Business
Page: 258
Roblox players are about to get an eyeful — and potentially an earful — of KINGSHIP, the metaverse “supergroup” comprised of and managed by a shrewdness of Bored-and-Mutant Ape NFTs.
10:22PM, the Web3 label of Universal Music Group founded by Celine Joshua, announced on Thursday the launch of KINGSHIP Islands — an immersive in-game experience wherein Robloxers can work to unite the four band members on something called the “Floating Villa,” plus earn reward accessories and “acquire emotes for their avatars.” For minors with parents who are cool and totally not a drag, players can purchase customized animated heads and bodies for their avatars using Roblox’s facial animation technology.
As the game environment ages, more free virtual goods will be added along with new music produced by Hit-Boy and James Fauntleroy, the KINGSHIP “sonic creative team” that was announced a year ago. The band’s label said the pair — officially co-executive producers — are “overseeing the evolution of the group’s music direction and sound.”
The supergroup has yet to release music, and their manager Manager Noët All could not be reached for comment.
KINGSHIP Islands is free to play for any Roblox user, who must first complete various quests to gain access to the Floating Villa. Wanna skip all that? Owners of one of the 5,000 KINGSHIP Key Cards qualify for VIP access, along with special badges and other metadoodads. Key Card holders can access the villa at any time because they will have a special Roblox badge, which provide unique roles inside experiences, the label said.
The aforementioned Floating Villa, part of KINGSHIP Islands.
When they were released in July of 2022, the entire batch of Key Cards sold out in the span of a day, though they continue to trade on the secondary market. Over the last 30 days, 66 cards have been resold on OpenSea at an average price of 0.0592 ETH, or roughly $120 at the current exchange rate. The cards were designed to unlock forthcoming partnerships with major brands (see: Roblox), as well as unique artwork and immersive digital experiences.
10:22PM’s KINGSHIP project made its debut in November 2021 and is comprised of mutant ape Captain (vocals, bass) and bored ones KING (lead vocals), Arnell (beats, producer, drums) and Hud (guitar, keyboards, vocals). Avid NFT collector Jimmy McNeils supplied the apes for KINGSHIP from his own collection. At the time of launch it was billed as a “landmark, first-ever exclusive agreement to create a metaverse group.”
Hey look, a trailer:
[embedded content]
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates became clearer Wednesday (Nov. 29) when Daryl Hall filed court papers accusing musical partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly moving to sell his half of their joint venture to Primary Wave – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A week after news of the dispute between the yacht rock legends first surfaced, Hall filed an unsealed declaration (obtained by Billboard) that was filled with new revelations – not just about his partner’s “ambush,” but also about the duo’s ongoing “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about his personal feelings toward his former partner.
“Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates filed his own statement in response, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
“I have no idea who or what is motivating Daryl to take these steps and make such salacious statements, but I am deeply hurt,” Oates wrote.
After teaming up as a pair of Philadelphia singers in 1972, Hall & Oates hit the top of the Billboard Hot 100 a whopping six times, first with “Rich Girl” in 1977 and then with “Kiss On My List,” “Private Eyes,” “I Can’t Go For That (No Can Do)” “Maneater” and “Out of Touch.” The duo have continued to successfully tour for years, including as recently as last year.
But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, challenging his partner’s alleged plan to sell his half of their joint venture (Whole Oats Enterprises) to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that has acquired many iconic music catalogs in recent years. Fearing that the deal would close before the case was decided, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale.
The lawsuit was filed under seal, shrouding it in mystery and leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo were suing each other. The complaint was then unsealed last week, revealing the basic details about the proposed sale to Primary Wave and Hall’s objections. But Wednesday’s filings painted the clearest picture yet of the bitter dispute between the former partners.
In his declaration, Hall called Oates’ agreement to sell to Primary Wave a “completely clandestine and bad faith move in blatant violation” of their agreement, which he said clearly requires full consent from both partners.
“John Oates and the Co-Trustees engaged in the ultimate partnership betrayal,” Hall wrote. “They surreptitiously sought to sell half of the WOE assets without obtaining my written approval.”
