ILNews

'Hologram' performance by Tupac creates legal questions for IP lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than a decade after his untimely death, rap icon Tupac Shakur appeared onstage at Coachella Valley Music and Art Festival. The posthumous debut in Chino, Calif., was made possible by technology that created a hologram-like image of Tupac, which appeared to interact with real-life rappers Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre.
 

gettyimages-142964552tupac2-15col.jpg Rapper Snoop Dogg (left) performs alongside a projected hologram-like image of Tupac Shakur on April 15, 2012. (Photo/Christopher Polk/Getty Images Entertainment)

Fans raved about the performance, which quickly went viral online. And almost immediately, people wondered what the limits of this technology might be and how it would be used in the future. For intellectual property lawyers, Tupac’s virtual return to the stage raises some interesting questions.

The technology

Director and producer James Cameron’s company Digital Domain created the image of Tupac, using some real-life imagery as a foundation but computer-generated imagery to create an entirely new performance. While the virtual Tupac has been called a hologram, that’s a misnomer – true holograms are three-dimensional, while Tupac’s likeness is two-dimensional. The 2-D image was projected into a stage set, using the patented Musion Eyeliner 3-D Holographic Projection System, to create the illusion of a

three-dimensional image. The projection technology is not new; it’s based on a theater trick called Pepper’s Ghost, introduced in the 1860s.

Pepper’s Ghost relied on glass to create the illusion of an ethereal presence, but the difficulty of working with glass limited the size of “ghost” it could create. The Eyeliner system uses a fine, seamless material that can be stretched across a stage set and allow for the kind of illusion seen at Coachella.

Jonathan Faber, founder and CEO of Luminary Group and attorney at McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold, pointed out one concern with staging lifelike posthumous performances.

“The elephant in the room here is should they do it, because there’s a myriad of ways this could go wrong,” he said.


faber-jonathan-mug.jpg Faber

In theory, it would be possible to put images of dead celebrities into situations they never would have endorsed in their lifetime.

Who’s in control

Faber pointed out that three areas of IP law come into play when considering the many questions raised by the virtual Tupac performance: copyright, trademark and – most importantly – the right of publicity, which protects a celebrity’s name, likeness, voice and mannerisms.

In the estates of deceased celebrities, relatives are the people generally making right of publicity decisions for their famous kin. Robert Meitus, partner at Meitus Gelbert Rose and adjunct professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said that the technology that created the virtual Tupac performance highlights the need for family oversight of estates.

“I think it does point to a responsibility of families in safeguarding the rights of publicity. So the responsibility of families and those in control of right of publicity is heightened when you have people coming back to life, and we began to have the conversation years ago in the (IP) field and in the public in general … but it never really caught on,” he said.

Meitus said that while he did not know all of the details about how the Tupac performance was created, the family would likely be in control of images of his likeness that were the basis for the illusion. And recorded music or video used as a basis for the re-creation would need to be licensed separately by the company holding rights to that material. A contractual agreement would further clarify the relationship between all parties and how profits would be allocated.

A never-ending career

On April 26 – after Coachella – Billboard magazine reported that Tupac’s 1998 album “Greatest Hits” returned to the Billboard Top 200 for the first time since 2000.

Post-mortem popularity is not uncommon. Some entertainers – like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean and Michael Jackson – rake in as much, if not more, earnings after death.

Mark Roesler, chairman and CEO of the intellectual property management group CMG Worldwide, counts the estates of Monroe and Dean among the firm’s many clients. Dean, who starred in only three feature films during his lifetime, was number 12 on Forbes magazine’s “Top Earning Dead Celebrities” list in 2009 – 54 years after his death – earning $5 million in the previous year.


mark roesler Roesler

“Like James Dean said during his lifetime – if a man can bridge a gap between life and death and live on after he died, he was a great man. Even though James Dean said that, I don’t think he knew he was going to live on,” Roesler said.

Meitus said some of the questions prompted by the Coachella performance arose in the past, as advertisements featured long-deceased celebrities seemingly interacting with modern-day actors. But those images were created using snippets from original films, edited into the new commercial footage. The virtual Tupac, on the other hand, put on a new performance at Coachella.

“If they created wholly new imagery of a dead person, you’d only need the right of publicity from the family,” Meitus said.

He said it’s conceivable that someone could create an original image of a deceased celebrity, much like an artist could paint a portrait from memory. But what’s more likely is that a re-created image will be based in part on previously existing imagery.

“It raises the issue of how it is hard to create original imagery of people – it’s hard to create anything original in this world,” he said. That fact is evident in music, because performers have been sued for creating songs too similar to previously existing melodies, he added.

“When you’re trying to make original holography, I can imagine the same problem – you’ll base it on images that exist. The people copying or creating the new imagery – if they’re trying to create a new CGI image of Fred Astaire, they’re probably going to go back to ‘Singing in the Rain’ – or with Humphrey Bogart, ‘Casablanca’ – and look at his expressions,” Meitus said.

Past and future

Roesler explained that prior to the 1950s, celebrities were entitled to a right of privacy, but that right ended with their death.

“Back then, sometimes these valuable intellectual property rights weren’t even addressed in the will,” he said.

A series of high-profile court decisions beginning in the 1970s reinforced the notion that celebrities are entitled to control how their image is used.

In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), the United States Supreme Court considered a complaint from Hugo Zacchini, who was known for performing a 15-second “human cannonball” routine. Zacchini argued that a Scripps-Howard employee violated his right of publicity by recording and airing footage of the entire routine. The Supreme Court held that Zacchini should be compensated for the footage, because broadcasting the entire act posed a significant threat to the economic value of that performance.

Already, plans appear to be under way to carry on at least one entertainment career that was cut short by tragedy. On April 25, the 10th anniversity of a crash that killed bandmate Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes, the group TLC announced it was discussing plans to tour with a virtual Lopes.

“The technology is fascinating, and it exists, so it’s going to happen – you don’t put the genie back in the bottle,” Faber said. He said while he hopes the technology is applied tastefully, in a manner that would be in following with the deceased performer’s wishes, he suspects some questions will ultimately be answered in court.

“My prediction is it will become a source of licensing revenue for some of these personalities, and it also will become fodder for lawsuits. That’s what I see on the horizon with ‘hologram’ technology.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT