It's all perverted now, but the intent of copyright was to encourage artists to create new works for the benefit of society. It wasn't because there's some inalienable right to protect their ideas - it was a trade: "limited monopoly" for "new creation".
What benefit are the rest of us in society getting in exchange for this rule you want to impose upon us?
There was a case recently where an author wrote in their will, "Do not release this unfinished material".
The estate released it anyway.
What I meant was beyond that. You can't slander a dead person, for example. However it appears that this may not be as clear-cut as I had thought, for example if there is an Estate that is continuing to earn income from the assets of the deceased person, then there may be a basis for the Estate to sue for damages if a slander or libel reduces those earnings.
So, I (somewhat) stand corrected. At least in the case of someone like Tupac.
It's not for the artists, they're dead. It's not for the right holders, as they're already in control of what happens with the likelihood of the deceased artist. If it's for the family, they should be set as right holders from the start if it mattered to the artist.
Is it for the public then ? Should the public have a say on how the right holder monetize their assets ?
I see an argument from preventing art pieces from disappearing at the will of the right holder, but preventing creation of new art should not be a public decision IMHO.