Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.
The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is.
"The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights."
They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
"Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."
Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."
I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.
There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.
I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
