studio

There’s no shortage of bands commemorating their glory days as decade anniversaries of albums fly by. Yet few landmark releases feel not only fresh but forward-thinking 20 years after they were recorded. My Morning Jacket stumbled onto this kind of brilliance in October 2004 when it released its fourth studio album “Z.” Across 10 tracks of lush, euphoria-driven rock ‘n’ roll, the band captured a notable tone shift in its sound that melded Southern rock, haunting folk, psychedelic soul laced with jam band energy. It’s a set of songs that still make up a huge chunk of the bands live show. In September the band performed the album in its entirety to a sold-out Hollywood Palladium for its 20th anniversary.

“We still play these songs all the time,” said frontman and principal songwriter Jim James in a recent conversation. “So it’s not like we broke up after we released ‘Z’ and then we got back together 20 years later to play these songs, and it’s such a trip. We’ve been playing them nonstop for 20 years.”

Shortly after the release of its 10th studio album “is,” the band put out a deluxe reissue of “Z” that includes four B-sides and a whole album’s worth of demo versions of songs like “Wordless Chorus,” “Off the Record” and Dodante. Recently James spoke to The Times about the enduring power of “Z” and the joy of going back to the beginning of the album’s origins to give himself and his fans a new appreciation for the groundbreaking sound the band created.

The rerelease of “Z” was prefaced earlier this year with a full-album show at the Palladium. What was it like revisiting the album on stage first before it came out (again) on vinyl and streaming?

This is our fourth album now to hit the 20-year mark. So we’ve got some experience now doing these album shows. And it’s funny because some of the earlier albums we don’t play all the songs from them so we had to go back and relearn a lot of songs. But the songs from “Z” we pretty much play all the songs all the time. So it’s pretty hilarious how it involved no effort. It just involved playing them in that order of the sequence of the album. But we kind of laughed about that. We’re like, man, we don’t really even have to do any research or anything. We were all kind of reflecting just on how grateful we are that we like playing all the songs still. It’s such a great feeling to play songs for 20 years and never really get tired of them. People still want to hear them and there’s still excitement there, and they still feel fresh. It’s really a beautiful thing.

This was your first album using an outside producer. What was that like for you as the songwriter to step in the studio with John Leckie to help you realize your vision with “Z”?

It was so great, because I really needed somebody who could work with me and not let our egos clash too much. John was just really great about coming in and respecting what I wanted to do, but also voicing his opinion and what he liked and what he didn’t like and when he thought we could do better. And it was just really so refreshing and so good for us to have him there. I mean, his track record speaks for itself, he’s somebody who you can trust right off the bat, just because of all the things they’ve done in the past. He’s such a soft-spoken gentleman but he also has this hilarious, brutal honesty about him, which was always really great.

Your lineup had also changed between the previous album “It Still Moves” and “Z” — adding keyboard player Bo Koster and guitarist Carl Broemel who are still in the band today. So was that like stepping in the studio with the “new guys” for the first time?

It was really nerve-racking and really exciting all at once. We had some touring experience under our belt with Bo and Carl, so we kind of knew that it was working out on that level, but we’d never really recorded before, so it was a real test for all of us. And I think we all knew that. So everybody brought their A game to the session and we took it really seriously, but we also had a lot of fun and just really kind of got to know each other. That was good to do that out in the middle of nowhere, out there in the Catskills, up at the studio. It gave us some time to really bond without a lot of the real-world stuff coming in or other people coming in. So I think that was really important, that we did it that way.

Do you remember what song came out of the sessions first?

“It Beats 4 U” was the first one, because that was one we had already played live before we started recording. So I think that was the first song that we started messing with. But I think they all were kind of coming to life around the same time. So by the time we got in there to start unpacking them, I had already written them and kind of made the demos of them and stuff.

It’s great that you included so many demo versions of your songs on this rerelease. What was the process like of locating these, sifting through and sequencing which ones you wanted to put on the album?

Well, I love demos for a lot of my favorite bands — I love it when I get to hear the demos from the albums. So I’m always saving all that stuff; with my own stuff I’m always compiling all the demos, because that’s half the fun to me. Because sometimes you get this just like a beautiful glimpse into the song. Quite often, I end up liking the demo more than I like the actual album, song because you get a whole, whole new view of it. It’s also interesting when you’re sequencing for vinyl, because you don’t have unlimited time so you kind of got to pick and choose, and that kind of forces you to just choose the best. There’s a whole other round of band demos and then there were my demos, so there were a lot of things to choose from. But it kind of helps me to look at it in vinyl format. There’s still something about the vinyl time limit that helps with quality control. Just kind of pick the ones that I feel are most effective and then try and make a fun sequence so that hopefully, if somebody’s into them, it’s kind of like you get a bonus album that you can listen to.

We had four true songs, B-sides, that we really love too, that weren’t demos. So that was really nice to finally get those out, because those had been on different soundtracks. And then one wasn’t even released. So I don’t think that those weren’t even on streaming or anything for years and years. So it’s really cool to have those out kind of everywhere now, because I’ve always liked all those songs and been proud of those songs too. And I think most bands know the feeling of you know when you make a record. Sometimes songs just don’t fit the record, even if you still love the songs.

MMJ during the “Z” era.

