In the contemporary age of Digital revolution, AI has been evidently destined to play a pivotal role. Artificial Intelligence has been surely tasked with the role of a linchpin in the digital era. The use of AI, which came into vogue by the advent of softwares like ChatGPT and Bard, has turned more versatile. It has recently entered into the field of music and at the same time become a popular trend on social media sites like Instagram. The rapport between AI and content creators has turned out to be beneficial and entertaining but poses significant risks to personality and publicity rights as well. From Prime Minister Narendra Modi to footballer Christiano Ronaldo, creators have left no stone unturned in order to test the voices of famous celebrities with AI.
Moreover, the use of AI by the Oscar-winning singer and music composer, A.R. Rahman has grabbed the attention of the world.
A.R. Rahman and the “Thimiri Yezhuda” Controversy AI and Music Industry
In a recent move,music maestro A.R. Rahman found himself in hot water as he resorted to AI to create a new track titled “Thimiri Yezhuda” for the upcoming movie “Lal Salaam” , starring Superstar Rajinikanth in a special appearance. The voices of late singers Bamba Bakya and Shahul Hameed were used to compose the song.
In an interview with BBC, Rahman was asked about how he came across this idea. He said,
“I think a lot of people have been putting out clips on TikTok and Instagram, and I was intrigued. One of my assistants, who started a company, was testing out timeless voices, and he sent me a sample of one of the singers who passed away, whom I introduced to the industry. The director Aishwarya was looking for her movie ‘Lal Salaam’ with a unique kind of voice, and I felt that voice would be good.”
He further highlighted that he had taken due permission from the families of both the artists regarding using their voices and paid the required compensation to the families of the same. He is seen to have quoted on X,
“We took permission from their families and sent deserving remuneration for using their voice algorithms ..technology is not a threat and a nuisance if we use it right…..”
However, Mr. Rahman has received support and criticisms for the same. People supported this act as a productive use of AI which created a feeling of nostalgia. It was supported as a good representation of how artificial intelligence can resurrect the voices of late singers. On the other side of the coin, contentions were raised whether the tech of AI would take over the industry, leaving comparatively lower opportunities for new entrants into the field. This may set a dangerous precedent for the future.
A social media personality named Anshuman Sharma has recently released a track where the Legendary Singer Mohammad Rafi’s voice has been incorporated into the “Lutt Putt Gaya” song from Shahrukh Khan’s film “Dunki”. However, sceptics opine that the circulation of deep fake videos are a matter of grave concern and a gloomy trend to witness.
When AI Meets Law: Protecting Creativity and Artist Rights AI and Music Industry
AI and the Grammys: Blurring the Lines of Creativity AI and Music Industry
The AI debate has even entered the field of Grammy Awards. In an interesting development, the 66th Grammy Awards, which were held on 4th February 2024, had underlined new rules in consideration with AI, “Only human creators are eligible to submit for consideration, nomination, or win a Grammy award”. In essence, it means that if a song is written with the aid of AI and is sung by an artist the song cannot be nominated for songwriting but the same artist can be nominated for singing the AI generated lyric. The primary aim is to protect the creative interest of an artist and acknowledge “only” the human contribution.
Voice Cloning: A Legal Gray Area AI and Music Industry
With the advent of generative AI, voice cloning has become prevalent. In this light, likeness, also referred to as publicity rights have been a promising venue for granting legal protection to artists. Publicity rights, an important aspect of intellectual property rights, provides an individual, the right to control the commercial use of his/her identity. The main idea is to protect a person’s right to control their reputation and voice. Some U.S. States added voice as a protective element after Bette Midler won a case against Ford Motors for using her voice for an ad in 1988.
Midler, a singer, had refused to re-record her famous song named “Do You Want to Dance” for a Ford commercial. Therefore, Young and Rubicam, Ford’s advertising agency, hired a backup singer in order to imitate her voice for the commercial. The mimicry convinced many that it was Midler herself. Despite her disapproval, her voice was used for commercial gains by the advertising agency. Thus, Midler sued the company for misappropriation of her publicity rights. The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the unethical use of the singer’s voice and underscored that a celebrity’s voice, just like their image and name, has commercial value of utmost importance. Therefore, it deserves legal protection.
