Tupac Shakur's estate is threatening to sue Drake over a recent diss track against Kendrick Lamar that featured an AI-generated version of the late rapper's voice, calling it a “flagrant violation” of the law and a “gross misuse” of his legacy.
In a cease and desist letter Wednesday obtained exclusively by Advertising signLawyer Howard King told Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) that he must confirm that he will take down his “Taylor Made Freestyle” in less than 24 hours or the estate will “pursue all legal remedies” against him.
“The Estate is deeply disappointed and dismayed by the unauthorized use of Tupac's voice and persona,” King wrote in the letter. “Not only is the record a blatant violation of Tupac's publicity and estate's legal rights, 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.”
Drake released “Taylor Made” on Friday, marking the latest chapter in a war of words between the Canadian rapper and Lamar. In addition to taking shots at both Kendrick and Taylor Swift, the track made headlines for its prominent use of artificial intelligence technology to create fake lyrics from Tupac and Snoop Dogg – two West Coast legends idolized by Lamar-based Los Angeles.
“Kendrick, we need you, the savior of the West Coast/ Etching your name into some hip-hop history,” AI-generated Tupac raps on Drake's song. “If you take this with malice/ You seem a little nervous about all the publicity.”
In Tuesday's letter, Tupac's estate warned Drake that using his voice clearly violated Tupac's so-called publicity rights — the legal power to control how your image or likeness is used by others. And they took special exception to using his voice to take shots at Lamar.
“The unauthorized, equally terrifying use of Tupac's voice against Kendrick Lamar, a good friend of the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac and his legacy publicly and privately, adds insult to injury,” King wrote.
A representative for Drake declined to comment on the Shakur estate's claims.
It is not clear whether Snoop Dogg, whose voice also appeared on “Taylor Made,” plans to raise similar legal objections to Drake's track. On Saturday, he posted a video on social media in which he appeared to be learning the song for the first time: “What did they do? When? How? Are you sure?” A rep for Snoop Dogg did not return a request for comment.
The unauthorized use of voice-cloning technology has become one of the music industry's thorniest legal issues, as artificial intelligence tools have made it easier than ever to convincingly imitate real artists.
The issue exploded onto the scene last year when an unknown artist named Ghostwriter released a track titled “Heart On My Sleeve” that – ironically – featured fake lyrics from Drake's voice. Since then, as voice cloning has proliferated on the Internet, industry groups, legal experts and lawmakers have argued over how best to combat it.
It is not as simple as it may seem. Federal copyrights are difficult to enforce directly because cloned vocals usually feature new words and music that differ from existing copyrighted songs. Estate-mentioned rights of publicity are a better fit because they protect one's likeness itself, but historically they have been used for lawsuits over advertisements rather than creative works such as songs.
Faced with this legal uncertainty, the record industry and top artists have pushed for new legislation to address the problem. Last month, Tennessee passed a statute called the ELVIS Act that aims to combat voice cloning by expanding the state's rights of publicity laws beyond simple advertisements. Lawmakers in Washington are also considering similar bills that would create new, broader rights of publicity at the federal level.
In Wednesday's letter, however, the estate said existing California publicity laws clearly prohibit something as blatant as Drake's use of Tupac's voice on “Taylor Made.” King argued that the song had caused “significant financial and reputational harm” by creating the “false impression that the estate and Tupac are promoting or endorsing the lyrics for the same sound.”
The estate also argued that the song was likely created using an AI model that infringed the estate's copyright by “training” on existing recordings of Tupac's music. The legality of using copyrighted “intros” is another difficult legal issue currently being tested in several upcoming lawsuits against AI developers, including one filed by major music publishers.
“It's hard to believe [Tupac’s record label]His intellectual property was not scratched to create the fake Tupac AI on Record,” King wrote, before demanding Drake also provide “a detailed explanation of how the sound was created and the individuals or company that created it, including all records and other data were 'scraped' or used.”
Wednesday's letter also strongly emphasized that Drake himself had previously objected to the use of his own likeness by others. In addition to last year's incident surrounding “Heart on My Sleeve” — which was quickly pulled from the Internet — King pointed to a lesser-known federal lawsuit in which Drake's lawyers accused a website of using his image without authorization.
“THE [“Taylor Made Freestyle”] has generated more than one million streams to this point and has been widely reported in the general national press and popular entertainment websites and publications,” the estate wrote. “Undoubtedly, it's exponentially more serious and damaging than a photo of you with other people on a low-volume website.”
In its final paragraphs, the letter sought written confirmation by noon Pacific Thursday that Drake's representatives were “expeditiously taking all necessary steps to remove her.”
“If you comply, the estate will consider whether an informal negotiation to resolve this matter makes sense,” King wrote. “If you fail to comply, our client has authorized this company to pursue all remedies, including but not limited to, an action for infringement of intellectual property rights, property, publicity and personality and consequential damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.”
from our partners at https://www.billboard.com/pro/tupac-shakur-estate-drake-diss-track-ai-generated-voice/
