Kenny Loggins may have been violated, what defenses might be floated, and what real-world consequences could follow for Trump or any affiliated campaign entity.

Below, I break down the copyright and damages analysis in plain English, so you can see exactly how this could play out. Let’s walk through the analysis step by step.

First, The Video

1. The Core Legal Issue

The key question is whether Donald Trump’s campaign (or political committee, PAC, or affiliate) infringed Kenny Loggins’ copyright by using one of his songs in a campaign video, in this case, a digitally generated or AI-enhanced video.

To determine this, we look at exclusive rights under U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 106), which include:

The right to reproduce the work,
The right to prepare derivative works,
The right to distribute copies,
The right to publicly perform or display the work.

If the campaign used a recorded version of a Kenny Loggins song (for example, “Danger Zone”), that recording and the underlying composition are both protected. This means:

The sound recording is owned by the record label.
The musical composition is owned or administered by Kenny Loggins and/or his music publisher.

Unauthorized use in a campaign video typically implicates a violation of copyright laws.

2. Political Ads and the “Fair Use” Defense

Campaigns sometimes claim fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, but this defense rarely succeeds in this context.

Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S. copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, when the use is deemed reasonable and does not unfairly harm the market value of the original work.

To evaluate fair use, courts consider four factors:

Purpose and character of the use- The ad promotes a political figure, not a parody, commentary, or educational use. It’s commercially adjacent (campaign promotion), which weighs against fair use.
Nature of the work- The song is creative and expressive, protected more strongly than factual works.
Amount and substantiality used- If the campaign used a recognizable portion (e.g., chorus or hook), that’s substantial, weighing against fair use.
Effect on the market- Unauthorized use in a viral political ad could harm licensing opportunities for ads, films, or other uses. Again against fair use.

Conclusion: It’s highly unlikely fair use would apply here. Courts almost always find against campaigns that use copyrighted songs without permission.

3. Kenny Loggins’ Remedies

If the use was unauthorized, Kenny Loggins (or his label/publisher) could pursue civil remedies. This includes monetary awards ordered by a court to compensate a person or entity for losses, harm, or injury caused by another’s wrongful act, and may be accompanied by injunctive relief, which directs the wrongdoer to stop or refrain from the harmful conduct, all with the purpose of restoring the injured party and preventing future harm. This includes:

a. Injunction

He could seek a preliminary injunction to stop the video from being distributed or streamed.

b. Statutory Damages and Actual Damages

If the work is registered (most major recordings are), Loggins can seek:

Statutory damages: $750–$30,000 per work infringed, and up to $150,000 per work if willful infringement is proven.
Actual damages: Lost licensing fees, harm to reputation, or diminution in the song’s value.

c. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, the prevailing party can recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

d. Public Relations Pressure

Most artists also use public condemnation rather than litigation, issuing cease-and-desist letters and public statements. This has been common practice for artists whose music is used by politicians without permission (examples include Aerosmith, Neil Young, Adele, and the Rolling Stones).

4. Liability Exposure for Trump or His Campaign

The liable party depends on who created or distributed the video.

If it was Donald J. Trump’s official campaign or a PAC, that entity bears liability.
If the video was created by supporters or third parties and then shared or reposted by Trump, liability could be less direct, but reposting still potentially constitutes publication and endorsement.
If Trump’s social media accounts are part of an official campaign apparatus, copyright liability could extend to him or his campaign organization.

Even if Trump personally didn’t create the video, vicarious or contributory infringement could apply if he had control over its dissemination and benefitted from it politically.

5. Special Note on AI-Generated Content

If the video itself is AI-generated, the legal analysis remains the same for the music track. The AI visuals don’t transform the song into a fair use; the audio use still requires licensing. AI creation might complicate attribution but does not excuse infringement.

If, however, an AI-generated “sound-alike” track was used that closely imitates Loggins’ voice or melody, new claims may arise:

Right of publicity (if it mimics his voice),
Derivative work infringement (if it copies core musical elements),
Lanham Act false endorsement (if it suggests his endorsement).

6. Realistic Damages and Exposure

In practice, for one song used in one campaign video:

Typical settlements: $10,000–$100,000 range, depending on visibility and artist.
Litigation exposure: Up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work, plus fees.
Non-monetary costs: Public backlash, reputational harm, and removal orders.

A strong argument can be made by Loggins that Trump’s unauthorized use of his copyrighted song in an AI-generated campaign video constitutes multiple independent infringements under 17 U.S.C. §504(c). Each repost or re-upload by Trump, his campaign, PACs, or supporters across platforms like Truth Social, X, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, Bluesky and other platforms is a separate public performance and distribution, exposing them to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per act.

The viral spread multiplies reputational harm, market loss, and willful infringement, supporting maximum damages. Courts have held that distinct broadcasts of the same work reaching new audiences can count as separate infringements, making one post a multi-platform infringement event with major legal and financial exposure.

7. Strategic Outcome

Most artists in this situation send a cease-and-desist letter to the campaign and demand removal. If ignored, they may file suit in federal court.

Given Trump’s history of provocative media use, this could easily escalate to a high-profile copyright infringement lawsuit, particularly if the use implies endorsement or if the song is a major part of the ad’s tone or message.

Bottom Line

Yes, if Donald Trump’s campaign used Kenny Loggins’ copyrighted song without permission in a political video, it’s almost certainly an infringement of both the composition and the recording.

Kenny Loggins’ remedies include injunction, damages (statutory or actual), and attorneys’ fees. Trump’s exposure could include six-figure liability and reputational harm, though the matter could also be settled quickly with a licensing payment and public removal.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links

Subscribe

This post is free, but building a future rooted in truth and democracy takes real investment. If my work speaks to you, subscribe and if you can, chip in $7/month or $70/year. More than ever, independent journalism that actually gives a damn (and delivers ideas you can use today) is worth backing.

Uncensored Objection ™

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?