{"id":423,"date":"2024-04-30T05:51:42","date_gmt":"2024-04-30T05:51:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/did-drakes-ai-kendrick-lamar-diss-track-set-back-artist-rights\/"},"modified":"2024-04-30T08:42:04","modified_gmt":"2024-04-30T08:42:04","slug":"did-drakes-ai-kendrick-lamar-diss-track-set-back-artist-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/did-drakes-ai-kendrick-lamar-diss-track-set-back-artist-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Drake’s AI Kendrick Lamar Diss Track Set Back Artist Rights?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Only one word really describes Drake\u2019s shift from objecting to an AI impersonation of him to using similar technology to add imitations of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg to his Kendrick Lamar diss track \u201cTaylor Made Freestyle\u201d: Chutzpah<\/em>. (Drake had a bar-mitzvah-themed 31st birthday<\/a> party, so he probably knows the term.) Last year around this time, the infamous \u201cHeart on My Sleeve,\u201d which featured AI vocal imitations of Drake and The Weeknd, shifted the debate about music and AI into high gear. Ever since, industry lobbyists and artists rights groups have been pushing legislation to regulate generative AI technology based on concepts of rights and permissions. Now Drake goes and blatantly breaks the main principle involved. It\u2019s like something out of a political attack ad: He was against this before he was for it!<\/em><\/p>\n

To me, using artists\u2019 voices without their permission is wrong and it\u2019s even more wrong \u2014 creepier \u2014 if the artist in question died relatively recently. The legal situation around this, and AI in general, is in flux, though. Tennessee\u2019s ELVIS Act just passed, and a few federal bills have significant support. But the main point of the ELVIS Act and most of the recently proposed legislation is to impose penalties for exactly the kind of thing Drake did.<\/p>\n

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 you\u2019re a music business lobbyist who spent the last year explaining to members of Congress how important it is to protect the unique sounds of particular performers and then suddenly one of the biggest artists in the world goes ahead and violates every principle you\u2019ve been discussing. Forget about Lamar \u2014 where\u2019s the diss track from the RIAA?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to say for sure whether what Drake did was illegal because laws<\/a> vary by state \u2014 that\u2019s why we need federal legislation in the first place. But Drake seems to have released the recording without his label, Republic Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, which could indicate some concerns. (A representative for Drake declined to comment and Universal did not respond to requests for comment.) And Tupac Shakur\u2019s estate has threatened to sue if Drake doesn\u2019t take the track offline. (Snoop Dogg\u2019s reaction \u2014 \u201cThey did what? When? How? Are you sure?,\u201d followed by a weary sigh \u2014 is a work of art in itself. 10\/10, no notes.) Litigation could be complicated, though. The Shakur estate threatened to sue for a violation of Shakur\u2019s right of publicity, as well as for copyright infringement, which may be harder but comes with high statutory damages.<\/p>\n

Howard King<\/strong>, the lawyer for Shakur\u2019s estate, lays out the issue in his cease-and-desist letter to Drake. \u201cNot only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac\u2019s publicity and the estate\u2019s legal rights,\u201d King writes, \u201cit is 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.\u201d The use of 2Pac\u2019s voice was especially inappropriate, King suggests, since Lamar is \u201ca good friend to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac.\u201d<\/p>\n

In music critic terms, Drake is using simulacra of 2Pac and Snoop to call out Lamar by implying that he\u2019s unworthy of their legacy. In legal terms, this might violate Shakur and Snoop Dogg\u2019s rights of publicity or likeness rights, and there are precedents that would suggest it does \u2014 Tom Waits and Bette Midler each won a case about (human) vocal imitation. In moral terms, this feels 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 \u2014 you own your words in both senses of the term \u2014 and Snoop and Shakur have every right to guard theirs.<\/p>\n

This might seem like an awfully pretentious way to talk about what will almost certainly be remembered as a minor track from a major artist. Are reputations really at stake? Doesn\u2019t anyone with even the slightest interest in pop music know that Drake used AI?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a very current way of thinking about a technology that\u2019s evolving really fast. What happens when millions of hobbyist producers release thousands of songs with imitations of hundreds of artists? (There are fan-made AI tracks out there already.) Who\u2019s to know who dissed whom, let alone who favors what politician or endorses which product? For that matter, what happens when this comes for politicians? You can\u2019t regulate digital technology with the legal equivalent of an umbrella \u2014 you need to prepare for a flood.<\/p>\n

The ELVIS Act and the EU AI legislation represent a good start for that preparation, and most of the federal legislation under discussion seems solid. Hopefully, by the time the flood hits, we\u2019ll remember \u201cHeart on My Sleeve\u201d as the beginning of an important debate and \u201cTaylor Made Freestyle\u201d as an amusing aside.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Only one word really describes Drake\u2019s shift from objecting to an AI impersonation of him to using similar technology to add imitations of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":424,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[407,404,401,402,403,408,406,405],"class_list":["post-423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-artist","tag-diss","tag-drakes","tag-kendrick","tag-lamar","tag-rights","tag-set","tag-track"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=423"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":439,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423\/revisions\/439"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/424"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}