WHOSE VOICE IS IT ANYWAY? AI, MUSICIANS’ RIGHTS, AND THE BATTLE OVER LEGACY

Author: Clay Trusty, Associate Editor

I.         Introduction

In the digital era, technological advancements have pushed the boundaries of creative possibilities while raising significant legal and ethical questions. One prominent issue is the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to replicate a musician’s voice for commercial purposes.[i] AI-generated music, which can closely mimic a deceased or living artist’s vocal identity, has sparked debates about whether a musician’s voice should be protected as a personal privacy right or treated as a commercial property right.[ii] The distinction between these two views has far-reaching implications which will affect the legacy of musicians.

II.         Copyright and the Right of Publicity

The right of publicity is a legal doctrine that grants individuals control over the commercial use of their identity.[iii] Although the U.S. lacks a federal comprehensive framework concerning publicity rights, several states have established statutory or common law protections.[iv] California, for instance, is known for its overarching statutory framework, which explicitly protects an individual’s name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness during their lifetime and for 70 years posthumously.[v] However, not all states provide such extensive protections to safeguard artists and their estate

The legal recognition of a person’s voice as part of their identity is well established.[vi] In Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988), the Ninth Circuit ruled that the unauthorized imitation of Bette Midler’s voice in a commercial violated her right of publicity.[vii] The court reasoned that a distinctive voice, when used without permission, can mislead consumers and exploit the performer’s identity.[viii]

In contrast to copyright law, which protects original compositions and recordings, publicity rights focus on the individual’s persona, making them particularly relevant in cases involving AI-generated voices.[ix] When AI mimics an artist’s unique vocal traits, it arguably creates a derivative work that directly implicates their publicity rights.[x] However, the legal status of AI-generated works remains ambiguous, raising questions about whether current publicity frameworks are sufficient to address the complexities of this technology.

III.         AI-Generated Voices: Privacy or Property?

The debate over whether musicians’ voices should be treated as a personal privacy right or a commercial property right centers on fundamental differences in how we perceive identity and ownership.[xi]

A. Privacy Right

Advocates treating a musician’s voice as a personal privacy right argue that it is an intimate and non-transferable aspect of their identity.[xii] Under this view, unauthorized replication of an artist’s voice through AI constitutes a violation of their personal autonomy and dignity.[xiii] This perspective emphasizes consent, asserting that musicians should have the final say in whether their voice can be used commercially, both during their lifetime and posthumously.

Ethical concerns further complicate this issue, particularly when AI-generated works are created without the artist’s input or contrary to their artistic vision.[xiv] For example, the posthumous release of Mac Miller’s Circles was widely seen as respectful because it built upon material he had already developed.[xv] By contrast, AI-generated music that diverges from an artist’s original intentions could be perceived as exploitative. Drake faced threats of legal action by Tupac Shakur’s estate when he posted an audio sample he had created containing the AI-generated voice of the deceased rapper.[xvi]

B. Property Right

On the other side of the debate, proponents argue that a musician’s voice should be treated as a property right that can be licensed, inherited, or sold.[xvii] This perspective treats one’s voice as an economic asset, similar to copyrights and trademarks, that can generate revenue for the artist or their estate posthumously.[xviii] Property-based rights would enable estates of deceased musicians to license AI-generated works, creating new opportunities for collaboration and revenue streams.

Hologram performances, such as those featuring Tupac Shakur and Whitney Houston, demonstrate the potential for posthumous exploitation of a performer’s identity.[xix] Supporters reason that AI-generated content can introduce an artist’s work to new audiences while preserving their legacy.[xx]

However, the property-based approach raises concerns about over-commercialization and loss of artistic integrity. Critics argue that reducing a musician’s voice to a marketable asset risks commodifying their identity in ways that may conflict with their values or artistic intent.[xxi] Without proper safeguards, record labels and estates could prioritize financial gain over the preservation of the artist’s legacy. While commercially successful, posthumous albums like Juice WRLD’s Legends Never Die raised concerns about whether releasing so much content diluted the artist’s legacy, as the rapper left behind over 3,000 unreleased tracks.[xxii] This vast archive exemplifies the tension between honoring an artist’s creative output and an estate’s opportunity to maximize financial returns.[xxiii]

IV.         Balancing Privacy and Property: The Role of Consent

A potential middle ground involves emphasizing the importance of consent and establishing clear guidelines for the commercial use of AI-generated voices. For living artists, contracts could specify whether their voice can be digitally replicated and under what conditions. For deceased artists, their estate plans could outline their preferences regarding posthumous use.

