“If we do it again, it will probably be because we’ll be broke and need the money.” George Harrison, lead guitarist for the Beatles made this statement about a possible reunion in 1974
The Beatles were and are one of the most popular bands of all time, and pioneers of the rock genre. Founded in the UK in 1970, The Beatles were composed of 4 men who created and performed music from 1956 to their latest release in 2023. This latest release, titled “Now and Then,” uses vocals from the deceased lead singer of the group John Lennon and AI layering and producing vocals artificially. Harrison’s previous predictions were proven right as they did release more music for money, but notably, that wasn’t money for him. He wouldn’t be alive to receive the profit from this release but his counterparts would be. Where is the line drawn?
Using AI to replace human likenesses and replicate their talents is an idea originally relegated to dystopian novels due to moral ambiguity. The dead can’t consent. Despite the support of his family, Lennon wasn’t able to protest the decision that was made for him regarding the use of his life, likeness, and talent.
This is not the first instance of AI being used by individuals looking to profit from deceased individuals. In a 2019 Dior commercial Marilyn Monroe, Charlize Theron, Marlene Dietrich, and Grace Kelly were all digitally replicated with AI. AI presents complex moral questions and judgment such as if the likeness of the person is being used in respect to the deceased individual. For example, Bruce Lee was depicted as promoting alcoholic behavior, when he didn’t ever drink himself and was actively against it.
There is much discourse on the creation of this song and the use of AI within it. Conversations of ethics, legacy, and consent, only exist now because the people being affected are white men. Why didn’t we have these conversations about Marylin Monroe, Bruce Lee, or Grace Kelly? People have been publicly violated after death, yet there is no conversation. Unlike Lennon, Monroe currently has no family to protect her image. Celebrities like Monroe who lived a tragic life and was abused in all aspects of her life by almost all the people around her a sex symbol. Even in death, she was taken advantage of with explicit photos of her dead body circulating.
The practice of necromancy advertisement is fairly new, limiting legal precautions surrounding its implications. Singer Prince clearly stated during his lifetime he didn’t want to be impersonated in any manner, but there was still a holograph of him made to replicate a live performance. Again, at this moment, the culprit has faced no repercussions.
If you can create holographs and audio recordings of people, where is the line drawn? People like Prince made it clear he wanted “artistic control.” Dolly Parton has expressed that she has catalogs of music to be released after her death, but what about artists who didn’t explicitly express their desire to control their music, likeness, and legacy? Who protects them?
These are people, not things or objects. When did it become okay to use the dead as a tool to sell merchandise? If art is so easily made and replaced, where’s the value?
