George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’::George Carlin’s estate has filed a lawsuit against the creators behind an AI-generated comedy special featuring a recreation of the comedian’s voice.

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Sure mate. You try selling a copy of it.

    Likewise. You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is.

    Typical “AI” techbro.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        That is transformative work. Remixes are tranaformative work. Impersonations are transformative work.

        Using a source and shuffling it around, then repackaging it as “from the same source” is not transformative work. It’s copyright infringement.

        • 4AV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it’d be entirely plausible to argue that, while transformative, current generative AI usage often falls short on the other fair use factors.

          I don’t really see how it can be argued that the linked example - relatively minor edits to a photograph - are more transformative than generative AI models. What is your criteria here?

          • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Take a Nike shoe. Draw a large dick on the shoe. Try selling it as a Nike Shoe.

            Vs.

            Take a Nike Shoe. Draw a large dick on the shoe. Sell it as a piece of art. (As commentary on capitalism, etc)

            Do you feel that one is copyright infringement and the other is a piece of transformative work?

            • 4AV@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.

              • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You’re not just reselling, so the doctrine doesn’t apply.

                By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.

                • 4AV@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.

                  If you do lie to the buyer that it was a brand new Nike shoe, it’d be the concern of the sales contract between you and the buyer, and trademark law.

                  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’ll call it

                    “Brand new shoes by Nike”

                    And add a disclaimer

                    “This is not brand new shoes from Nike”.

                    Do you think it will protect me from Nike?

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      You try selling a copy of it.

      I really want to drill this home, search YTP (YouTube Poop) on YouTube. The volume of evidence against your claim is enormous.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        “evidence”

        Take a Taylor Swift song. Sing on top of it. Try selling it with the name “Taylor Swift - I’m Not Dead”

        You can sell it as “My garbage cover remix of Taylor Swift’s song”, but you cannot make an impression that this originated from Taylor Swift.

        Same thing with Carlin, Beyonce, etc.

        It is using the name and identical appearance of Carlin, to appear as if Carlin was speaking himself. A person who cannot read would not be able to differentiate. It is plagiarism and malicious copyright infringement.

        • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Take a Taylor Swift song. Sing on top of it.

          We’ve shifted the goalpost from splicing together her entire discography to singing on top of a song. Neither of which is what AI does, or what that channel did with Carlin’s work.

          A person who cannot read would not be able to differentiate

          A person who can’t read or hear. If you can’t understand the narrator telling you for nearly a full minute that this is not George Carlin’s work then you can’t understand the next hour of the video that uses his voice anyways.

          • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m trying to dumb down the problem so we can have a conversation. I am not saying it is what “AI” is doing.

            I’ve said this elsewhere, a sticky note with a “no cppyroght infringement intended lol” is absolutely worthless.

            • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Impressionists have nothing to do with this. If I scraped all Beyonce’s videos, cut it up and join it into another video, and called it “Beyonce: resurrected”, I’m not doing am impression. I’m stealing someone’s work and likeness for commercial purposes. Are you sad that your garbage generator is just a plagiarism machine?

              Actually cutting it up into another video makes it transformative and it’s protected under the DMCA. Thank you for proving you don’t know what you’re talking about. Take care.

              Sure mate. You try selling a copy of it. Likewise. You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is. Typical “AI” techbro.

              Then I point you to the mountains of monetized, copyrighted and most importantly transformative YTP videos… and all of the sudden your new example is

              Take a Taylor Swift song. Sing on top of it. Try selling it with the name “Taylor Swift - I’m Not Dead”

              Which is a copyright violation, and still not how the Carlin vid was made. But yeah…not shifting goalposts.

              Making your examples more irrelevant and “dumbed down” isn’t going to convince anyone. But maybe you’re not even trying to convince anyone. If you want to make a convincing argument, tone down the vitriol and seething, and just talk about how this vid was actually made and how this actually constitutes a copyright violation.

              • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                YTP is satire. It is transformative. Christ, I’m not going to repeat myself over and over. If you don’t comprehend, you don’t comprehend. IDGAF.

                The fact is, the original video is taken private. So there’s the concousion. Bye.

                • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  You started at “all these things that aren’t analogous or comparable to AI violate copyright” and never strayed from that 🤔 but ok bud

                  This thread didn’t need any more AI hysteria, but it’s your prerogative to tap out before talking about how AI actually works or how the Carlin vid was actually made