In a decision issued last Friday, Judge Gardephe dismissed President Trump’s lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward, publisher Simon & Schuster, and parent company Paramount Global. The lawsuit sought to assert copyright ownership over audio recordings of Woodward’s interviews with Trump, which were later released as the audiobook The Trump Tapes. Trump alleged that he was either a joint author or held a copyright interest in his responses during the interviews, and that the release of The Trump Tapes and related works violated his rights. He also asserted state law claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and accounting.
Judge Gardephe rejected Trump’s copyright claims, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that Trump and Woodward intended to be joint authors. The Court noted that Trump had repeatedly stated the interviews were “for the book only” (referring to Woodward’s book Rage), and that Woodward exercised exclusive control over the creation and editing of The Trump Tapes. The Court also found that Trump’s responses to Woodward’s questions were not independently copyrightable, as they were not “fixed” by Trump or under his authority, and lacked the originality and separability required for protection. The Court further held that Trump’s reliance on a copyright registration listing him as a co-author did not salvage the claim, emphasizing that such registrations are not dispositive and may be rebutted by contrary allegations. The Court explained:
Although Plaintiff played no role in “fixing” either Woodward’s questions or his answers to Woodward’s questions, he contends that he has a copyright interest in his stand-alone responses to Woodward’s questions. . . . Woodward’s interviews of Trump are, of course, a collaborative exercise: Woodward asked questions, and Plaintiff provided answers. But the fact that the interviews required Plaintiff’s active cooperation and participation does not mean that he automatically is entitled to a copyright interest in his responses to Woodward’s questions. . . . [T]here is almost no support in the case law for the notion that an interviewee has a copyright interest in his responses to interview questions, and such a conclusion would run counter to animating principles of the Copyright Act.
As to the state law claims, Judge Gardephe found them preempted by the Copyright Act, noting that they sought to vindicate rights equivalent to those protected under federal copyright law. The Court also dismissed Trump’s breach of contract claim, finding it failed to allege a binding agreement limiting Woodward’s use of the recordings.
While the court granted the motion to dismiss in full, it allowed Trump until August 18, 2025, to seek leave to amend, though it noted it was “unlikely” that Trump would be able to adequately plead a plausible copyright interest.