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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our ability to distinguish between what's real and what's not is diminishing at an astonishing rate.
Simultaneously, our technology is grossly outpacing our ability as a society to develop social mores and appropriate legal frameworks around the new things we can do.
Some years ago, I read an article about how when the telephone was first publicly sold, it came with an etiquette guide on how to use it appropriately and with consideration for others. That seems like a fantastic idea - would that we had done the same with cell phones fifteen years ago, let alone how we use incredibly powerful technologies today.
You're absolutely right. I was in the audience last night and was unable to 100% distinguish with my own eyes that the performer on stage was not real. I think a lot of people are just watching the re-hash of the high-definition feed with closeups, where you can see some of the pixelation and movement/animation aliasing. However at 400+ft and non-direct lighting, the effect was nothing short of creepy.
I don't think that law needs to get involved too early (if at all) in tech innovations. I do think society will determine whats correct and whats not. If a dispute arises then courts and lawmakers should be involved.
A little bit?? there better be a good way for forensics to determine it wasnt you on that "CCTV recording" anonymouslyt delivered by "friend" of someone being murdered in a dark street.
It lead me to wonder whether its use will be exclusively limited to dead performers. I can imagine there being some interest in concerts by 1960s era Bob Dylan or say the Stones in 1967-69 being re-enacted.
I'm sure purists might be dismayed but plenty of people watch doumentaries like "Don't Look Back" or "Stones in Exile" to experience a bit of that period.
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.