Only one word really describes Drake's shift from objecting to AI impersonations to using similar technology to include impersonations of 2Pac and Snoop Dogg in his Kendrick Lamar diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle.” : The chutzpah. (Drake had a bar-mitzvah-themed 31st birthday party, so he probably knows the term.) Around this time last year, the infamous “Heart on My Sleeve,” featuring Drake and The Weeknd's A.I. Vocal imitation was done, changed the debate. About music and AI in high gear. Since then, industry lobbies and artists' rights groups have been pushing for legislation to regulate generative AI technology based on concepts of rights and permission. Now Drake goes and clearly breaks the basic principle involved. It's like a political attack ad: He was against it before!
To me, using artists' voices without their permission is wrong and even more wrong than that. The legal situation around it, and AI in general, is in flux, though. Tennessee's ELVIS Act just passed, and a few federal bills have significant support. But the main point of the ELVIS Act and the recently proposed legislation is to impose penalties for doing exactly the same thing that Drake did.
And Drake, who must know these laws are necessary because a year ago they would have helped him, only made them harder to pass. Imagine you're a music business lobbyist who spent the last year explaining to members of Congress how important it is to protect the unique sounds of certain artists, and then suddenly one of the biggest artists in the world steps forward and you Violates every principle of are discussing. Forget about Lamar – where's the diss track from the RIAA?
It's hard to say for sure whether what Drake did was illegal because laws vary by state — that's why we need federal legislation first. But Drake appears to have released the recording without his own label, Republic Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, which may indicate some concerns. (Drake's rep 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. (Snoopdog's reaction — “What did they do? When? How? Are you sure?”, followed by a weary sigh — is a work of art in itself. The Shakur estate held the rights to Shakur's publicity. Threatened to sue for infringement as well as copyright infringement, which can be difficult but comes with more legal pitfalls.
Howard KingA lawyer for Shakur's estate described the issue in a letter to Drake. “Not only is the record a blatant violation of Tupac's legal rights of publicity and estate,” King writes, “it's also a flagrant misappropriation of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. Stat would never have approved of this use. King suggested that the use of 2Pac's voice was particularly inappropriate, as Lamar “is a good friend of Stat who gave Tupac nothing but respect.”
In music critic terms, Drake is using simulacrums of 2Pac and Snoop to call out Lamar as unworthy of their legacy. In legal terms, this could infringe Shakur and Snoop Dogg's rights of publicity or likeness, and there are precedents that suggest it does—Tom Waits and Bette Midler each have a (human) voice. Won the case about imitation. Morally, it feels so wrong because it forces Shakur and Snoop to say things they would never say in real life. In hip-hop, fame is everything — you own your words in both senses of the term — and Snoop and Shakur have every right to protect them.
That sounds like a terribly pretentious way to talk about what will almost certainly be remembered as a minor track by a major artist. Is reputation really at stake? Does anyone with the slightest interest in pop music know that Drake used AI?
It's a very current way of thinking about a technology that's evolving really fast. What happens when millions of hobbyist producers release thousands of songs imitating hundreds of artists? (There are already fan-made AI tracks out there.) Who knows who disagreed with whom, let alone who supports which politician or which product? For that matter, what about when it comes to politicians? You can't regulate digital technology with the legal equivalent of an umbrella—you need to prepare for the flood.
The ELVIS Act and EU AI legislation represent a good start for this preparation, and much of the federal legislation discussed appears solid. Hopefully, until the flood comes, we'll remember “Heart on My Sleeve” as an important discussion starter and “Taylor Made Freestyle” as an entertaining one.