• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Copyright, Daily Blog, Featured

Tupac Hologram Rocks Coachella and IP Laws

Submitted by Brandon Marsh on April 19, 2012 – 12:08 PM518413 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F19%2Ftupac-hologram-rocks-coachella-and-ip-laws%2FTupac+Hologram+Rocks+Coachella+and+IP+Laws2012-04-19+16%3A08%3A34Brandon+Marshhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5184

Image Attributed to Flickr User cliff1066

Apparently the conspiracy theories are true: Tupac is alive and well. At least that is what a crowd of nearly 100,000 music fans believed after a 3-D hologram of Tupac Shakur gave a public performance at the Coachella Music Festival in California this past weekend. Besides evoking images of the Star Trek universe, Coachella’s holographic performance is rife with intellectual property issues, especially with respect to copyright and the right of publicity.

The epic performance resulted from the collaboration of Digital Domain Productions and AV Concepts. Digital Domain Productions, a Hollywood CGI company founded by James Cameron, created the Tupac hologram. AV Concepts, a full service audio-visual and staging support company, produced hologram Tupac’s performance. While staging the Tupac hologram was no small feat, the production boiled down to a multi-layered 2-D rendering of Tupac projected onto a 30×13 foot Mylar screen. The most astounding part of Tupac’s performance was best conveyed by Nick Smith, president of AV Concepts, when he said, “You can take their likenesses and voice and . . . take people that haven’t done concerts before or perform music they haven’t sung and digitally recreate it.” This means that a hologram production company can take a hologram of Tupac and make him rap a Kanye West song, or even an entirely new song. Given that power, the importance of copyright and the right of publicity are paramount in controlling how holograms are used.

Copyright laws provide copyright owners with the exclusive right over public performance, which gives the owner discretion over who can perform their music in public. The public performance rights to songs performed in concert are actually licensed out from the composers and record companies that comprise the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). It seems likely that whoever owns the copyright in “Hail Mary” and “2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted” licensed out the songs to AV Concepts to create the new Tupac performance. In this case, AV Concepts likely owns the rights to the hologram, but paid the record company to use Tupac’s songs. Since the hologram was based on a 2-D image, AV Concepts likely had to pay a copyright holder to use the image of the deceased rapper. However, a question remains about who owns the holographic performance. Moreover, who would own the rights to a public performance of a hologram Tupac rapping an entirely new song?

The right of publicity is also implicated in the recent Coachella performance. The right of publicity generally gives a famous individual the right to control the commercial use of her name, image, likeness, or any other unquestionable aspects of her identity. Right of publicity laws vary from state to state, but usually provide protection through death for a set period of time. Tupac’s likeness is fiercely guarded by his mother, Afeni Shakur, who created Amaru Entertainment to handle her son’s image. AV Concepts got permission from Afeni Shakur to use Tupac’s likeness for the hologram. However, it will be interesting to see whether companies in the future will seek to get permission to use holographic images of celebrities. Courts have held that the use of impersonators and images that evoke the likeness of celebrities violate their right of publicity when used for commercial purposes. Given these rulings, it seems likely that any hologram production company seeking to make a hologram of a famous person would have to get permission first.

As holographic technology progresses, it won’t be long before other deceased artists start performing again or living musicians decide to a host concert in one location and broadcast holograms of the performance all over the world. Who wouldn’t want to see Nirvana perform again with a hologram Kurt Cobain front and center, or take in the experience of Whitney Houston hitting a high note in all its glory? And imagine how quickly a fully rendered Beatles hologram tour would sell out. It just might be a brave new world for the music industry and for intellectual property laws.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Brandon Marsh

Brandon Marsh is a 3L at American University Washington College of Law and has an interest in Intellectual Property Law, especially Trademark Law. He is the Senior Trademark Editor for the Intellectual Property Brief, a Note & Comment Editor for the Administrative Law Review, and a Student-Attorney for the Glushko-Samuelson IP Clinic. Brandon has a B.S. in Psychology from Duke University with a concentration in Neuroscience. He is from Hartsdale, New York.

Brandon Marsh has written 6 posts for the IPB.

518413 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F19%2Ftupac-hologram-rocks-coachella-and-ip-laws%2FTupac+Hologram+Rocks+Coachella+and+IP+Laws2012-04-19+16%3A08%3A34Brandon+Marshhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5184 »

  • Cliff Dunn says:
    April 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM

    Interest piece. Tthought-provoking . Thank you for sharing the insights, Mr. March.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Neocomer says:
    April 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

    the japanese have been doing this for miku snice…b4 i was born…it's about time we did it as well.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Chaz Gates says:
    April 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

    Well stated and interesting piece! I think I just found a new industry to get in.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Ali Mackey says:
    April 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

    Great piece Brandon!

    Reply to this comment »
  • Brandon Marsh says:
    April 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

    Thanks Chaz and Ali! I greatly appreciate it.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Virtual celebrity appearances will create a scramble in IP enforcement and changes in estate valuations | BVR's IP Management & Valuation Wire says:
    April 23, 2012 at 8:29 AM

    [...] by those enforcing IP rights. As pointed out in the American University Intellectual Property Brief, now that a hologram can not only make a deceased artist appear on stage, the image can be made to [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • IP Lawyers Meet Tupac’s Hologram | Mercho Legal Services, LLC says:
    April 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM

    [...] this post, IP Brief lays out many of the key IP issues that are raised by hologram performances. They [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • Geekview IP Weeks(ish) in Review says:
    May 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

    [...] about the holographic musical magic were IP attorneys who instead went into worry mode, as reported here and here and here. Attorneys worry. Yup . . [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • OregonMarijuana says:
    January 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM

    That was one of the more ridiculous rap performances for the year.

    Reply to this comment »
  • free playstation cards says:
    January 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM

    This is a good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
    Simple but very precise info… Thank you for sharing this one.
    A must read post!

    Reply to this comment »
  • tataheca says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:00 AM

    wonderful..

    Reply to this comment »
  • cherrin12 says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:08 AM

    USB Sync and Charging Cable Compatible with Apple iPhone (White) …. 6Ft USB Sync Data iphone charger cable Cord for Apple iPhone 4 4S 4G 4th 3 3G …

    Reply to this comment »
  • cherrin12 says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:08 AM

    USB Sync and Charging Cable Compatible with Apple iPhone (White) …. 6Ft USB Sync Data iphone charger cable Cord for Apple iPhone 4 4S 4G 4th 3 3G …

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

U.S. District Court Rules in Favor of GM’s Use of Einstein’s Image in “Tasteless Ad” Yoko Oh No!: Yoko Ono Sued by Brooklyn Designer for Copyright Infringement Over Clothing Line Groupon Sues Former Employees for Revealing its Trade Secrets to Google Reconciling Copyright Laws With “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” #SOPA Markup This Thursday: What You Can Do to Prevent #CensorshipEverywhere Microsoft Joins the Fight against Patent Suits The Oregon Trail v. Frontierville: A Trademark Battle for our Childhood Short Circuit: November 18 - 24, 2012 Google and Yahoo Avoid Infringement Suit on User-Data Generated Search Method The USPTO Announces Patents for Humanity Program How to Spot a Fake: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Coach over Trademark Bullying Tactics, Unfair Practices Chinese Pirates Should Brace for the U.S. Government's Squall Neil Young Trademarks Digital Audio Format and Online Store, Intends to Improve Digital Media
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License