{"id":71368,"date":"2019-10-14T17:20:56","date_gmt":"2019-10-14T22:20:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kjhk.org\/web\/?p=71368"},"modified":"2019-10-14T17:18:26","modified_gmt":"2019-10-14T22:18:26","slug":"resurrecting-whitney-houston-how-holograms-create-ethical-quagmires","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kjhk.org\/web\/2019\/10\/14\/resurrecting-whitney-houston-how-holograms-create-ethical-quagmires\/","title":{"rendered":"Resurrecting Whitney Houston: How Holograms Create Ethical Quagmires"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Fans contribute to an overflowing memorial near the Beverly Hilton following Whitney Houston’s death. (via Wikimedia<\/a>)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

With a world tour commencing in February, R&B legend Whitney Houston could be coming to a city near you — despite being deceased for eight years.  The tour, announced via Instagram by the singer-cum-movie star-cum-queer icon\u2019s estate in September, will be in conjunction with BASE Hologram, a company whose website boasts their ability not only to \u201ccaptivate audiences\u201d but to \u201copen revenue streams,\u201d a lovely way to parse capitalizing on the dead, enslaving their likeness for financial gain. Although the response this announcement has been mixed as all responses are, a quick look through the comments on IG reveals strong backlash amid the excitement. Some call the move \u201cdisgraceful,\u201d \u201csolely motivated by money,\u201d and more; one comment even describes the hologram tour as \u201ca satanic projection.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This raises the question: are hologram tours disrespectful toward the deceased artists they emulate? Does the inability of a deceased person to consent to being impersonated in this way invalidate the need for that consent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first hologram concert I ever heard of was at Coachella in 2012, when a surprisingly high-fidelity projection of Tupac Shakur hopped onstage for a performance of \u201cHail Mary\u201d and \u201c2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted,\u201d a feat impressive enough to reignite conspiracy theories regarding the rapper\u2019s demise and to produce some general unease regarding the intellectual property of the dead. Even then, a concern I heard from others and which I shared was whether Pac would have been okay with it all. Sure, ownership of the songs passed to someone <\/em>when he died, but this doesn\u2019t mean someone owns his voice, his face, his mannerisms\u2026 does it? Similar questions arise for more and more artists (others given the posthumous hologram treatment include Ronny James Dio, Juan Gabriel, Michael Jackson, and Ol\u2019 Dirty Bastard) as this trend seems to accelerate, approaching takeoff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legally, there is a distinction between one\u2019s intellectual property rights and their personality rights<\/em>. First of all, the latter is far less thoroughly developed in America than the former. Whereas intellectual property is protected abundantly by federal and state laws alike, there is no federal law which recognizes a person\u2019s right to control the commercial <\/em>use of their identity by others. State laws variously protect these rights, however; California\u2019s Celebrity Rights Act of 1985 <\/em>for example ensures that a public person\u2019s estate maintains control over the commercial use of their identity for seventy years after their death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know my stance is extreme, but I would argue that even this is not far enough. It simply should not be legal to use a dead person\u2019s identity for monetary gain. Whether it\u2019s 2Pac or Michael Jackson or Whitney, to create the convincing illusion that you have resurrected an artist in order to make them perform for you occurs to me as a far cry from simply continuing to enjoy the art they themselves produced in life. The macabre details aside, I see no ethical distinction which elevates a hologram tour above the act of digging up an artist\u2019s corpse and traipsing it around onstage like a puppet. Hologram tours signify a sort of capitalism wherein nothing is sacred\u2026 and if anything is going to be sacred enough to fight for, it\u2019s Whitney Houston.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I understand the temptation. I never got the chance to see Whitney perform in concert, and the same subtle emptiness creeps into my soul, too, at the thought of never seeing with my own eyes how she gracefully pivots across the stage, never hearing with my own ears the way only Whitney could perform such ballads as \u201cI Have Nothing.\u201d I know why, given the carrots and sticks in place today, this technology has come to be. But to quote the imminent Ian Malcolm, the \u201cscientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn\u2019t stop to think if they should<\/em>.\u201d Whitney Houston owned her voice, and her presence in the spaces she occupied. Can this really be passed on in a last will and testament?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don’t think it can.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n