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)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 26 Jan 2024 08:00
https://lemmy.world/post/11201649
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 26 Jan 2024 08:00
https://lemmy.world/post/11201649
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.
threaded - newest
If its wrong to use AI to put genitals in someone’s mouth it should probably be wrong to use AI to put words in their mouth as well.
Damn.
snaps
I agree and I get it’s a funny way to put it, but in this case they started the video with a massive disclaimer that they were not Carlin and that it was AI. So it’s hard to argue they were putting things in his mouth. If anything it’s praiseworthy of a standard when it comes to disclosing if AI was involved, considering the hate mob revealing that attracts.
The internet doesn’t care though. If I make fake pictures of people using their likeness and add a disclaimer, people will just repost it without the disclaimer and it will still do damage. Now whether or not we can or should stop them is another story
Completely true. But we cannot reasonably push the responsibility of the entire internet onto someone when they did their due diligence.
Like, some people post CoD footage to youtube because it looks cool, and someone else either mistakes or malicious takes that and recontextualizes it to being combat footage from active warzones to shock people. Then people start reposting that footage with a fake explanation text on top of it, furthering the misinformation cycle. Do we now blame the people sharing their CoD footage for what other people did with it? Misinformation and propaganda are something society must work together on to combat.
If it really matters, people would be out there warning people that the pictures being posted are fake. In fact, even before AI that’s what happened after tragedy happens. People would post images claiming to be of what happened, only to later be confirmed as being from some other tragedy. Or how some video games have fake leaks because someone rebranded fanmade content as a leak.
Eventually it becomes common knowledge or easy to prove as being fake. Take this picture for instance: <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5c11ddc9-f234-4743-8881-60be66bdc196.jpeg">
It’s been well documented that the bottom image is fake, and as such anyone can now find out what was covered up. It’s up to society to speak up when the damage is too great.
Except… maybe not?
Dudesy started an “AI podcast” as in a podcast “generated by AI” back when GPT-3 was just coming out. Their first episode included an extensive discussion of kayfabe. In other words, an elaborate hoax, using more traditional voice-masking tools, to record a human-written (perhaps AI-assisted?), human-voice, speaking the lines and having Carlin’s voice replace the original voice speaking.
Long article, but worth the read. Certainly seems like kayfabe to me.
arstechnica.com/…/did-an-ai-write-that-hour-long-…
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7eb86c76-4dbe-48c1-864c-6553466e96cd.jpeg">
That’s a really long article to basically say that the Carlin AI stand-up was probably mostly if not entirely written by a human–but to sound like an AI. It’s an impression of AI by a lousy comic (or a couple of em working together) and they decided to shit on the legacy of one of our greatest comic minds in the process. If that’s the joke, i can see why nobody is laughing.
There’s obviously a lot of legal grey-areas here though, so if any good comes from this it will hopefully be in the form of laws to prevent stupid shit like this flooding the Internet.
.
It’s kind of like suspension of disbelief. Comes from pro wrestling. It’s a lot like pretending Santa is real when you’re 13 and know it’s not.
She’s a friend.
As long as it’s presented honestly, I don’t have a problem with this. It’s really no different from:
youtu.be/bc5xEgoAaM0
Or:
youtu.be/mLeXQtsohSI
Or:
youtu.be/7w0JrqI7RxE
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/bc5xEgoAaM0
https://piped.video/mLeXQtsohSI
https://piped.video/7w0JrqI7RxE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
A (at most) 20 second parodic imitation in a short cartoon is no different from a whole hour-long stand-up special automatically generated using a life’s worth of actual stand-up material?
.
I don’t think individuals should own their tone of voice or style. I’ve seen the copyright abuse on YouTube and it would end up with videos being taken down the moment you utter a word with a tone of voice that sounds mildly like a celebrity.
I do believe they should own their name though. Getting sued because you try to pass yourself off as someone else is completely justifiable. This video is coasting off his name, it isn’t exactly right.
It’s not trying to pass itself off as Carlin though. It clearly says at the beginning that it is NOT him, that it’s an AI’s impression of him.
This would open up any comedian who does an impression of anyone else to a lawsuit. The only difference is that this is AI doing it instead of a person.
But…impressions are covered because it’s obvious to most everyone that the person impersonating is not the original subject. It’s clearly another person making a point with a reasonable facsimile of the other person.
But when you start veering into taking someone’s likeness and making it say things the subject never chose to say…it’s entirely different. The point of the AI is to get as realistic as possible.
I don’t think giving a disclaimer even matters here. The law isn’t adapted to a time where this was even possible, so the law is obviously lacking now, but I’m sure depending on your jurisdiction, the law for not using likeness as in photos/videos/voice in commercials still applies. It’s only more egregious because you’re not pulling from words they’ve said, but literally putting words in the persons mouth. It’s just wrong.
I would agree with you if they hadn’t named their video “George Carlin - I’m glad I’m dead”. This is the equivalent of a Taylor Swift band putting out original work and naming their upload “Taylor Swift - my new song”.
I shouldn’t have to wonder if the video I’m clicking is by the original artist or an AI/Impersonator. It should be clear without a doubt.
There is a line and it’s pretty generous but I think they crossed it, most likely purposely as to drum up controversy and make a quick buck. It’s a shame because this kind of irresponsibility is only going to cause problems.
It’s blatantly meant as satire and obviously within the protections of the First Amendment.
I wholesale disagree that they crossed a line at all.
How is this satire?
Is Alec Baldwin appearing on SNL as Donald Trp considered Satire?
How different is the end result as a from a human prompt guided AI creation, created by comedians that is mimicking any public persona at all?
As far as your understanding of the nuances, what is the specific reasoning and background providrd from the creators themselves on this?
Looks a lot like you, among many others, are just reacting with the anti AI pitchfork crowd and throwing mud at anyone that doesnt fall into the narrative bubble you prefer on this.
Are you saying this is a satire specifically on the current AI world views, or that all satirical comedy specials are protected by the first amendment and can be made available in the same way this was?
They are exactly the same and I would have the same opinion about someone mimicking George Catlins voice, recording a set and then uploading it to YouTube under his name.
My issue is more with the labeling than with the AI. I’m actually a huge AI advocate, it’s also why I think we need to be responsible with it and hold those that aren’t accountable.
These guys are looking for a quick buck and it’s just giving fodder to those that don’t want us to have free access to AI and it’s outputs.
As for the lawsuit, ultimately I think the platform should be held responsible for not having better policies on clearly indicating when a video is an AI impersonation.
Even the labelling itself in this case is part of the satire.
I’m saying satire falls under protected speech already, period. Your position requires it doesn’t.
What is it a satire on? What is the object of the satire?
My position is that it doesn’t need the protection, it’s perfectly fine to make AI generated content as long as it’s labeled as such and there is no chance of mistaking it for the original person.
I get your argument, I just think it implies everything else wouldn’t be legal. Like only comedy specials about AI are okay.
