Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgrahamc | Hacker News Reader

I'm less creeped out by the technology than by the implications in terms of copyright. What this may mean is that a copyright holder on the image of a person (such as Tupac) will be able to milk that image long after they are dead and potentially without having to pay anyone.

When you see Snoop Dogg 'performing' with Tupac you have to wonder where the money is flowing. Tupac's gone, perhaps his family is getting some pay back from the fact that an old recording of a song is played publicly. But what happens when Tupac suddenly records a new song? Would not surprise me to discover that the record companies are able to claim that they deserve all the money associated with that.

View on HN

The hologram is extra creepy, but is it legally any different than a commercial or picture? By now I'm sure contracts already had clauses about what happens in the event of someone's death, and whether or not they're allowed to use the person's likeness.

Plenty of albums have been released under Tupac's name since he died. Some of the work (the production, the lyrics, obviously the vocals) was material that Tupac had worked on but never released.

According to wikipedia, Suge Knight produced most of these posthumous albums[1]. I assume the royalty split was probably the usual percentages going to the label and distribution, and a much smaller fraction going to Tupac (or his estate in this case). So, all in all, probably no worse of a deal than most living artists can expect from major label contracts.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur_discography

It makes me wonder how Snoop must feel, having performed that same song many times with Pac before...

Probably made him feel rich.

> But what happens when Tupac suddenly records a new song?

Somebody has to actually create that work and the performance -- presumably whoever does the work or commissions the work would inform themselves of any licensing issues before embarking on it.

I'm curious what you think the ideal scenario here would be?

Rebuilding speech/song based on existing phoneme library (i.e. the discography) is already practical and, like everything else in this domain, has been done long ago in japan: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/12/ueki-loid-speech-synt...

See also Hatsune Miku/Vocaloid, which is a fully artificial pop star that's been selling out shows (as a hologram since 2009)

I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I can't imagine we will ever see someone producing entirely new Tupac songs based on his phoneme library.

It would be in such bad taste that even the American recording industry wouldn't go near it. People already get upset that they use old entire recordings to produce new songs, and those are actually his lyrics and his voice.

To paraphrase the well-known maxim, you can never go broke underestimating the good taste of the american public (over a long enough timeframe). The IP status of the voice is a really fascinating question though, given how complex the current songwriting/master/recording breakdown is already.

> you can never go broke underestimating the good taste of the american public

Is bear-baiting coming back, then?

On a much smaller scale, this has already been done. Tupac's posthumous "Loyal to the Game" album produced by Eminem had a number of lyrical phrases constructed out of phonemes.

There was a small amount of outrage at the time of its release, but it mostly focused on the fact that those constructed lyrics were endorsing other rappers (mostly Eminem's protégés also performing on the track), whom some fans felt Tupac would not have endorsed had he been alive.

Definitely, but I think it is a question of scale.

It's one thing to construct some ad-libs, but to actually create a piece of art (i.e. an entire verse) is a whole different ball game. It would be like if someone took fragments of Picasso paintings, constructed an entirely new painting, and called it a Picasso.

I suppose it's conceivable that someone might try to do it, and it's apparently technically possible, but I think it would be roundly rejected.

There are some interesting painting remix projects, by the way: http://www.studiovoltaire.org/edition-arcangel.htm

> bad taste that even the American recording industry wouldn't go near it

What in hell makes you believes the recording industry has good taste?

It would be in such bad taste that even the American recording industry wouldn't go near it.

Oh, I'd take that bet. I would even bet that the producers will claim to have been in touch with his spirit.

Sounds like you're creeped out by copyright in general, not by anything to do with this article.

That's not true. I rely on copyright as the foundation for lots of things (the code I write in my job and it underlies the OSS licenses that I use for code that I release freely). Copyright itself does not worry me.

But there are concerning moves to make copyright last essentially indefinitely and in the UK we've recently seen the Olympics be backed up by criminal rather than civil penalties for copyright-related offenses. Those things are worrying.

It is true that there's nothing in the original article about copyright or finance, but it is worth considering in the light of the fact that it's unlikely that the event or the other performers did this out of the goodness of their hearts. Follow the money.

Okay, but none of that is specific to this technology or its use at a concert. You just seem to be taking the opportunity to talk about something vaguely related that you have strong feelings about.

Because discussion of copyright woes related to emerging public technology is obviously a bad thing.

This is Hacker News, not Hologram News; we don't have to deliberately avoid a discussion about these relevant issues because it will upset copyright maximalists.

> in the UK we've recently seen the Olympics be backed up by criminal rather than civil penalties for copyright-related offenses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com