The Case for Posthumous Artist Rights
A faction of artists have taken voice cloning positively. Musician Holly Herndon created an AI-generated voice clone named Holly Plus. A music distribution platform named TuneCore is working with Grimes to monitor the use of her AI-generated voice. However, not all have taken it positively. For instance, an AI-generated song of Drake and The Weekend went viral and was eventually taken down by YouTube after Universal Studios issued a sternly worded statement.
The voice of an artist basically falls under the subject of personality and publicity rights. In the U.S. , publicity rights protect an artist who has a distinctive voice or image, giving a leeway for the AI-music generation. In countries like India, U.S. and U.K., where music is produced on a large scale, the work of the artists are protected but the voice of the artists still doesn’t receive any protection. This in simple terms means that a song created and under the copyright of the artist remains protected but the voice of the singer or artist still doesn’t receive protection and is largely used by AI for recreation purposes.
The US likeness rules appear to be chaotic as only 14 states have statutes covering the same. These rules have major differences among them and hence making it unsynchronous. An example can be seen between New York and California- In New York, the use of a deceased person’s computer-generated replica for live performance or scripted work is prohibited but Californian laws don’t make a mention of original digital replicas.
In the case of India, the Delhi High Court has restrained the usage of Mr. Anil Kapoor’s (Bollywood Actor) name, likeness, image and employment of AI tools such as face morphing.
“The Delhi High Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected. However, it held that tarnishing, blackening or jeopardising an individual’s personality or its attributes would be illegal.”
Several celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, are looking to safeguard their personality rights.
But, in recent developments, courts have decided to streamline such issues. In the case of Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay and Ors. it was held, “posthumous right to privacy is not an alienable one as the right of privacy of an individual”, extinguishes with his or her death and cannot be inherited by a person’s legal heir after his or her death. However, there are no posthumous rights in accordance to AI. While modern artists at least have the opportunity to provide their consent, musicians who died before AI came into existence, didn’t get the same opportunity. This definitely creates an ethical dilemma and raises moral questions that demand answers.
The NO FAKES Act: Providing Clarity and Protection
As it has been mentioned above that U.S. laws regarding AI and digital replicas have been chaotic, only covering 14 of the 50 states. To fill the lacunae, a bill has been proposed by the Congress, titled “The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES Act). The primary aim of this bill is to regulate the utilization of digital replicas in the era of AI.
Senators Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, Amy Klobuchar and Thom Tillis are the ones to sponsor the draft bill. Earlier, it wasn’t an obligation to take the consent of individuals for AI replicas, raising moral concerns. The Act majorly fosters to enforce publicity rights across all the 50 States of U.S.
“Individuals would have the authority to prohibit the use of their image, voice or visual likeness in the digital replicas created through AI.”
Moreover, this right would also extend its limits beyond an individual’s lifetime, lasting for 70 years after their death similar to the duration of copyright protection. The right would also extend to the heirs of the individuals after their death and violations of this act would lead to civil lawsuits with punitive measures in case of malice, oppression and fraud. This bill has garnered attention and can be pivotal step towards safeguarding the rights of individuals, whether living or deceased, with respect to AI and digital replicas.
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, the rapport of AI and music industry as stressed through the controversy involving A.R. Rahman sheds light on the broader debate involving AI’s impact on creativity and personality rights. The involvement of AI in the industry provides both opportunities and challenges. On one hand it resurrects a spirit of nostalgia as seen in voice imitations of Late singer like Kishore Kumar, but on the other hand it arises a threat to exploit opportunities of emerging singers. Looking from a legal telescope, nuanced frameworks are observed. The work of the artist receives protection but the voice of the artist lacks attention. Furthermore, there are no laws protecting the rights of posthumous artists which is matter of grave concern and demands attention. In essence, by looking at the present complexities, challenges and opportunities, AI should be used responsibly and ethically. The rights of creators of the past, present and future should be duly preserved.