Hall said he first learned of the proposed sale to Primary Wave in late October – news that he said left him “blindsided.” He said it came as the two sides were engaged in mediation on other issues and as he was about to embark on a tour, causing him “tremendous upheaval, harm, and difficulty in my life.”
“I believe that John Oates timed the unauthorized transaction to create the most harm to me,” Hall wrote.
Hall seemed particularly upset about the idea of selling to Primary Wave in particular. He said he had “no intention of becoming partners with Primary Wave” and that Oates could not “thrust a new partner upon me in this outrageous fashion.”
“The potential of being forced into a partnership with Primary Wave without my consent is incredibly upsetting,” Hall wrote. “There is no amount of money that could compensate me for being forced to partner with an entity that I did not agree to partner with, and whose business model does not comport with my views regarding the WOE assets. The harm is unimaginable.”
The biggest problem for Hall, the filing indicated, was the idea of granting Primary Wave control over his name and likeness rights – something he called “highly personal assets.”
“Primary Wave is a company that brands itself as having a strong focus on exploiting not only copyrights but the trademarks and name and likeness rights of the artists from whom they purchase catalogue rights,” Hall wrote. “If Primary Wave becomes my partner they … will likely have a goal to use theWOE assets, and my name and likeness, for branding and exploitations.”
A representative for Primary Wave did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday evening.
Hall also revealed that the dispute came amid a broader “divorce” with Oates. His former partner had recently become “adversarial and aggressive” and intended to “burden and harass me.” Eventually, they began discussing a dissolution of their touring company and other joint ventures. But he says that Oates never once discussed selling his share in Whole Oats Enterprises, the joint venture at issue in the case.
“John Oates was very combative and protective with respect to WOE, and consistently conveyed his desire to keep his ownership and that partnership intact and operative—there was never a hint that he would try to ambush me with a sale,” Hall wrote.
The new filing also cleared up exactly what assets are controlled by Whole Oats Enterprises. They include the band’s trademarks, their personal name and likeness rights, their record royalty income, and “certain HO social media and related website assets.” Another entity, Hot Cha Music, LLP, controls the band’s valuable musical composition copyrights – meaning they are not at issue in the case.
In his own filing Wednesday, Oates offered far fewer details than Hall had; he repeatedly said that he was subject to confidentiality agreements that restricted what he could say. But he refuted his partner’s core accusation about a secret deal that violated their partnership contract.
“I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
A court hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday morning in Nashville.
Dennis Kooker, president of global digital business at Sony Music Entertainment, represented the music business at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) seventh artificial intelligence insight forum in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday (Nov. 29). In his statement, Kooker implored the government to act on new legislation to protect copyright holders to ensure the development of “responsible and ethical generative AI.”
The executive revealed that Sony has already sent “close to 10,000 takedowns to a variety of platforms hosting unauthorized deepfakes that SME artists asked us to take down.” He says these platforms, including streamers and social media sites, are “quick to point to the loopholes in the law as an excuse to drag their feet or to not take the deepfakes down when requested.”
Presently, there is no federal law that explicitly requires platforms to takedown songs that impersonate an artists’ voice. Platforms are only obligated to do this when a copyright (a sound recording or a musical work) is infringed, as stipulated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Interest in using AI to clone the voices of famous artists has grown rapidly since a song with AI impersonations of Drake and The Weekend went viral earlier this year. The track, called “Heart on My Sleeve” has become one of the most popular use-cases of music-related AI.
A celebrity’s voice and likeness can be protected by “right of publicity” laws that safeguard it from unauthorized exploitation, but this right is limited. Its protections vary state-to-state and are even more limited post-mortem. In May, Billboard reported that the major labels — Sony, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group — had been in talks with Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music to create a voluntary system for takedowns of right of publicity violations, much like the one laid out by the DMCA, according to sources at all three majors. It is unclear from Kooker’s remarks if the platforms that are dragging their feet on voice clone removals include the three streaming services that previously took part in these discussions.