(Sam Erickson)

Were you playing any of those live at the point where you released the album the first round, or did you shelve them for later?

We’ve always played “Where to Begin” live — off and on. We’ve also tried “Chills” a couple times, and I think we did “How Could I Know” a couple times. We’ve never played “The Devil’s Peanut Butter,” we kinda forgot that one existed until this whole [album rerelease] process started, and I found that song again. So we’ll probably play that one somewhere out on the next leg.

Was this process something that you enjoy doing, like, in terms of your how to, sort of like, reexamine an album?

I really love it because I just feel so grateful that anybody even gives a s–, you know? I mean, so there’s that part of me that’s just so grateful to even still be in the game, talking about this. But beyond that, it’s really cool for me because it’s like jumping in a time machine and going back and looking at that point in my life and getting perspective on where I am now, and seeing how I’ve grown and asking “where have I changed? Where have I not changed?” I look back and with all of these albums as they come up to this 20-year mark, and I see I’ve always been really mean and hard on myself, on Jim, but I know that Jim was doing the best he could at each time. That’s the one thing I’ve always kind of been able to see, to get myself through, to not be too hard on myself. I know I was giving it everything I had, so whether I would change things about it as I am today or not — we all look back on the past, and maybe there’s things we’d do differently, but it gives me a lot of comfort to know that I was trying as hard as I could, and all the guys in the band were trying as hard as they could. It really makes me feel proud of us for just putting in the time and effort.

A year after tech firm OpenAI roiled Hollywood with the release of its Sora AI video tool, Chief Executive Sam Altman was back — with a potentially groundbreaking update.

Unlike the generic images Sora could initially create, the new program allows users to upload videos of real people and put them into AI-generated environments, complete with sound effects and dialogue.

In one video, a synthetic Michael Jackson takes a selfie video with an image of “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston. In another, a likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants speaks out from behind the White House’s Oval Office desk.

“Excited to launch Sora 2!” Altman wrote on social media platform X on Sept. 30. “Video models have come a long way; this is a tremendous research achievement.”

But the enthusiasm wasn’t shared in Hollywood, where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash. At the core of the dispute is who controls the copyrighted images and likenesses of actors and licensed characters — and how much they should be compensated for their use in AI models.

The Motion Picture Assn. trade group didn’t mince words.

“OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue,” Chairman Charles Rivkin said in a statement Monday. “Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here.”

By the end of the week, multiple agencies and unions, including SAG-AFTRA, chimed in with similar statements, marking a rare moment of consensus in Hollywood and putting OpenAI on the defensive.

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”

For now, the skirmish between well-capitalized OpenAI and the major Hollywood studios and agencies appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business.

“The question is less about if the studios will try to assert themselves, but when and how,” said Anthony Glukhov, senior associate at law firm Ramo, of the clash between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over AI. “They can posture all they want; but at the end of the day, there’s going to be two titans battling it out.”

Before it became the focus of ire in the creative community, OpenAI quietly tried to make inroads into the film and TV business.

The company’s executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology.

This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach.

Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said.

OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company’s intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.

The response was immediate.

Beverly Hills talent agency WME, which represents stars such as Michael B. Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, told OpenAI its actions were unacceptable, and that all of its clients would be opting out.

Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency also argued that their clients had the right to control and be compensated for their likenesses.

Studios, including Warner Bros., echoed the point.

“Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to ‘opt out’ to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “As technology progresses and platforms advance, the traditional principles of copyright protection do not change.”

Unions, including SAG-AFTRA — whose members were already alarmed over the recent appearance of a fake, AI-generated composite named Tilly Norwood — also expressed alarm.

“OpenAI’s decision to honor copyright only through an ‘opt-out’ model threatens the economic foundation of our entire industry and underscores the stakes in the litigation currently working through the courts,” newly elected President Sean Astin and National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement.

The dispute underscores a clash of two very different cultures. On one side is the brash, Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” ethos, where asking for forgiveness is seen as preferable to asking for permission. On the other is Hollywood’s eternal wariness over the effect of new technology, and its desire to retain control over increasingly valuable intellectual property rights.

“The difficulty, as we’ve seen, is balancing the capabilities with the prior rights owned by other people,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner with law firm Moses and Singer LLP and a former Showtime Networks general counsel. “That’s what was driving the entire entertainment industry bonkers.”

Amid the outcry, Sam Altman posted on his blog days after the Sora 2 launch that the company would be giving more granular controls to rights holders and is working on a way to compensate them for video generation.

OpenAI said it has guardrails to block the generation of well-known characters and a team of reviewers who are taking down material that doesn’t follow its updated policy. Rights holders can also request removal of content.

The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said.

Existing law is clear — a copyright holder has full control over their copyrighted material, said Ray Seilie, entertainment litigator at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

“It’s not your job to go around and tell other people to stop using it,” he said. “If they use it, they use it at their own risk.”

Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery have previously sued AI firms MiniMax and Midjourney, accusing them of copyright infringement.

One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don’t believe a flat fee works.

“Bring monetization that is not a one size fits all,” said Dan Neely, chief executive of Chicago-based Vermillio, which works with Hollywood talent and studios and protects how their likenesses and characters are used in AI. “That’s what will move the needle for talent and studios.”

Visiting journalist Nilesh Christopher contributed to this report.