8 May 2024
Copyright – US - Cease and DISSist: Tupac Shakur’s estate warns Drake over AI ‘diss track’
The ongoing feud between Kendrick Lamar, Drake and J Cole has taken a surprising twist following Drake’s use of AI in his song Taylor Made Freestyle.
The song featured in a months-long exchange of ‘diss tracks’ in which the artists have been criticising – or dissing – each other. The deterioration of Drake and Lamar’s once-friendly relationship was triggered by Drake’s 2023 hit First Person Shooter, in which J Cole calls Drake, Lamar and himself “the big three” in hip hop. Lamar responded on a verse of the song Like That by Future and Metro Boomin’, by claiming his superiority over the other rappers.
Drake initially shrugged off the insult, but then, on 13 April, he released Push Ups (Drop and Give Me 50) in which he apparently mocked Lamar’s height, his career, and his relationship with his record label. This prompted separate responses from Rick Ross and Kanye West.
Drake then posted a further song called, Taylor Made Freestyle in which he used AI to simulate Lamar’s idols, Tupac and Snoop Dogg. In that song, AI-Tupac criticises Lamar for not responding to Push Ups and claims that it was to avoid being upstaged by Taylor Swift’s album.
Tupac’s estate quickly sent a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that the unauthorised use of Tupac’s voice and personality violated the estate’s legal rights (who would never have consented). It also accused Drake of abusing Tupac’s legacy and made clear that the estate stood with Lamar, whom they described as “a good friend to the estate.” Taylor Made Freestyle is now no longer available online.
AI threatens artists, whose voices can be reproduced at a fraction of the cost of a license or record deal. Indeed, an AI simulation of Drake’s voice was previously used on Heart on my sleeve by Ghostwriter 977, which was removed from streaming platforms following complaint by Universal. It accused AI tracks of “[demonstrating] why platforms have a fundamental legal and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in ways that harm artists”.
The US provides a right to publicity and the state of Tennessee recently passed the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (‘ELVIS’) Act to prohibit the use of an AI likeness without consent. However, no equivalent legislation exists in the UK to address mimicked artists’ concerns, who will instead need to rely on a patchwork of existing data protection, copyright and passing off law to obtain redress.
Copyright – UK - The Sun sues over Kate Middleton video
The Sun’s publisher, News Group Newspapers, has issued a claim in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court against ITV and ITN over the - now infamous - video of the Prince and Princess of Wales outside a farm shop in Windsor on 18 March. In it, the couple are shown wearing sportswear and talking whilst the Princess holds a white bag.
The video gained notoriety because it was one of the first occasions on which the Princess was seen in public after taking time away from official duties to recover from abdominal surgery, a decision which generated widespread speculation about her health. Internet sleuths and conspiracy theorists were quick to cast doubt on the viral footage and the credibility of its source.
On Mother’s Day, the Princess uploaded a digitally altered image of her with her children, George, Charlotte, and Louis. It was quickly pulled by news agencies after the alterations were discovered – causing yet more speculation about the Princess’s health and whereabouts.
On 22 March, the Princess announced that she had cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, which rightfully extinguished the hysteria surrounding the video and image and sparked discussions around the ethics of press and social media speculation over private matters.
NGN’s claim relates to the allegedly unauthorised use of the farm shop video by ITV and ITN. However, their spokeswoman denied the claims, stating “ITV and ITN will strongly resist this claim.” A defence is yet to be filed.
Defamation – AUS - Channel Nine in doghouse over defamation claim
The Australian broadcaster, Channel Nine, has been ordered to pay $150,000AUS after Gina Edwards, an Australian barrister, brought a successful defamation claim against the broadcaster.
The proceedings arose from two articles and two TV broadcasts focussed on a bitter dispute between Edwards and her former friend, Mark Gillespie, over the custody of an Instagram famous cavoodle (cavapoo) dog, Oscar.