Legislative intervention may also be necessary to address the unique challenges posed by AI technology. A federal law of publicity could establish default rules for the commercial use of AI-generated voices, with exceptions based on the artist’s documented wishes. Such measures would help balance the competing interests of creative innovation, economic exploitation, and individual autonomy.

V.         Conclusion

The rise of AI-generated music has reshaped the judicial landscape surrounding musicians' voices, making it clear that the future of artistic control requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach. At the heart of the debate lies a critical question: Should an artist’s voice be a sacred element of personal identity or a commercial property right? Regardless of the classification, the central goal is the same—ensuring that musicians, living or deceased, have agency over how their voices are used and remembered. As AI continues to redefine what is possible, there is a need to forge a path of balance where technological progress and artistic integrity coexist—allowing future generations to appreciate not just the sounds of the past, but respect those who created them.

[i]. Rachel Reed, AI Created a Song Mimicking the Work of Drake and The Weeknd. What Does That Mean for Copyright Law?, HARVARD LAW TODAY (May 2, 2023), https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/.

[ii] Oliver Lock, Owen O’Rorke & Ethan Ezra, AI-Generated Music: Timeless Legacy or Copyright Breach?, FARRER & CO. (2023), https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/ai-generated-music-timeless-legacy-or-copyright-breach/.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] CAL. CIV. CODE § 3344.1(a) (West 2023), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

[vi] Reed, supra note i.

[vii] Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (1988).

[viii] Id.

[ix] Dawson J. Sanders, The New 27 Club: Label, Legacy, and the Law, BUS. L. DIG. (2023), https://lawforbusiness.usc.edu/the-new-27-club-label-legacy-and-the-law/.

[x] Id.

[xi] Elizabeth Shields, The AI Doppelgänger Dilemma: Cloned Voices in the Music Industry, SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE, Vol. 48, p. 71 (2025), https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr_supra/32/.

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Russell A. Stamets, Ain't Nothin' Like the Real Thing, Baby: The Right of Publicity and the Singing Voice, 46 FED. COMM. L.J. 347 (1994), https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol46/iss2/7/.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Reggie Ugwu, Mac Miller and Jon Brion Had a Vision. It Almost Came True., THE NEW YORK TIMES (2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/arts/music/mac-miller-jon-brion-circles.html.

[xvi] Ben Beaumont-Thomas, Estate of Tupac Shakur Threatens Legal Action Against Drake Over AI Diss Track, THE GUARDIAN (2024), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/25/estate-of-tupac-shakur-threatens-legal-action-against-drake-over-ai-diss-track.

[xvii] Sanders, supra note ix.

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Ritz Herald, Whitney Houston Hologram Concert at Harrah's Las Vegas, YOUTUBE (2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVCEXr6QIkg; see also SnoopDoggTV, Tupac Hologram: Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre Perform Coachella Live 2012, YOUTUBE (2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0Y.

[xx] HipHopMadness, The Shady Business of Posthumous Albums, YOUTUBE (2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRXVRU_AKzc&t=396s.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Richard Sayell, The Moral Discourse Behind Posthumous Albums; Revisiting Juice WRLD’s ‘Legends Never Die’, CLASH MUSIC (Apr. 2, 2021), https://www.clashmusic.com/features/the-moral-discourse-behind-posthumous-albums-revisiting-juice-wrlds-legends-never-die/.

[xxiii] Id.