I mean, fair enough. But what alive person titles their show “I’m glad I’m dead?” Especially since people that know George know he’s dead. It’s almost The Onion level of satire. And once the video starts, it immediately starts with a disclaimer that it’s not Carlin, but AI. Nobody would sit through the entire show only to be dumbfounded later that it wasn’t actually Carlin risen from the dead.
We can’t really go on a case per case basis on this imo. It would start to get silly fast, like it’s okay if the wording makes it kind of obvious as long as it’s dead people.
And ya, everyone knows he’s dead but not everyone knows all of his shows and skit, in a year or two, the AI specials will vastly outnumber the original ones and not all are going to have such an obvious tell in the name.
Don’t get me wrong though, I think it’s fine as long as it explicitly states it’s from an AI or impersonator in the title.
You’re right, it can lead to a flood of new material that could overshadow his old works. But that would basically require it to be as good if not better than his old works, which I just don’t think will happen. Had nobody bat an eye at this, it would have just sunk into obscurity, as is the fate of many creative works. Should more shows be made, I think after the third people would just not even care anymore. Most haven’t even bothered to watch the first, after all.
I also think it will eventually become normalized, it’s hard to keep track of. I also think these lawsuits should be aimed at the platforms for allowing mislabeling and not at the individual creators.
I like Vernor Vinge’s take on it in one of his short stories where copyrights are lessened to 6 months and companies must quickly develop their new Worlds/Characters before they become public domain.
For sure! Deceit should be punished. Ethical AI usage should not go without disclosure, so I think we must be understanding to people choosing to be open about that, rather than having to hide it to dodge hate.
That’s an interesting idea. Although 6 months does sound like an awfully short time to actually develop something more grand. But I do think with fairer copyright limits we could also afford to provide more protections in the early days after a work’s release. It’s definitely worth discussing such ideas to make copyright better for everyone.
And they deserve to lose the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. Full stop.
Anyone that actually knows the story behind it from a context beyond the anti-AI circlejerking narratives knows it was a form of comedic parody put together by comedians.
First amendment’s got nothing to do with this my man.
The very often misunderstood first amendment only protects citizen’s speech from criminal charges by the government. Perhaps you meant the fair use doctrine?
I love the confidently incorrect.
.
.
But Anti-AI circlejerking is the only thing Lemmy knows how to do!
Ive been thinking about this a lot and if you think about this like they are selling a stolen product then it can be framed differently.
Say I take several MegaMan games, take a copy of all the assets, recombine them into a new MegaMan game called “Unreal Tales of MegaMan”. The game has whole new levels inspired by capcom’s Megaman. Many would argue that the work is transformative.
Am I allowed to sell that MegaMan game? I’m not a legal expert but I think the answer to that would generally be no. My intention here is to mimic a property and profit off of a brand I do not own the rights too.
Generative AI uses samples of original content to create the derivative work to synthesize voices of actors. The creator of this special intention is to make content from a brand that they can solely profit from.
If you used an AI to generate a voice like George Carlin to voice the Reptilian Pope in your videogame, I think you would have a different problem here. I think it’s because they synthesized the voice and then called it George Carlin and sold it as a “New Comedy Special” it begins to fall into the category of Bootleg.
You couldn’t sell that game, even if you created your own assets, because Mega Man is a trademarked character. You could make a game inspired by Mega Man, but if you use any characters or locations from Mega Man, you would be violating their trademark.
AI, celebrity likeness, and trademark is all new territory, and the courts are still sorting out how corporations are allowed to use a celebrities voices and faces without their consent. Last year, Tom Hanks sued a company that used an IA generated version of him for an ad, but I think it’s still in court. How the courts rule on cases like this will probably determine how you can use AI generated voices like in your Reptilian Pope example (though in that case, I’d be more worried about a lawsuit from Futurama).
This lawsuit is a little different though; they’re sidestepping the issue of likeness and claiming that AI is stealing from Carlin’s works themselves, which are under copyright. It’s more similar to the class action lawsuit against Chat GPT, where authors are suing because the chatbot was fed their works to create derivative works without their consent. That case also hasn’t been resolved yet.
Edit: Sorry, I also realized I explained trademark and copyright very poorly. You can’t make a Mega Man game because Mega Man, as a name, is trademarked. You could make a game that has nothing to do with the Mega Man franchise, but if you called it Mega Man you would violate the trademark. The contents of the game (levels, music, and characters) are under copyright. If you used the designs of any of those characters but changed the names, that would violate copyright.
Celebrity likeness is not new territory.
Crispin Glover successfully sued the filmmakers of Back to the Future 2 for using his likeness without permission. Even with dead celebrities, you need permission from their estate in order to use their likeness.
Yes, but it’s new territory in the sense of AI and creative works. If I were to use a photo of Tom Hanks for commercial purposes, that would be clearly stealing his likeness. If I were to create a drawing or painting of Tom Hanks, it becomes a lot less clear cut, and the answer depends on weather my work can be considered, “transformative.”
Many people using AI today are claiming that the works being created are transformative; they’re not using a picture of Tom Hanks, AI is creating a picture of Hanks from existing pictures, just like a painter uses references. This is essentially what the creators of the Carlin special are saying in their disclaimer; this is an AI impression of Carlin, not the real Carlin, and should be treated like any comedian doing an impression.
This is the new territory. I don’t know how the courts will rule, but based on the recent ruling against the Warhol estate, there will be a high bar for what is considered transformative.
Even professional impersonators must pay royalties to the original artist or their estate. The Carlin example seems to me to be impersonation rather than an impression.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I hope it comes up at trial.
Except this is untrue. They were very open that this wasn’t Carlin, but an ai learning from him and mimicking his style.
The better comparison is that to an Elvis impersonator who sings song they themselves wrote explicitly in the style of Elvis and try to sound like him.
I think ai changes the game and we need to rethink the laws, but I don’t see this case lasting long in court, unless there is some law I don’t know about.
They also weren’t selling it as far as I know. They put the whole thing on YouTube and prefaced with this is an AI trying to recreate a Carlin stand up set.
I would disagree on the selling point. If you provide something for “free” that is advertisement supported, you sold it to an advertiser.
Is the video monetized?
Of course
.
Well put.
“That use AI to violate the law”
Watch out impressionists. If you get too good you might become a lawbreaker. The AI hysteria is beyond absurd.
That’s not what this is about though.
AI should follow the standard norms and conventions we’ve established up to this point. Which, generally speaking, would prohibit using someone’s likeness without their consent to make a profit, and also not using the likeness of a well loved, dead man, in such a trashy way.
You know, basic human decency.
“using someone’s likeness”
Again, so someone can’t do a gilbert gottfried impression while doing their own stand-up? That’s illegal to do because their voice itself is copyright protected? Man, all these AI covers on Youtube are fucked then.
You completely misunderstand the law to appeal to emotion which continues to feed into the hysteria around generative AI. Photoshop isn’t illegal, generative AI isn’t illegal, doing impressions isn’t illegal. This would be no different if someone took that same script and did their best George Carlin impression.
