In his Kendrick Lamar insult track “Taylor Made Freestyle,” Drake uses imitations of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg, but only one word truly captures Drake’s transition from objecting to using imitation technologies like that of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg. (Drake had a club-mitzvah-themed 31st birthday celebration, but he probably knows the expression.) The legendary “Heart on My Sleeve” from last year, which featured AI vocalizations of Drake and The Weeknd, sparked a new era in the conversation about music and AI. Since then, artists’ rights organizations and industry lobbyists have been pushing for legislation to regulate generative AI systems based on the terms of permission and rights. Then Drake goes on and blatantly discredits the fundamental idea. He was opposed to this before he was for it, like something from a social harm commercial!
Use of musicians’ tones without their consent is wrong in my opinion, and it’s even more sinister if the designer has passed away recently. The legal position around this, and AI in general, is in flux, though. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act only passed, and a few national costs have substantial support. However, the primary thrust of the ELVIS Act and the majority of the recent legislation is to establish sanctions for actions that are similar to those taken by Drake.
Trending on Billboard
And Drake, who knows these laws are necessary because they would have helped him a year ago, really made them more difficult to pass. Imagine that a music industry lobbyist spent the last year educating Congress on the importance of protecting the distinctive looks of certain performers, and then suddenly one of the biggest performers in the world goes against the rules you’ve been discussing. Miss about Lamar — where’s the disrespect record from the RIAA?
Because rules vary by state, it’s difficult to say for certain whether what Drake did was unlawful; this is why we need national policy in the first place. But Drake seems to have released the saving without his brand, Republic Records, a company of Universal Music Group, which may indicate some problems. (Universal did not respond to requests for comment, and a Drake representative declined to comment.) And Tupac Shakur’s estate has threatened to sue if Drake doesn’t take the track offline. (Snoop Dogg’s reaction — “They did what? When? How? Are you confident”?, followed by a weary sigh — is a work of art in itself. 10/10, no notes.) Litigation may become complicated, nevertheless. The Shakur house threatened to sue for an infraction of Shakur’s right of attention, as well as for trademark infringement, which may be harder but comes with higher legal problems.
Howard King, the attorney for Shakur’s house, lays out the problem in his cease-and-withdraw letter to Drake. King writes that “not only is the report a blatant violation of Tupac’s attention and the estate’s constitutional rights,” but it also constitutes a flagrant abuse of the tradition of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its consent to this usage. The use of 2Pac’s speech was particularly inappropriate, King suggests, since Lamar is “a good companion to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac”.
In terms of song critics, Drake uses the representations of Snoop and 2Pac to criticize Lamar and make it seem like he’s unworthy of their legacy. There are precedents that suggest it does, and Tom Waits and Bette Midler each won a case about (human) vocal imitation. In terms of legal terms, this might violate Shakur and Snoop Dogg’s publicity or likeness rights. This feels so wrong in terms of morality because it makes Shakur and Snoop say things they would never have said in person. In hip-hop, status is everything; you own your comments in both of the word’s emotions, and Snoop and Shakur have every right to protect theirs.
This may seem like an awfully condescending way to discuss something that is almost certainly going to be remembered as a slight track from a main artist. Are careers actually in danger? Nobody who has yet the slightest interest in pop music is aware that Drake employed AI.
That is the most recent way to think about a rapidly-evolving systems. What happens when thousands of hobby manufacturers release thousands of songs that are imitated by hundreds of performers? (There are enthusiast-made AI songs out there already.) Who is aware of who dissented whom, let alone who is in favor of or supporting which solution? For that matter, what happens when this comes for lawmakers? You need to make for a disaster before regulating modern technology with the authorized equal of an umbrella.
The ELVIS Act and the EU AI policy, both of which are good starting points, seem to be good for the majority of the federal legislation being discussed. Finally, by the time the storm hits, we’ll remember “Heart on My Shirt” as the beginning of an essential argument and “Taylor Made Freestyle” as an amusing away.