Justice Wigney, sitting in the Australian Federal Court, described the first broadcast as ‘replete with snide insinuation and suggestions’, and the overriding impression conveyed was that Edwards ‘was a conniving dog-sitter who wanted to exploit and monetise the famous cavoodle and who, in that context, not only callously refused to return the dog to its rightful owner, but was also hiding Oscar and, as a barrister, was using the legal system and delaying the proceedings to retain possession of him’.
The judge was satisfied that Edwards had not stolen Oscar and that she honestly and genuinely believed that she had ownership rights over the dog. As a result, Channel Nine’s defence of truth failed, as it had failed to prove that it was substantially true that Edwards had stolen Oscar.
Justice Wigney concluded that the publications had caused at least some damage to Edwards’ personal and professional reputation, but not ‘serious damage’. However, there could be ‘no doubt whatsoever’ of the serious hurt and distress caused. The judge held that the publisher’s conduct justified an award of aggravated damages because of the ‘extravagant, excessive and sensationalist nature of the publications’, and that the publications in question ‘recklessly inflicted damage’ on Edwards in circumstances where no attempt had been made to independently investigate the allegations against Edwards before confronting her.
Defamation – Laurence Fox ordered to pay £180,000 in defamation claims
The high-profile and long-running defamation proceedings involving political activist and social media personality Laurence Fox have drawn to a close, with Fox being ordered to pay £180,000 in damages to two of the claimants, Simon Blake and Colin Seymour.
The proceedings arose from a tweet posted by Mr Fox, calling for the boycott of Sainsbury’s supermarket. The three claimants, Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, had responded to Fox’s tweet by referring to him as a ‘racist’. In response, Mr Fox had called each of them a ‘paedophile’. The claimants brought claims in defamation and Mr Fox brought a counterclaim, also in defamation.
At the earlier substantive trial of liability, Mrs Justice Collins Rice held that Mr Blake and Mr Seymour’s claims succeeded, with Ms Thorp’s claim having been abandoned at an earlier stage. Mr Fox’s counterclaim failed as he was unable to establish that the claimants’ tweets had caused his reputation serious harm.
Subsequently, at the remedies hearing, Collins Rice J concluded that Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were each entitled to an award of £90,000 in damages, as Mr Fox’s tweets about them amounted to ‘a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them’.
Damages in defamation claims are awarded, generally, to compensate for injury to reputation and feelings, and to vindicate the claimant’s injured reputation. The assessment is fact sensitive, with particular regard paid to the gravity of the defamatory statement, the extent of its publication and the evidence of harm.
Regulation - Ofcom updates guidance on politicians acting as presenters
In the wake of several high-profile complaints about programmes presented by politicians, Ofcom has published new Guidance Notes to section 5 of the Broadcasting Code, which concerns, amongst other things, due impartiality.
In March 2024, a series of Ofcom investigations into five programmes on GB News concluded the programmes had breached the due impartiality rules. Under section 5 of the Broadcasting Code, broadcasters are obliged to ensure news is presented with due impartiality. In addition, politicians cannot act as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification.
Ofcom’s updated guidance now provides greater detail about these rules, explaining that when politicians present news, it ‘risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news’ because of politicians’ inherently partial role in society. Whilst broadcasters are free to create programmes which move between news and non-news content, the updated guidance notes that where a broadcaster opts to use a politician as host, it must take steps to ensure that the politician does not act as a reporter, newsreader or interviewer.
Given the impending general election, Ofcom has also published a warning to broadcasters, drawing their attention to rule 6.6 of the Broadcasting Code which prohibits candidates in UK elections from acting as news presenters, interviewers or presenters of any kind of programme during the election period.
That threat is not without teeth: the regulator has also noted that Ofcom’s Election Committee will expedite assessment and investigation of any election programme that attracts complaints or is identified as potentially problematic, and any breaches are likely to result in the imposition of statutory sanctions.
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.