Building those isn’t illegal. Using them to make a profit without consent is. The law is very clear here. This is what is at issue here.
Right so every single song, every use of Frank Sinatra’s voice on YouTube to cover songs is wildly illegal, yes? They have ads, they’re doing it for profit. The people who made the special didn’t sell access to it so how’d they make money? Same way I’d imagine.
those the use ai for it, yes actually. in fact, if we’re following the letter of copyright law, almost every meme is technically illegal.
Okay then let’s focus on impressionists. Grapple with that for a minute because you seem to be avoiding it. If someone does a stand-up special they wrote and did a highly accurate impression of George Carlin, why is that illegal?
I’m not trying to say what’s right or wrong it should out shouldn’t be. I’m just saying that if we apply copyright literally and aggressively there’s numerous things that we take for granted that would go away.
It already is applied aggressively to the point things that are covered under the DMCA both for fair use and transformative content is ignored and claims are made anyway. This special didn’t exist and had to be created by the person who made it. Written by them. That’s such a significant change that using their voice, something that can be mimicked, seems inconsequential to the law.
If someone can sing a cover of a Michael Jackson song and end up sounding exactly like Michael Jackson, is that copyright? Hell if someone wrote a brand new song and tried to sing it like Michael Jackson would and ends up being indistinguishable, is that illegal? This is the question that needs answering.
and it could still be worse… like i said, technically every single image macro is copyright infringement. and to your question, which I’m sorry, i don’t care about, it’s not what i was replying for, it really depends. performing another person’s song for money is actually a big deal and illegal. so yeah, in your example that’s a very very easy case. weird al is a great example of what you need to do to differentiate. cover bands are often a grey area, but can be gone after, it’s just often easy to get away with.
.
This is the best argument I have ever heard for getting rid of copyright law. It can’t be followed even if you want to.
yeah, that’s exactly the point i was trying to get at. it’s all fucked already anyway…
In that case why can’t I demand that my face not appear on Facebook? If the law is very clear here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to a comedian as well.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Midler v. Ford Motor Co. , 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) is a United States Court of Appeals case in which Bette Midler sought remedy against Ford Motor Company for a series of commercials in the 1980s which used a Midler impersonator.
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^‘optout’.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^
The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.
Carlin had a unique and distinctive voice and cadence, which was absolutely part of his act. And this fake album imitates it.
I don’t disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.
While the estate might have a fair case on whether or not this is infringement (courts simply have not ruled enough on AI to say) I think this is a silly way to characterize the people that made this. If you wanted to turn a profit from a dead person using AI to copy their likeness, why Carlin? He’s beloved for sure, but he’s not very ‘marketable’. Without context to those who have never seen him before, he could be seen as a grumpy old man making aggressive statements. There are far better dead people to pick if your goal was to make a profit.
Which leads me to believe that he was in part picked because the creators of the video were genuine fans of his work (the video even states so as far as I remember) and felt they could provide enough originality and creativity. George Carlin is truly a one of a kind comedian whose words and jokes still inspire people today. Due to this video (and to an extent, the controversy), some people will be reminded of him. Some people will learn about him for the first time. His unique view on things can be extended to modern times. A view I feel we desperately need at times. None of that would be an issue as long as it was made excessively clear that this isn’t actually George. That it’s a homage. Which these people did. As far as I see, they could be legally in the wrong, but morally in the right. It’s unfair to characterize them purely by their usage of AI.
Au contraire, literally the only reason cares about this or is paying any attention to it at all is because George Carlin is widely recognized (correctly IMO) as one of the best standup comedians that have ever lived.
If you took this same (tepid, garbage IMO) routine, removed Carlin’s “impersonation” (an interesting linguistic side point that George may have found interesting is how can something be an “impersonation” if there’s no person involved?) you’d get a lukewarm reception similar to the ones to the material the writers have had previously. But since it’s Carlin, you get headline after headline and even people who believe (my own brother for instance) that this material was actually composed in its full, hour-long, coherent format by some machine approximating George Carlin.
I agree that George is one of the best stand up comedians, but that doesn’t change that his material is very much counter-culture. It’s made to rub people the wrong way, to get them to think differently about why things are the way they are. That makes it inherently not as good of a money maker as someone who tries to please all sides in their jokes. I’d like to believe if he was alive today he would do a beautiful piece on AI.
In your second point I have to wonder though. Who made it a headline? Who decided this was worth bringing attention to? Clearly, the controversy did not come from them. There is nothing controversial about an homage. But it is AI, and that got people talking. You can be of the opinion they did it for that reason, but I would argue that they simply expected the same lukewarm reception they had always gotten. After all, people don’t often solicit themselves to be at the center of hate. Even when the association pays off, experiencing that stuff has lasting mental effects on people.
And again, if they wanted to be controversial to stir up as much drama, they could have done so much more. Just don’t disclose it’s AI even though it’s obviously AI, or make George do things out of character, like a product endorsement, or a piece about how religion is actually super cool. All of that would have gotten them 10x the hate and exposure they got now.
But instead, they made something that looks like and views like an homage with obvious disclosure. The only milder thing they could have done is found someone whose voice naturally sounds like George and put him in a costume that looks like George, at which point nobody would have bat an eye. Even though the intent is the same, just the way it was achieved is different.
We can argue their motives all we want (I’m pretty uninterested in it personally), but we aren’t them and we don’t even know what the process was to make it, and I think that is because the whole thing sure would seem less impressive if they just admitted that they wrote it.
I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny in addition to being a (reverse?) hack attempt by them to deliver bits of their own material as something Carlin would say.
Yes, that is sort of my point. I’m not sure either, but neither did the person I responded to (in my first comment before yours). And to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion.
It’s the first time I hear someone suggest they passed of their own work as AI, but it could also be true. Although AI assisted material is considered to be the same as fully AI generated by some. But again, we don’t know.
I definitely don’t think it meets George’s level. But it was amusing to me. Which is about what I’d expect of an homage.
Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives. The actions a person takes also count a great deal and if these bozos truly wanted to create an homage to Carlin, they would have talked to his living family members and started the process with a conversation rather than throwing it up on YouTube.
George Carlin worked his ass off in his last years on Earth purposefully to provide for his family and relatives and to create a legacy that he could pass onto them…not consulting them at all is at least a little bit of a piss on his grave.
Watch “George Carlin’s American Dream” which was made with the full consent and involvement of his family by a person who truly admired him and you will see the difference in material. George wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and his material was often dark…but he was clearly motivated to continue working long after most people would have retired, and that had to do in large part with his family and the role he felt he needed to play within it.
Everyone likes praise to a certain extent, and desiring recognition for what you’ve made is independent from your intentions otherwise. My personal experience working with talented creative people is that the two are often intertwined. If you can make something that’s both fulfilling and economically sustainable, that’s what you’ll do. You can make something that’s extremely fulfilling, but if it doesn’t appeal to anyone but yourself, it doesn’t pay the bills. I’m not saying it’s not possible for them to not have that motivation, but in my opinion anyone ascribed to be malicious must be to some point proven to be that way. I have seen no such proof.