In his statement, Kooker asked the Senate forum to create a federal right of publicity to create a stronger and more uniform protection for artists. “Creators and consumers need a clear unified right that sets a floor across all fifty states,” he said. This echoes what UMG general counsel/ executive vp of business and legal affairs Jeffery Harleston asked the Senate during a July AI hearing.
Kooker expressed his “sincere gratitude” to Sens. Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, Amy Klobuchar and Thom Tillis for releasing a draft bill called the No FAKES (“Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe”) Act in October, which would create a federal property right for one’s voice or likeness and protect against unauthorized AI impersonations. At its announcement, the No FAKES Act drew resounding praise from music business organizations, including the RIAA and the American Association of Independent Music.
Kooker also stated that in this early stage many available generative AI products today are “not expanding the business model or enhancing human creativity.” He pointed to a “deluge of 100,000 new recordings delivered to [digital service providers] every day” and said that some of these songs are “generated using generative AI content creation tools.” He added, “These works flood the current music ecosystem and compete directly with human artists…. They reduce and diminish the earnings of human artists.”
“We have every reason to believe that various elements of AI will become routine in the creative process… [as well as] other aspects of our business” like marketing and royalty accounting,” Kooker continued. He said Sony Music has already started “active conversations” with “roughly 200” different AI companies about potential partnerships with Sony Music.
Still, he stressed five key issues remain that need to be addressed to “assure a thriving marketplace for AI and music.” Read his five points, as written in his prepared statement, below:
Assure Consent, Compensation, and Credit. New products and businesses built with music must be developed with the consent of the owner and appropriate compensation and credit. It is essential to understand why the training of AI models is being done, what products will be developed as a result, and what the business model is that will monetize the use of the artist’s work. Congress and the agencies should assure that creators’ rights are recognized and respected.
Confirm That Copying Music to Train AI Models is Not Fair Use. Even worse are those that argue that copyrighted content should automatically be considered fair use so that protected works are never compensated for usage and creators have no say in the products or business models that are developed around them and their work. Congress should assure and agencies should presume that reproducing music to train AI models, in itself, is not a fair use.
Prevent the Cloning of Artists’ Voices and Likenesses Without Express Permission. We cannot allow an artist’s voice or likeness to be cloned for use without the express permission of the artist. This is a very personal decision for the artist. Congress should pass into law effective federal protections for name, image, and likeness.
Incentivize Accurate Record-Keeping. Correct attribution will be a critical element to artists being paid fairly and correctly for new works that are created. In addition, rights can only be enforced around the training of AI when there are accurate records about what is being copied. Otherwise, the inability to enforce rights in the AI marketplace equates to a lack of rights at all, producing a dangerous imbalance that prevents a thriving ecosystem. This requires strong and accurate record keeping by the generative AI platforms, a requirement that urgently needs legislative support to ensure incentives are in place so that it happens consistently and correctly.
Assure Transparency for Consumers and Artists. Transparency is necessary to clearly distinguish human-created works from AI-created works. The public should know, when they are listening to music, whether that music was created by a human being or a machine.
Reba McEntire has appointed longtime team member Justin McIntosh to serve as her manager, the singer announced Wednesday (Nov. 29). McIntosh has worked with the Country Music Hall of Famer for more than a decade, ever since he joined her at her former management home, Starstruck Entertainment. At Starstruck, McIntosh served as vp of marketing […]
Billboard is bringing back its peer-voted Power Players’ Choice Award for 2024, asking members of the music industry across all sectors to honor the executive they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Voting is now […]
Billboard is bringing back its peer-voted Power Players’ Choice Award for 2024, asking members of the music industry across all sectors to honor the executive they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Voting is open to all Billboard Pro members, both existing and new, with one vote per member […]
Rapper Polo G is suing a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
In a complaint filed Monday (Nov. 27) in New York federal court, attorneys for the rapper (real name Taurus Bartlett) accused Netherlands-based J. Noah B.V. of violating his intellectual property rights, claiming the company “lied to the public” by continuing to promote shows “they knew would not occur.”
“Bartlett’s counsel demanded that defendants immediately remove all uses of Bartlett’s client’s name and image from the website, from Instagram, and from all other social media channels,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote. “Inexcusably, defendants failed to do so, and ignored this demand entirely.”
