{"id":5591,"date":"2024-06-06T17:23:05","date_gmt":"2024-06-06T22:23:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/streamapse.com\/Magazine\/?p=5591"},"modified":"2024-10-06T18:44:26","modified_gmt":"2024-10-06T23:44:26","slug":"the-creative-world-and-the-beef-with-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/streamapse.com\/Magazine\/?p=5591","title":{"rendered":"The Creative World And The ‘Beef’ With AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Drake\u2019s beef with Kendrick Lamar isn\u2019t nearly as important as his tiff with Tupac Shakur\u2019s estate over using the dead rapper\u2019s voice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

In April 2023, a song titled \u201cHeart on My Sleeve,\u201d written and produced by a mysterious producer named Ghostwriter<\/a>, went viral on TikTok<\/a> and briefly became the most popular song<\/a> on both YouTube and Spotify.<\/p>\n

But just as quickly as \u201cHeart on My Sleeve\u201d took off, Spotify and YouTube removed it from their libraries. The producer and songwriter had used artificial intelligence to create vocals on the track that sounded like Drake and The Weeknd. Universal Music Group, which represents both artists, had threatened legal action<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Though Drake was surely aware of the kerfuffle, he didn\u2019t seem fazed by it.<\/p>\n

In fact, just over a year later, he was the one incorporating AI-generated vocals into his music during his ongoing feud with rapper Kendrick Lamar<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been closely following these developments \u2013 which strike at the heart of technology, music and the law \u2013 both as a scholar of digital media<\/a> and as a rap artist who was among the first<\/a> to interpolate rap lyrics with samples of previously released vocals.<\/a><\/p>\n

As Drake showed in his diss track, AI can help artists produce music. But the technology exists in a legal gray area \u2013 particularly when it comes to vocals.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

AI Tupac\u2019s brief moment in the sun<\/h2>\n

On April 19, 2024, Drake released a song<\/a>, \u201cTaylor Made Freestyle,\u201d that used AI-generated vocals of Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg.<\/p>\n

On the track<\/a>, the AI voice of Shakur \u2013 who died in 1996<\/a> \u2013 addresses Lamar, skewering his silence in the feud between the two rap giants:<\/p>\n

\u201cKendrick we need ya, the West Coast savior \/ Engraving your name in some hip-hop history,\u201d raps the artificial Shakur. \u201cCall him a b\u2014h for me \/ Talk about him liking young girls as a gift for me.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, Shakur\u2019s estate threatened legal action against<\/a> Drake for his unauthorized incorporation of Tupac\u2019s voice and persona, which, they claimed, violated the deceased artist\u2019s rights to control the commercial use of his identity.<\/p>\n

Howard King, the estate\u2019s attorney, noted in a letter that the estate would never have approved this use. Drake soon pulled the diss track<\/a> from streaming platforms and YouTube.<\/p>\n

Rights versus what AI writes<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s important to distinguish copyright from someone\u2019s right to publicity.<\/p>\n

Because copyright laws use the term \u201cauthor,\u201d they\u2019ve traditionally been interpreted to exclusively refer to the creative work of a human being<\/a>. In other words, according to statutory copyright provisions, only humans can qualify as authors. And their writing, art, photographs and music cannot be used without their permission.<\/p>\n

When it comes to AI and copyright, one of the core legal issues is the extent to which copyrighted material can be used to train the models. That\u2019s why The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft<\/a>: The companies trained their models using articles that ran in the publication without the permission of the newspaper.<\/p>\n

Someone\u2019s right to publicity<\/a>, on the other hand, refers to their ability to make money off their name, image, likeness, voice or signature.<\/p>\n

Arguably, the most famous right of publicity case is one Bette Midler brought against the Ford Motor Co. in 1988<\/a>. After Midler turned down the car company\u2019s offer to appear in one of their television commercials, Ford used one of her former backup singers to impersonate her singing voice within the ad.<\/p>\n

Ford was forced to pay Midler US$400,000 for violating her right of publicity. That judgment by the state of California will now prove vital in the ways AI can be used to clone the voice of a celebrity.<\/p>\n

However, litigating rights of publicity in cases involving AI won\u2019t be simple.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what actor Scarlett Johannson will discover<\/a> if she sues OpenAI for releasing a new AI voice assistant technology that uses a voice that sounds just like hers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Because AI large language models are designed to be trained on a wide range of sources for original work, it is still difficult to determine, without proof of intent, what is outright theft and what is simply a product of this range of influences. In Johannson\u2019s case, OpenAI invited her to be the voice of its AI assistant technology. She declined, and the company says it went on to create a voice<\/a> on its own. Even though that voice sounds eerily similar to Johnannson\u2019s, the company claims it never intended to replicate the actress\u2019s voice.<\/p>\n