I really understand your second point but… as with many things, some things require consent and some things don’t. Making a parody or an homage doesn’t (typically) require that consent. It would be nice to get it, but the man is dead and even his children cannot speak for him other than as legal owners of his estate. I personally would like to believe he wouldn’t care one bit, and I would have the same basis as anyone else to defend that, because nobody can ask a dead man for his opinions. It’s clear his children do not like it, but unless they have a legal basis for that it can be freely dismissed as not being something George would stand behind.
I’ve watched pretty much every one of his shows, but I haven’t seen that documentary. I’ll see if I can watch it. But knowing George, he would have many words to exchange on both sides of the debate. The man was very much an advocate for freedom of creativity, but also very much in favor of artist protection. Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields. It’s not black and white.
In fact, there is a quote attributed to him which sort of speaks on this topic. (Although I must admit, the original source is of a defunct newspaper and the wayback machine didn’t crawl the article)
August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.
EDIT: Minor clarification
I’m sorry but…no.
The people making money off of this are the same people making money off of everything.
The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft.
Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.
There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?
If this was truly AI generated, they could release a new one every week, or do something like that perpetual Seinfeld wannabe thing or the endless Biden Trump debate.
There’s a reason it’s more coherent than anything you’d get from ChatGPT. There’s a reason why it’s not “endless Carlin”. There’s a reason why the people that supposedly created it aren’t already in a technical field but are instead in comedy. It’s because it’s a fraud. It’s a mechanical Turk.
AI assisted works are, funnily enough, mostly a human production at this point. If you asked AI to make another George Carlin special for you, it would suck extremely hard. AI requires humans to succeed, it does not succeed at being human. And as such, it’s a human work at the end of the day. My opinion is that if we were being truthful, this comedy special would likely be considered AI assisted rather than fully AI generated.
You seem really sure that I think this is fully (or largely) AI generated, but that’s never been a question I answered or alluded to believing before. I don’t believe that. I don’t even believe fully AI generated works to be worthy of being called true art. AI assisted works on the other hand, I do believe to be art. AI is a tool, and for it to be used for art it requires humans to provide input and humans to make decisions for it to be something that people will actually enjoy. And that is clearly what was done here.
“The primary beneficiaries of art hype are pencil makers, brush makers, canvas makers, and of course, Adobe for making photoshop, Samsung and Wacom for making drawing tablets. Not to mention the art investors selling art from museums and art galleries all over the world for millions. These aren’t tiny entities.”
See how ridiculous it is to make that argument? If something is popular, people and companies who are in a prime position to make money off it will try to do so, that is to be expected under our capitalist society. But small artists and small creators get the most elevation by the advance of open source AI. Big companies can already push out enough money to bring any work they create to the highest standards. A small creator cannot, but they can get far more, and far better results by using AI in their workflow. And because small creators often put far more heart and soul into their works, it allows them to compete with giants more easily. A clear win for small creators and artists.
Just to be extra clear: I don’t like OpenAI. I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like Nvidia to a certain degree. Open Source AI is not their piece of cake. They like proprietary, closed source AI. The kind where only they and the people that pay them get to use the advancements AI has made. That disgusts me. Open Source AI is the tool of choice for ethical AI.
What argument? A completely different, ridiculous argument? Yeah I agree it is ridiculous to make that other argument that you purposely made with the intention of being ridiculous.
Well then we agree. Lets leave ridiculous arguments out of it. There are far better arguments to make.
Sure so maybe respond to what I actually said and what’s actually happening. Which isn’t all small artists suddenly enjoying a new, free, easy to use tool and is much more like Microsoft, Nvidia, and Adobe making lots of money off of “AI”.
I mean, you ignored the entire rest of my comment to respond only to a hyperbole to illustrate that something is a bad argument. I’m sure they are making money off it, but small creators and artists can relatively make more money off it. And you claim that is not ‘actually happening’. But that is your opinion, how you view things. I talk with artists daily, and they use AI when it’s convenient to them, when it saves them work or allows them to focus on work they actually like. Just like how they use any other tool to their disposal.
I know there are some very big name artists on social media who are making a fuss about this stuff, but I highly question their motives with my point of view in mind. Of course it makes sense for someone with a big social media following to rally up their supporters so they can get a payday. I regularly see them speak complete lies to their followers, and of course it works. When you actually talk to artists in real life, you’ll get a far more nuanced response.
I ignored the rest of the wall of text because I don’t respect walls of text. They’re fine when required which is rarely.
Artists are largely not computer experts and artists using AI are buying Microsoft or Adobe or using freebies and pondering paid upgrades. They are also renting rather than buying because everything’s a subscription service now.
A far bigger market for AI is for non-artists and scammers to fill up Amazon’s bookstore and the broader Internet full of more trash than it already was.
That’s a pretty sloppy reason. A nuanced topic is not well suited to be explained in anything but descriptive language. Especially if you care about people’s livelihoods and passion. I care about my artist friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Hence I will support them in securing their endeavors in this changing landscape.
I really don’t like this characterization of artists. They are not dumb nor incapable of learning. Technical artists exist too. Installing open source AI is relatively easy. Pretty much down to pressing a button. And because it’s open source, it’s free. Using them to it’s fullest effect is where the skill goes, and the artists I know are more than happy to develop their skills.
The existence of bad usage of AI does not invalidate good usage of AI. The internet was already full of bad content before AI. The good stuff is what floats to the top. No sane person is going to pay to read some no name AI generated trash. But people will read a highly regarded book that just happened to be AI assisted.
But the whole premise is silly. Did we demonize cars because bank robbers started using them to escape the police? Did we demonize cameras because people could take exact photo copies of someone else’s work? No. We demonized those that misused the tool. AI is no different.
A scammer can generate thousands of garbage images and text without worth, before an artist being assisted by AI can make a single work. Just like a burglar can make more money easily by breaking into someone’s house and stealing all their money compared to working a day job for a month. There’s a reason these things are illegal and/or unethical. But those are reflections of the people doing this, not the things they use.
I’m over tech fads and AI produced gibberish is boring and/or ugly just like this special we’re gabbing about here.
You know what would’ve been more interesting than an AI posthumous rip-off George Carlin special? A funny comedian actually writing and performing new material that was up to the real George Carlin’s bar.
Personally, I think the reason chat bots had to be the next thing is that these dweebs had to invent themselves a friend.
Perhaps. The world can use more kindness when despite everything, loneliness is at an all time high. It’s not a fix but maybe it can be a brake on someone’s downwards spiral.
I’d prefer and love to see someone new match George Carlin’s level too though, much more than someone trying to become him. I dont think we’ve quite had a chance to savor the good side of AI yet, but hey you’re entitled to your opinion.
It was very mediocre but this is basically the first version. Just wait a few years. Computers didn’t win in Chess and now apparently even running on smartphones they beat the strongest players.