“Even more egregiously, J Noah’s Instagram account continued to contain advertisements for alleged performances by Bartlett … that defendants are fully aware would not be occurring,” the rapper’s lawyers added.
Those splashy allegations are layered on top of a more run-of-the-mill underlying contract dispute over an agreement for 10 concerts, which Polo G’s lawyers say J. Noah has “wrongly” accused the rapper of breaching.
In the complaint, Polo G seeks a ruling that he had “no obligation to perform” at the shows because he sustained an “injury that prevents him from performing” — a valid reason under the contract, his lawyers say. On the contrary, he claims that it’s actually J. Noah that breached the deal by failing to pay his full $495,000 in fees as required under the contract.
But the lawsuit also goes much further than that — turning a contract dispute into intellectual property litigation by claiming that J. Noah then continued to wrongfully use Polo G’s “name, likeness and trademark” even after the deal had been terminated.
“Through these knowingly false advertisements of fictitious concert performances using the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s image, Defendants have engaged in knowingly false advertising—thereby committing a fraud on the public and causing irreparable harm to the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s reputation,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote.
A spokesperson for J. Noah did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Most conversations around AI in music are focused on music creation, protecting artists and rightsholders, and differentiating human-made music from machine-made works. And there is still discourse to be had as AI has some hidden superpowers waiting to be explored. One use for the technology that has immense potential to positively impact artists is music marketing.
As generative and complementary AI is becoming a larger part of creative works in music, marketing will play a larger role than ever before. Music marketing isn’t just about reaching new and existing fans and promoting upcoming singles. Today, music marketing must establish an artist’s ownership of their work and ensure that the human creatives involved are known, recognized, and appreciated. We’re about to see the golden age of automation for artists who want to make these connections and gain this appreciation.
While marketing is a prerequisite to a creator’s success, it takes a lot of time, energy, and resources. Creating engaging content takes time. According to Linktree’s 2023 Creator Report, 48% of creators who make $100-500k per year spend more than 10 hours on content creation every week. On top of that, three out of four creators want to diversify what they create but feel pressure to keep making what is rewarded by the algorithm. Rather than fighting the impossible battle of constantly evolving and cranking out more content to match what the algorithm is boosting this week, creatives can have a much greater impact by focusing on their brand and making high-quality content for their audience.
For indie artists without support from labels and dedicated promotion teams, the constant pressure to push their new single on TikTok, post on Instagram, and engage with fans while finding the time to make new music is overwhelming. The pressure is only building, thanks to changes in streaming payouts. Indie artists need to reach escape velocity faster.
Megh Vakharia
AI-powered music marketing can lighten that lift–generating campaign templates and delivering to artists the data they need to reach their intended audience. AI can take the data that artists and creators generate and put it to work in a meaningful way, automatically extracting insights from the information and analytics to build marketing campaigns and map out tactics that get results.
AI-driven campaigns can give creators back the time they need to do what they do best: create. While artificial intelligence saves artists time and generates actionable solutions for music promotion, it is still highly dependent on the artist’s input and human touch. Just as a flight captain has to set route information and parameters before switching on autopilot, an artist enters their content, ideas, intended audience, and hopeful outcome of the marketing campaign. Then, using this information, the AI-powered marketing platform can provide all of the data and suggestions necessary to produce the targeted results.
Rather than taking over the creative process, AI should be used to assist and empower artists to be more creative. It can help put the joy back into what can be a truly fun process — finding, reaching, and engaging with fans.
A large portion of artists who have tapped into AI marketing have never spent money on marketing before, but with the help of these emerging tools, planning and executing effective campaigns is more approachable and intuitive. As the music industry learns more about artificial intelligence and debates its ethical implications in music creation, equal thought must be given to the opportunities that it unlocks for artists to grow their fanbases, fuel more sustainable careers, and promote their human-made work.
Megh Vakharia is the co-founder and CEO of SymphonyOS, the AI-powered marketing platform empowering creatives to build successful marketing campaigns that generate fan growth using its suite of smart, automated marketing tools.
Ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting tomorrow (Nov. 3) in Dubai, Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group have announced the creation of the Music Industry Climate Collective (MICC). This alliance will work to address the challenges and changes in the global climate and how they relate to the music industry.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The MICC’s first initiative will be offering comprehensive sectoral guidance for measuring scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, defined as “emissions that are not produced by the company itself and are not the result of activities from assets owned or controlled by them, but by those that it’s indirectly responsible for up and down its value chain.”
For the music sector, the vast majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are in scope 3.
MICC’s members have already worked with scientific experts on their first draft of the sectoral guidance, which will be made available to industry participants. MICC’s members have also initiated calls for wider industry input through an advisory council composed of independent record labels, value chain partners, and climate experts. The guidance will be further developed through an inclusive, multi-stakeholder process.
The American Association of Independent Music, a non-profit trade organization representing more than 600 independently owned U.S. record labels, will serve as an advisor to the MICC. A2IM will assist in myriad ways, initially with recommendations on how best to include small-to-medium-sized businesses in this initiative.
“This initiative demonstrates what can be achieved when music leaders come together with a shared vision and commitment to sustainability,” the MICC’s founding members say in a group statement. “We are proud to collaborate to amplify environmental stewardship and offer practical recommendations and strategies tailored to the unique needs of music companies, regardless of their size or scale of operations.
“Together, we must continue to make progress on this vital priority,” the statement continues. “We welcome all to join us in reducing our industry’s carbon footprint by working together to ensure an environmentally responsible future for music and our planet.”
2023 is on track to be the hottest year on record, with many concerts and festivals affected by climate change since the start of the year.
Earlier this month, 760 stations owned by iHeartMedia simultaneously threw their weight behind a new single: The Beatles’ “Now and Then.” This was surprising, because the group broke up in 1970 and two of the members are dead. “Now and Then” began decades ago as a home recording by John Lennon; more recently, AI-powered audio technology allowed for the separation of the demo’s audio components — isolating the voice and the piano — which in turn enabled the living Beatles to construct a whole track around them and roll it out to great fanfare.
“For three days, if you were a follower of popular culture, all you heard about was The Beatles,” says Arron Saxe, who represents several estates, including Otis Redding’s and Bill Withers’s. “And that’s great for the business of the estate of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison and the current status of the two living legends.”
For many people, 2023 has been the year that artificial intelligence technology left the realm of science fiction and crashed rudely into daily life. And while AI-powered tools have the potential to impact wide swathes of the music industry, they are especially intriguing for those who manage estates or the catalogs of dead artists.
That’s because there are inherent constraints involved with this work: No one is around to make new stuff. But as AI models get better, they have the capacity to knit old materials together into something that can credibly pass as new — a reproduction of a star’s voice, for example. “As AI develops, it may impact the value of an estate, depending on what assets are already in the estate and can be worked with,” says Natalia Nataskin, chief content officer for Primary Wave, who estimates that she and her team probably spend around 25% of their time per week mulling AI (time she says they used to spend contemplating possibilities for NFTs).
And a crucial part of an estate manager’s job, Saxe notes, is “looking for opportunities to earn revenue.” “Especially with my clients who aren’t here,” he adds, “you’re trying to figure out, how do you keep it going forward?”
The answer, according to half a dozen executives who work with estates or catalogs of dead artists or songwriters, is “very carefully.” “We say no to 99 percent of opportunities,” Saxe says.
“You have this legacy that is very valuable, and once you start screwing with it, you open yourself up to causing some real damage,” adds Jeff Jampol, who handles the estates of The Doors, Janis Joplin and more. “Every time you’re going to do something, you have to be really protective. It’s hard to be on the bleeding edge.”
To work through these complicated issues, WME went so far as to establish an AI Task Force where agents from every division educate themselves on different platforms and tools to “get a sense for what is out there and where there are advantages to bring to our clients,” says Chris Jacquemin, the company’s head of digital strategy. The task force also works with WME’s legal department to gain “some clarity around the types of protections we need to be thinking about,” he continues, as well as with the agency’s legislative division in Washington, D.C.
