Only one word really describes Drake's shift from objecting to an AI impersonation of himself to using similar technology to add 2Pac and Snoop Dogg impersonations to Kendrick Lamar's diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle”: Chutzpa. (Drake had a Bar-mitzvah themed 31st birthday party, so he's probably familiar with the term.) Around this time last year, the infamous “Heart on My Sleeve,” which featured AI vocal imitations of Drake and The Weeknd, shifted the conversation about music and artificial intelligence into high gear. Since then, industry lobbyists and artists' rights groups have been pushing for legislation to regulate AI genetic technology based on concepts of rights and licenses. Now Drake goes and blatantly violates the main principle involved. It's like something out of a political attack ad: He was against it before he was for it!
To me, using artists' voices without their permission is wrong, and it's even more wrong—more creepy—if the artist in question has died relatively recently. However, the legal situation around it, and AI in general, is in flux. Tennessee's ELVIS Act just passed, and a few federal bills have significant support. But the point of the ELVIS Act and most of the recently proposed legislation is to impose penalties for exactly the kind of things Drake did.
And Drake, who must know these laws are necessary because a year ago they would have helped him, just made it harder to pass them. Imagine being a music business lobbyist who has spent the last year explaining to members of Congress how important it is to protect the unique sounds of certain artists, and suddenly one of the biggest artists in the world steps up and violates every principle you've been discussing. Forget Lamar — where's the diss track from the RIAA?
It's hard to say for sure if what Drake did was illegal because laws vary by state – which is why we need federal legislation in the first place. But Drake appears to have released the record without his label, Republic Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, which could indicate some concerns. (A rep for Drake declined to comment, and Universal did not respond to requests for comment.) And Tupac Shakur's estate has threatened to sue if Drake doesn't take the track offline. (Snoop Dogg's reaction — “What did they do? When? How? Are you sure?”, followed by a weary sigh — is a work of art in itself. 10/10, no notes.) Still, the litigation could they are complicated. The Shakur estate has threatened to sue for violating Shakur's right of publicity, as well as for copyright infringement, which can be more difficult but comes with high legal damages.
Howard King, the attorney for Shakur's estate, lays out the issue in his cease and desist letter to Drake. “Not only is the record a blatant violation of Tupac's publicity and estate's legal rights,” King writes, “it's also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.” The use of 2Pac's voice was particularly inappropriate, King suggests, since Lamar is “a good friend of the Estate who has given Tupac nothing but respect.”
In music critic terms, Drake uses impersonations of 2Pac and Snoop to call out Lamar by implying that he is unworthy of their legacy. In legal terms, this may infringe Shakur and Snoop Dogg's rights of publicity or likeness, and there is precedent to suggest that it does — Tom Waits and Bette Midler each won a case over (human) vocal impersonation. Morally, this is so wrong because it forces Shakur and Snoop to say something they would never have said in real life. In hip-hop, reputation is everything — you own your words in both senses of the word — and Snoop and Shakur have every right to protect theirs.
This may seem like an awfully pretentious way to talk about what will almost certainly be remembered as a minor piece by a great artist. Are reputations really at stake? Doesn't anyone with even the slightest interest in pop music know that Drake used AI?
This is a very modern way of thinking about a technology that is evolving very quickly. What happens when millions of hobbyist producers release thousands of songs with imitations of hundreds of artists? (There are already fan AI pieces.) Who knows who dissed who, let alone who favors which politician or endorses which product? For that matter, what happens when it involves politicians? You can't set up digital technology with the legal equivalent of an umbrella — you have to prepare for a flood.
The ELVIS Act and the EU AI legislation are a good start for this preparation, and most of the federal legislation under discussion appears stable. Hopefully, by the time the flood hits, we'll remember “Heart on My Sleeve” as the start of an important conversation and “Taylor Made Freestyle” as a fun outing.
from our partners at https://www.billboard.com/pro/drake-ai-diss-track-artists-rights-2pac-snoop-dogg/