BTW impersonation probably makes a much better benchmark to compare the quality.
If you want to promote your comedy podcast, doing it with a fake George Carlin album sounds like a pretty good way to do it (if you can get away with it).
On reddit years ago a whole mess of people attacked me and demanded that I agree that photographs have a right to take pictures of my house, car, property, and even children and put it on the internet.
Which one is it? Do we humans own our image in which case we deserve compensation and permission for it’s use or do we not own it and in which case this is a perfectly acceptable?
This is complex – I was surprised to learn paparazzi have been suing celebrities:
A New Type of Internet Troll: How Paparazzi Use Copyright Law to Cash Out on Celebrity’s Instagram Posts
More generally, terms of interest here are “privacy rights” and “publicity rights”. They’re not the same in every state (in the US).
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.
.
.
.
Oh no, did I offend your AI girlfriend? Talk about being a sad fuck
Tell me about how great Elon Musk and Joe Rogan are, bro.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ego at work
I really want to drill this home, search YTP (YouTube Poop) on YouTube. The volume of evidence against your claim is enormous.
“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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I see so the law now depends on the illiterate and not the reasonable person standard?
It’s possible to get away with quite a lot under transformative use even when it’s commercial, consider Cariou v. Prince for example: artnews.com/…/landmark-copyright-lawsuit-cariou-v…
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.
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?
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?
Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.
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.
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.
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?
You’d have to be careful about Nike’s trademark and the sales contract between you and the buyer. In the George Carlin case, neither of these apply.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/894f45c3-9be4-4802-8604-a7b1397ec513.jpeg">
Sold for 71 million. Which if that were people would be more than the UK.
Your comment reads like ChatGPT generated garbage.
You must be a hit at parties.
Is that what you do in parties? Interrupt people’s discussions with completely unrelated nonsense?
If you think this is what AI is doing I recommend looking more into how generative AI actually works. Even if that was what it did, as long as the ones publishing the work are not claiming or leading people to believe that this is Beyonce’s work, then who cares? Should the entire genre of YouTube Poops be paying royalties to all the commercials and politicians they sample and splice?
No, this is not (and never was) how copyright works, nor how it should work.
If you take a second to read the article, you’ll knotice that the title of the supposed standup is literally “George Carlin”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Copyright doesn’t protect names or titles.
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.”
Lennon’s vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren’t about his own death and events occurring after it.
To quote the US Copyright office:
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.
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.
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.
I don’t see how this tracks. Consider your following comment:
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is incredibly clear. The fact that it would take a person to pause the video before the first three seconds, skip to a random point, ignore that the topic of the standup is events that occurred since his death and being an AI, fail to read the written notices on-screen and in the description, etc. is evidence of this.
I think you’re still getting wires crossed between different domains of IP law in a way that makes your objection meaningless. Transformative nature comes in as a part of a fair use defense specifically to copyright infringement - whereas elements of a person’s likeness, like their face or voice, are not protected by copyright.
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.
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.
As valid as uploading a copyrighted song to Youtube and saying “No copyright infringement intended” in the description.
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.
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^
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.
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.
You’re understimating what generative AI can do. I was shocked when I realized that GPT-3 was able to do creative writing, something that we thought would be out of reach after things like doing management and self driving cars. Turns out, creativity is what AI can actually do. Watch the video. This is like George Carlin but not using any of his material, instead creating something completely new in the style of George Carlin. They could have used the style and a slightly different voice, but they wanted to make a point here.
If your argument is that minds, be they artificial or human, are not allowed to learn from other peoples works then… well then that is a very immoral argument to make imho.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you think that LLM has a “mind”, there’s no discussion with you, sorry.
That’s not what I’m saying, What we currently have is more like the disembodied creative writing center of a brain, without memory or conscience but able to do creative writing. But it seems pretty clear now that we will have sentient artificial minds sooner than later.
And the last thing we need is to use intellectual “property” arguments to regulate this.
Me: hey chatgpt how many words were in your last response to me
Chatgpt: there were 79
Me: what is the approximate limit on your contextual window?
Chatgpt: The approximate limit on my contextual window is around 2048 tokens, which usually translates to around 1500 words, depending on the complexity and length of the words used. This limit affects how much text I can consider from previous interactions in a single conversation.
Define mind or at least list off criteria.
Wait did Beyoncé die?
Edit: no.
She still alive? Damn.
That title had me having to check though.
Again, video editing, plagiarism, and garbage generation have all always been possible. All AI did was make it easier.
That’s like being mad at matches because now anybody can make a fire, and by George, one of those fires could burn down an orphanage. But just forget about all the good things that fire can do like cook food or provide heat or forge steel or whatever else you use your fire for idk I’m not here to judge or kink shame you.
If the skills required are the justification for making AI bad, that’s cool. Let me just take away your GPS apps until you become a pro at operating a sextant.
No disagreement here. I’m using GPT for basic programming help.
Better tools, faster, skill bla bla bla. I couldn’t give two shits about the contemporary garbage created. It’s jut not interesting to me. It’s like listening to someone about a dream they had.
“AI” isn’t bad, it’s the garbage that’s being pushed as revolutionary. Nothing has changed. If you can’t write a good poem, even if AI writes it for you, you still can’t write a good poem. And that is what matters to me.
Any image generated by the garbage collecting machine using my input will never be better than my scribble on a piece of paper. Because it’s just not “my”.
That’s a much bigger discussion around licensing.
AIs are nothing without that the precious input that it learns from. That input comes from tons of different licenses and tons of different creators from tons of different countries and tons of different laws. You ironically need an AI lawyer to even start to sort it all out.
Thats kind of a significant issue, especially if you create something that years later, the AI later regurgitates a significant portion or obvious recreation of.
On your last point, for me, the output of an AI is the combination of its prompt, the inputs it has available to it (or at least the curation of said inputs), and the underlying code that combines it. If an individual or team of people create unique and novel art while being responsible for all three, I would say that deserves proper attribution and compensation where appropriate.
But for any schmuck just typing “alien with purpel boobs” in DALL-E is not an artist. I don’t care how many adjectives he uses to describe the nipples, or even if he fidgets with the lighting to accentuate the curls in her mane. I’m not even going to question why an alien species is assumed to be mammalian, even though that’s just patently absurd right off the bat. Like, seriously, the number if evolutionary dice rolls to get from self-replicating protein to a species that generates milk to feed its young is insane. The chances of that happening in two completely different environments is insane^2. None of that matters to me, because that person has nowhere near enough skin in the game to be considered a creator.
Theft means to deprive someone of their property. How is editing a video of Beyonce doing that? The owners of the videos still have it.
This is the concise way of putting it that I’ve been missing.
Using AI to do something that actually intelligent beings already legally do, like impressions and parody (with disclaimers and all that), isn’t suddenly theft or stealing because AI was used in the process. I’m really disappointed in the Lemmy community for buying into all this bs
Not trying to be glib but
That’s another way.
