Technology

59452 readers

3811 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

673

George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’ (variety.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s to c/technology

243 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

although as I outlined even an impersonation can require approval from an entity claiming ownership over the likeness of the character.

Show an example of this not happening, and a person facing legal repercussions.

Your argument seems to be partially based around the idea that even if this was human it would still be illegal. I’m asking for proof that this is the case.

The other part of your argument seems to be the idea that this being AI means it’s not original content. You don’t really go into why this content is not original, you’re just vaguely pointing to “it’s not human” as the reason. This completely misses the fact that LLMs can and do produce 100% unique output when properly trained to do so. Unless you’re talking about the image, in which case… I guess so? But then wouldn’t literally any CGI in any movie be considered copy and paste as well?

[+] doctorcrimson 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Those were tracks made by Jackson, not generated after the fact. Doesn’t really have much bearing on this discussion in particular. Those were quite literally the IP of the Jackson estate.

Miller v Ford Motors was less about the impersonation, and more about the implication of endorsement and the skirting of paying her for her voice. Neither of which applies here. There’s also no chance of this being mistaken for Carlin by the listener, especially when it starts with “I’m dead” and the title of the video makes it explicitly clear that it was AI generated.

By “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar” do you mean “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar v General Motors”? Because that isn’t about impersonation. That’s literally about a trademarked name being used without permission.

And do you mean Carson v Here’s Johnny? Because that was dismissed. As was Blackwell v Carson which was a claim of defamation because of specific things said while impersonating Blackwell, not because of the impersonation itself.

And the ABG has not moved past a simple cease and desist from what I can find. I’m seeing no court cases, and the chapels in question are still doing Elvis weddings.

Do you have an actual case that would apply? Because I’m honestly not fond of spending so much time digging through the cases you’re providing to see if they actually apply/exist/were upheld.