At the moment, Jampol sees two potentially intriguing uses of AI in his work. “It would be very interesting to have, for instance, Jim Morrison narrate his own documentary,” he explains. He could also imagine using an AI voice model to read Morrison’s unrecorded poetry. (The Doors singer did record some poems during his lifetime, suggesting he was comfortable with this activity.)
On Nov. 15, Warner Music Group announced a potentially similar initiative, partnering with the French great Edith Piaf’s estate to create a voice model — based on the singer’s old interviews — which will narrate the animated film Edith. The executors of Piaf’s estate, Catherine Glavas and Christie Laume, said in a statement that “it’s been a special and touching experience to be able to hear Edith’s voice once again — the technology has made it feel like we were back in the room with her.”
The use of AI tech to recreate a star’s speaking voice is “easier” than attempting to put together an AI model that will replicate a star singing, according to Nataskin. “We can train a model on only the assets that we own — on the speaking voice from film clips, for example,” she explains.
In contrast, to train an AI model to sing like a star of old, the model needs to ingest a number of the artist’s recordings. That requires the consent of other rights holders — the owners of those recordings, which may or may not be the estate, as well as anyone involved in their composition. Many who spoke to Billboard for this story said they were leery of AI making new songs in the name of bygone legends. “To take a new creation and say that it came from someone who isn’t around to approve it, that seems to me like quite a stretch,” says Mary Megan Peer, CEO of the publisher peermusic.
Outside the United States, however, the appetite for this kind of experimentation may differ. Roughly a year ago, the Chinese company Tencent Music Entertainment told analysts that it used AI-powered technology to create new vocal tracks from dead singers, one of which went on to earn more than 100 million streams.
For now, at least, Nataskin characterized Primary Wave as focused on “enhancing” with AI tech, “rather than creating something from scratch.” And after Paul McCartney initially mentioned that artificial intelligence played a role in “Now and Then,” he quickly clarified on X that “nothing has been artificially or synthetically created,” suggesting there is still some stigma around the use of AI to generate new vocals from dead icons. The tech just “cleaned up some existing recordings,” McCartney noted.
This kind of AI use for “enhancing” and “cleaning up,” tweaking and adjusting has already been happening regularly for several years. “For all of the industry freakout about AI, there’s actually all these ways that it’s already operating everyday on behalf of artists or labels that isn’t controversial,” says Jessica Powell, co-founder and CEO of Audioshake, a company that uses AI-powered technology for stem separation. “It can be pretty transformational to be able to open up back catalog for new uses.”
The publishing company peermusic used AI-powered stem separation to create instrumentals for two tracks in its catalog — Gaby Moreno’s “Fronteras” and Rafael Solano’s “Por Amor” — which could then be placed in ads for Oreo and Don Julio, respectively. Much like the Beatles, Łukasz Wojciechowski, co-founder of Astigmatic Records, used stem separation to isolate, and then remove distortion from, the trumpet part in a previously unreleased recording he found of jazz musician Tomasz Stanko. After the clean up, the music could be released for the first time. “I’m seeing a lot of instances with older music where the quality is really poor, and you can restore it,” Wojciechowski says.
Powell acknowledges that these uses are “not a wild proposition like, ‘create a new voice for artist X!’” Those have been few and far between — at least the authorized ones. (Hip-hop fans have been using AI-powered technology to turn snippets of rap leaks from artists like Juice WRLD, who died in 2019, into “finished” songs.) For now, Saxe believes “there hasn’t been that thing where people can look at it and go, ‘They nailed that use of it.’ We haven’t had that breakout commercial popular culture moment.”
It’s still early, though. “Where we go with things like Peter Tosh or Waylon Jennings or Eartha Kitt, we haven’t decided yet,” says Phil Sandhaus, head of WME Legends division. “Do we want to use voice cloning technologies out there to create new works and have Eartha Kitt in her unique voice sing a brand new song she’s never sung before? Who knows? Every family, every estate is different.”
Additional reporting by Melinda Newman