I’ll concede that there is some skill involved in generating some this content, but nowhere near what the humans it purports to replace. And seemingly less and less skill or even intent is required with each advancement. It’s conceivable that someone could mimic real artistic output without actually caring about it.
Not at all, I think this is the most valid take in the whole thread.
Personally I don’t think automating the process should have all that much of an effect on whether or not it infringes on copyright, but I definitely see where you’re coming from. I can see that being a big point of contention in courts if/when they try to sort this stuff out.
Eh…. I don’t know that I can agree with this.
I understand the intent behind it, but this specific instance is legitimately in parallel with impersonators, or satire. Hear me out.
They are impersonating his voice, using new content in his style, and make no claim to be legitimate.
So this comes down to “this is in bad taste” which, while I can understand and might even agree with… isn’t illegal.
The only novel concept in this, is that “scary tech” was used. There was no fraud, there was no IP violation, and no defamation. Where is the legal standing?
They trained the AI on his material. That’s theft of IP without a license or agreement.
So any human comedian listening and learning from other comedians is also STEALING the intellectual PROPERTY of them? That is very incendiary language btw.
Morally this imho comes down to a workers right issue. So there are legitimate reasons to argue that AI should not take our jobs. A kind of socialist market protection act.
But to use intellectual property in this case is just asking to make anything “Disney like” to be treated as copyright by Disney.
PS: BTW actually listen to the video youtu.be/2kONMe7YnO8 it is eerily good.
Presumably they paid to see the show each time they wanted to go learn from him. Also, it’s extremely poor form to copy jokes. Learning the art of telling jokes like using callbacks wouldn’t require watching solely one comedian either.
No matter how much they say this isn’t Carlin, the entire selling premise here is that it’s Carlin.
The AI didn’t copy jokes, it learned how to generate jokes just like Carlin. The point of this impersonation for me is to be able to actually compare it to Carin, as a benchmark.
It seems also clear that while this is mediocre at best, the next versions of AI will become as good as, and then better than Carlin. And then better than any human comedian could ever be. Might take a while but no doubt in my mind we’ll get there sooner than later. So then they’ll use artificial persona that become brands and are fully owned by corporation.
And they’ll not just be insanely funny, they’ll also become incredibly good at propaganda and reprogramming human minds to their master’s agenda. Now a human entertainer at least has to have some humanity.
My point is that IP law is the WORST thing you can use to try to limit AIs. The hurt feelings or lost moneys of Carlin’s heirs or other corporations are so utterly irrelevant in regards to the repercussions of this issue.
Machines aren’t people. Machines don’t learn. Machines copy data, manipulate and replicate it. That is copyright infringement. The laws for Machine duplication don’t apply to human learning.
It’s called en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
That they actually learned to do creative writing is the shocking thing. Mediocre so far, but they will improve. And denial won’t help.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Machine learning (ML) is a field of study in artificial intelligence concerned with the development and study of statistical algorithms that can learn from data and generalize to unseen data, and thus perform tasks without explicit instructions. Recently, generative artificial neural networks have been able to surpass many previous approaches in performance. Machine learning approaches have been applied to many fields including large language models, computer vision, speech recognition, email filtering, agriculture, and medicine, where it is too costly to develop algorithms to perform the needed tasks. ML is known in its application across business problems under the name predictive analytics. Although not all machine learning is statistically based, computational statistics is an important source of the field’s methods.
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^‘optout’.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^
They didn’t write satire in his style, they sampled his actual work with a machine. It’s not a parody of George Carlin, it’s an inferior approximation of him.
I didn’t say this was satire, I said it was in line with satire on a legal front. And why did you ignore the “impersonator” line immediately before it and jump straight into parody?
They sampled his work, yes. To get voice, pacing, image, etc. they didn’t then have it spit out copies, or even remixes of his previous work, they had it create new content and made it clear it was not him.
I don’t see this as any different than an impersonator watching hundreds of hours of his routines, getting into character visually and verbally, and walking out on stage to do their own routine.
In fact, let me just ask directly: would you be taking issue with this if it was a real human, no AI involved, who had dressed and trained to move and sound approximately like the man, and then filmed it and put it online? Would you say that is illegal?
It is not in any way in line with Satire. They sampled his work with a machine.
If a real human did this, no AI involved, then that human’s interpretation of Carlin’s mannerisms, speech patterns, and humor would all be much more varied than if that human remixed Carlin’s own words and copied his own imagery.
Plus, if somebody came out on stage and started calling themselves Stephen Colbert or Larry the Cable Guy, then guess what? That’s fucking illegal.
Oh good, you understood what I said.
Tell me you’ve never seen a high quality impersonator without telling me you’ve never seen a high quality impersonator. 🤦🏻♂️
No, it really isn’t. Why would it be? Is Carlin a law enforcement officer? Is there an attempt to commit fraud I missed in the middle? What law do you think impersonating a random person breaks?
Not to mention, the title description and opening line make it pretty obvious this isn’t Carlin.
I also noticed a lot of skirting around my question with a distinct lack of a direct answer. So I’ll ask it again: If that was a human who put out the exact same video, and AI was not involved, would you have a problem with it? Because it really seems like you wouldn’t.
You said:
And FYI, Stephen Colbert got a Cease and Desist notice for being Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report when he left the Viacom network for CBS. Because that is how intellectual properties work, when you make money off of your character or your image then it is your property: that is also the basis for which public figures and actors can refuse images or artworks being used for monetary gain outside of fair use or depictions of public settings.
So you’re telling me you’ve never heard of celebrity impersonators? Elvis would be one of the more famously impersonated, but even living individuals have impersonators. Hilariously, there have been stories of impersonators winning in an impersonation contest when the actual individual being impersonated was also in the contest.
You k ow what doesn’t happen with celebrity impersonators? They don’t get arrested or successfully sued. Because there’s nothing illegal about it.
Now, the CnD Colbert got is a different story. He likely signed paperwork saying he wouldn’t “be the character” after leaving. Not to mention, he was the literal actor who portrays that character.
On the other hand, you notice how SNL doesn’t get sued for their impersonations?…
Are you noticing a theme yet?
Because I am. You just won’t answer my simple question. So let me jump to the assumption that you’d be fine with it if it was fully human made. That begs the question, why is AI different? If the poster came out tomorrow with proof AI was not involved, why would it suddenly be okay?
AI is different because a human didn’t make it lol that’s the point
How does that make sense from a legal standpoint? Because a human made the AI.
I’ve said it multiple times, you simply lack reading comprehension.
A Human product is different enough from George Carlin in their parodies or impersonation, although as I outlined even an impersonation can require approval from an entity claiming ownership over the likeness of the character. However, the AI product is not notably different, it is more akin to a copy and paste job. If you had a high school diploma you would know you’re not allowed to copy and paste other people’s work and call it your own.
It’s a copy and paste job, without using any of his original content. Gooooot it.
