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
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you take a second to read the article, you’ll knotice that the title of the supposed standup is literally “George Carlin”.

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The video spends nearly a full minute telling you that the channel is dedicated solely to AI content, and that this is not the work of George Carlin. It fills the entire screen with “THIS IS NOT GEORGE CARLIN” several times as the words are spoken by the narrator.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        As valid as uploading a copyrighted song to Youtube and saying “No copyright infringement intended” in the description.

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It’s why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It’s a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.

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

            The video is now private so I can’t check, but I’ve read that the disclaimer stated that it was an impersonation.

            That’s not why south park had that “disclaimer”. South Park doesn’t need it, it’s a parody.

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

              You’re right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.

          • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

            A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally recognized relationship. In contrast to other terms for legally operative language, the term disclaimer usually implies situations that involve some level of uncertainty, waiver, or risk. A disclaimer may specify mutually agreed and privately arranged terms and conditions as part of a contract; or may specify warnings or expectations to the general public (or some other class of persons) in order to fulfill a duty of care owed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm or injury. Some disclaimers are intended to limit exposure to damages after a harm or injury has already been suffered. Additionally, some kinds of disclaimers may represent a voluntary waiver of a right or obligation that may be owed to the disclaimant.

            to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

    • 4AV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The title is “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead (2024)” and it talks about his own death. Even if someone believes in communication beyond the grave to the extent that they could still mistake it as really being George Carlin, it’s immediately explained as AI in the opening segment of the video.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It really was good material and I liked the alluding that AI was as close to heaven as you can get. Too bad it has been taken down. Locking our culture up is a disservice to everyone who has ever existed.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer, nor it has any legal value. It’s like writing a “disclaimer” about privacy on your facebook wall. There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc. Carlin being dead has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.

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

          A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer

          Have you watched the video? It’s a thousand times more obvious than any legal disclaimer I’ve ever seen. They are not in any way hiding the fact that it is using AI.

          There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc.

          Talking about death in the abstract is entirely possible while you’re still alive. Creating material ~two decades after your own death about your death and events that happened since then, less so.

          has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.

          Copyright doesn’t protect names or titles.

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

            The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.

            No? Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”

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

              The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.

              Lennon’s vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren’t about his own death and events occurring after it.

              No?

              To quote the US Copyright office:

              Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain
              an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-
              tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words.
              Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity
              to support a claim in copyright include
              The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
              […]

              Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”

              I don’t think Spotify allows individuals, as opposed to music distributors, to upload tracks at all - but more importantly their policies on impersonation are not what defines copyright.

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

                Do you honestly think that context will matter legally, whether the dead “person” is talking/singing about love or their own death? This is nit-picking.

                When I say copyright, I mean in a general sence. Infringement of IP might be a better suited phrase, but I assumed the synonymity was implied.

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

                  Do you honestly think that context will matter legally, whether the dead “person” is talking/singing about love or their own death?

                  Yes, there is legal relevance to whether a reasonable person would interpret the remarks as really being from George Carlin, thus painting him in a false light, and the whole concept of George Carlin riffing on events occurring after his death (plus the disclaimer preceding the video and in the description) is relevant to determining that.

                  When I say copyright, I mean in a general sence. Infringement of IP might be a better suited phrase, but I assumed the synonymity was implied.

                  I don’t see how this tracks. Consider your following comment:

                  You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is. Typical “AI” techbro."

                  Surely that’s a reference to the character factor of fair use, a defense specifically against copyright infringement? It’s not a term used in trademark law as far as I’m aware for example (and “George Carlin” is not a registered trademark anyway).

                  Were you just referring to, and telling them to google, the broad layperson definition of “transformative”? In which case I think you’ve misunderstood their comment, because I’m pretty sure at the very least they were referring to the fair use factor.

                  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago
                    1. Exactly my point that it is not clear, since it’s exactly Carlin’s likeness. A person who tunes in at a random moment has no idea that this is what it it stated in the beginning and could 100% assume it’s Carlin.

                    2. Techbros use “transformative work” as a catch-all for ‘I moved a pixel; it’s transformative!’. Making a standup comedy show from a person doing standup comedy show is using their exact likeness as a basis is not transformative work. You can also google and copy paste the requirements for work to be considered transformative.

                    3. You’re now conflating multiple discussion tracks to various comparisons, rough equivalences amd simplifications. I’m sure quoting random shit from our convo will make your point across.

                    I’m done, I feel like your not discussing this in good faith and just border-line sealioning.