I’d also like you to provide an example of an impersonator being successfully litigated against for simply impersonating someone on stage. The key point is successfully since I can send you a cease and desist for literally anything, and sue you for literally anything.
And just as a side note, ad hominems aren’t a great tool for discussions. They don’t back up your point at all and just come off as you getting angry. Which is weird considering this situation literally doesn’t effect you in the slightest.
When did I ever accuse this of being an impersonator? That’s the whole crux of the issue with you, you’re equating it with something that it isn’t.
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?
Oh yeah that is fair, kind of derailing the discussion by focusing on that little sidenote, but the Michael Jackson Estate forced Sony to remove tracks released after his death.
The most famous past case of this nature is probably Midler v. Ford Motors. Also successful were Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Johnny Carson respectively.
Also, Elvis Impersonators like Jesse Garon are in court fighting for their rights to be the King right now.
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.
Holy shit you really are deadset on intertwining the theft with AI with a Human Impersonator. I’ve been very clear to separate the two issues but you just keep getting confused.
Ha, okay we can shift away from the cases if you like. There really aren’t any that apply anyway.
I think the one getting confused, is the one who:
You keep spitting out reasons, without backing up your claims. And when challenged on them you either ignore them, or spit out a new reason.
So what will it be, are you going to actually articulate your arguments beyond surface level, or are you going to throw out some back handed comment while continuing to downvote me the second you see I replied?
Wouldn’t the issue there be the fact that “of the Colbert Report” is using the actual name of the show in a way that would create profit for him? This, profiting off of someone else’s IP? It’s not the fact that he is “Stephen Colbert”. It’s the part that isn’t his name.
No, actually, they tried to claim ownership over the satirical character Stephen Colbert. I really love how he responded to it, btw, here is a clip TLDR: he brought on Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin Stephen Colbert, completely unrelated to the Colbert Report show and characters.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
clip
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks - oh I love him
Looks like you are correct mostly. It looks like it was actually the character and persona from the Colbert report that he can’t use. It would be like taking the show to a different network I guess would be the argument which usually involves the show being bought. It’s also weird because the company was basically suing itself.
It also led to Colbert mentioning that he didn’t know how to act as the normal him, so I think it’s cool he at least got something positive out of it, even if it’s a huge blow for sure.
It’s weird, because if the character was named like Sean Spencer, it would be expected that you couldn’t just use the same character. I’m surprised he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on given the character has his name, and he could argue that it’s simply his own personality, but if he and his lawyers didn’t expect it to be winnable I’ll take their word on it.
Either way, it’s interesting information. Thanks for the correction.
I could send you a Cease and Decist notice on my finest letterhead insisting that you stop being a stupid overreaching authoritarian. That doesn’t mean a court would uphold it. C&D isn’t proof of anything.
Wait. I can just send Cease and Decist letters to anyone for anything?
I remember when impersonators, such as Rich Little, used to show up on TV. Their whole bit was the skill it took to do the impersonations, not so much what they said. And I don’t remember any instance of them only doing one person. There are single impersonation shows, like a Judy Garland concert, but I am not sure where that falls legally.
When I think of impersonator personally, I go straight to Elvis impersonators. It’s a running joke in movies, they’re all over Las Vegas, and you can rent an Elvis impersonator for various events, including weddings, in just about any major city.
I teared up listening to this special. It was like he was still alive. A lot of good material and definitely in his spirit. People who want to lock up our culture behind paywalls can get bent.
No don’t you understand. If we don’t enforce copyright laws we won’t get a 19th Fast and the Furious movie.
I’m all for comedy that upsets people
.
.
There’s something hilarious about the two of you calling the other person a stick in the mud while you each have downvoted the other’s comments. I don’t know why, but it’s funny
So you’re a big fan of Roseanne?
I’m torn. I can see why they would be upset. And they may have a case with likeness rights.
But at the same time, this specific example isn’t trying to claim any kind of authenticity. It goes out of its way to explain that it’s not George. It seems clearly to be along the lines of satire. No different than an impersonator in a SNL type sketch.
I guess I don’t have any real problem with clearly fake AI versions of things. My only real problem would be with actual fraud. Like the AI Biden making calls trying to convince people not to vote in a primary. That’s clearly criminal fraud, and an actual problem.
That’s the difference between impression and impersonation. My disappointment in the Lemmy community for not understanding the difference is immeasurable. We’re supposed to be better than this but really we’re no better than Reddit, running with ragebait headlines for the cheap dopamine hit that is the big upvote number.
If it were a human doing a Carlin impression, literally NOBODY would give a fuck about this video.
I think AI will win this fight. We’re equiped with buckets to fight a tsunami.
AI of today is the worst it will ever be and it’s already pretty fucking good. I expect that in the next 5 to 20 years most if not all the best content will be AI generated and I’m excited for it. I feel for the artists that will suffer because of it but I can’t see how we’re going to stop it or why we even should.
The current trajectory of AI produced media is pointing toward personalized content. Every viewer would have their own exclusive shows and movies. This sounds great on the surface, but is actually mostly terrible.
Media today brings people together, by watching movies together or discussing the latest episode of a new series. With personalized content, not only will none of your friends have seen the show you’re watching, but they won’t even be able to see it; it lives only in your account on some proprietary streaming service and might even have been generated on-the-fly, never to be seen again.
Additionally, you can be certain that any company producing AI-generated content will put their own biases into it as much as possible. When streaming services push out competition in favor of in-house generated content, viewers will only have access to content skewed one way, further polarizing people based on which service they watch. With personalized content, those biases become much harder to scrutinize, because no two people can watch the same piece of content to compare opinions or analysis.
Finally, if you step back and consider the purpose of watching video content, it’s mostly for entertainment. A moderate amount of varied entertainment can be healthy to unwind or pass the time, but an infinite source of “perfect” content encourages unhealthy media habits like binge-watching, and is unlikely to challenge the viewer’s beliefs or support their mental health. Distress drives engagement, as social media has proven.
Once studios can produce fully AI generated movies, personalized media won’t be far behind. Cheap AI generated personalized media is coming. If it takes hold, it’ll push us all further apart.
I hope none of these predictions come to pass, but we’ll see whether good intentions win over money this time.
It’s nothing like Carlin.
It’s theft of his work.
Pick one.
But that would mean having principles instead of profiting off AI hysteria.
It’s hilarious that I’m getting downvoted. 🤣
I read it like:
Mimic, pace of tone and body language are parts of the work.
That they don’t hit the main part (I.e the humor) is just the icing.
Perhaps I’m top lenient though.
The problem with that is that you can’t protect “pace of tone” and “body language” under law.
Would you say Palworld is copyright infringement?
I’m just saying that I see that those two statements can exists at the same time without a huge mental leap - not that I agree with it - I apologize if I didn’t make that clear enough in the first post!
Do you think a style is IP?
George Carlin was all about lawsuits and money, great way to honor him. /S
I’d have sympathy if this was about a grieving family wanting to be left alone, but it looks more like the “estate” wanting money. At least they aren’t going after total nobodies. (Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen)
I’ve watched it on YouTube, it’s pretty good. It starts “this is an impersonation of George Carlin”. Wonder if a court ruling would prevent human impersonation.
I agree it’s fucked up, but damn if it isn’t well done and pretty spot on. It’s crazy to hear about recent events from the voice and perspective of George Carlin. The special had me ready to pick up my pitchfork.
I watched the whole thing and it was obviously written by someone and dropped through a text to speech engine (or “AI”).
I do not believe for a second that this was written by AI. AI is getting a lot better at writing, but it still sucks when it comes to humour. It’s great at going from A to B with a typical flow of thought, but it tends to struggle with the reverse, B to A, like a punchline and its setup. Since the court case seems to revolve around not the impersonation aspect but instead the supposed training of the AI on Carlin’s works, it’ll be interesting to find the truth in the matter.
Before I watched it, I thought that it was perhaps sections written by AI and then stitched together afterwards.
After watching it, I think very little of it was actually written by AI, anything that “AI” contributed was thoroughly edited, and that most of it was completely written by a mediocre comedy writer.
There is a 0% chance that anyone typed anything like “Have AI George Carlin perform an hour-long special posthumously” into a computer and it spat that audio out.
There is exactly one bit that I think was even conceivably inspired by interactions with a chat bot and it’s the one about replacing the vowels in people’s names (which is coincidentally what a couple of YouTubers take as “proof” that it was AI generated in whole), and even that bit was likely AI-inspired but not at all AI-written.
EDIT: I wanted to add somewhere that I’m happy to find another skeptic. This seems like a modern “mechanical Turk” to me.
A thing that wouldn’t surprise me at all is if this is some sort of elaborate stunt similar to something Andy Kaufman would do.
It’s a ruse to drive publicity and generate revenue for a podcast. The album itself is free, but this was all about making money.
A person’s voice cannot be copywrited. I hope these people get countersued to oblivion.
It’s ‘copyrighted.’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Midler v. Ford Motor Co. , 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) is a United States Court of Appeals case in which Bette Midler sought remedy against Ford Motor Company for a series of commercials in the 1980s which used a Midler impersonator.
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^‘optout’.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^
Fucking asshole bot. I never opted in.
.
What’s the alleged crime? Comedy impersonation isn’t illegal. And the special had numerous disclaimers that it was an impersonation of Carlin.
Sounds like a money grab by the estate, which Carlin himself probably would have railed on.
Where’s the line? Were they parodying Carlin? Or just using his likeness? Can Fox News do this with Biden?
This is a far larger thing than just a comedy impersonation.
If you watch the video it’s very clear from the beginning that it’s a fake voice and they used AI to write the jokes. It says flat out it’s not George Carlin. There is no way anyone could be mistaken. Also it only kind of sounds like him.
And when someone edits that part off? What then?
What then? That person may be held liable for whatever crime you believe was committed.
The comedy special not only prefaced the show with multiple disclaimers, but also jokes about it during the special.
If someone wants to edit it to be deceptive, then that’s on them.
The creator would have nothing to do with it.
Whether it’s presented as real seems a reasonable line to me.
Fox News could not use it to mislead people into thinking Biden said something that he did not, but parody like “Sassy Justice” from the South Park creators (using a Trump deepfake) would still be fine.
Fox News could run it with every disclaimer out there and it would still get picked up by every other conservative channel and site as legitimate.
This is why likenesses are protected.
Donald Trump, while president, was impersonated by thousands of people as comedy acts. Some people even had full time gigs doing it!
It’s not a illegal when you are doing it for comedy. Pretending to actually be someone who you are not, is fraud, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
Mimicking someone’s voice or putting on a costume in their likenesses doesn’t make it illegal.
If it did, then Elvis impersonator festivals would be a mass crime gathering!
Not even for comedy but for art in general.
If we couldn’t impersonate likenesses in art, art would fucking suck. Think of every fictional character who ever met a well-deserved demise that was inspired by a real person.
Hell, look at The Crucible. Required reading when I went to high school. Literally an allegory for the red scare and McCarthy’s communist “witch hunts” going on at the time of its writing.
Not just that, but being critical of the rich and famous, especially high-profile politicians, is an incredibly important part of art. It’s practically the origins of modern theater. And inversely, arts criticism is an incredibly important part of politics.
Right of publicity has been a thing in American law since 1953. Not in every state, but in many of them, including California, where Will Sasso (who is responsible for this) lives.
You do not have a legal right to impersonate someone to publicize your podcast in California. That is exactly what he did.
So it was the fact that he used an impersonation to promote a podcast that’s the issue, not the fact that there was an impersonation? Is that what the lawsuit is going after?
I think so. If you personally made “George Carlin AI Album #2” or whatever and put it on YouTube and didn’t link it to some moneymaking venture, I doubt they would be suing. This is two comedians using a third, dead, comedian to generate revenue for their own comedy.
Even though the AI Carlin said numerous times that it was not the real Carlin?
It’ll be interesting to see how this lawsuit develops.
Ford never said the singing voice was Bete Middler’s in this case- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Such an idiotic ruling.
If someone can sing, with their own voice, then that’s their singing voice. It shouldn’t matter if it sounds like someone else, because it’s not them!
It’s idiotic because it essentially creates limits for talent and skill in an artistic sense.
There’s a band called Greta Van Fleet who sounds exactly like Led Zeppelin, they’ve even done Zep covers, and it would be completely asinine to punish them (and fans) for having a certain sound.
It’s something the law isn’t equipped to handle as written.
And fear of things for which no law can be ready imagined in their extremes is how I got my current attitude to everything legal.
About the event itself - well, I suppose Carlin himself would be amused by the fact.
What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?
If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.
If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).
The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.
How is the AI impersonation of Carlin different from when Paramount used actors who looked like Queen Elizabeth or Barbara Bush, or human impersonators who sound just like the real person they’re impersonating (besides the obvious difference)?
I’m not saying Dudesy is in the right. Making an AI system sound like someone somehow feels different than an impersonator doing the same thing. But I don’t know why I feel that way, as they’re extremely similar cases.
It’s because a person is directly doing it. It’s not odd that our laws and mores exist for the benefit of people trying to do stuff.
Even comparing a photocopy to a forgery, at least the forgery took some direct human skill, rather than just owning a photocopier
I hear you, and I thought about that before posting the comment, but does method matter? Does human skill in something make it any more right, or does a computer being directed to do something make it any more wrong? The final product is essentially the same, no matter how it was achieved.
Whether I, unprovoked, physically attack someone or I command my dog to attack someone, I’m being held responsible for the attack. It’s not so much the method or the tool that was used as it is the product, because the act is wrong.
Better yet, to your point, whether I draw the Simpsons and sell that image or print an image of the Simpsons and sell it, it’s considered wrong without permission of Groening.
The question is: Is it wrong to impersonate without intention of deceiving, using any method? I’m not arguing for or against. Simply asking moral questions. It’s a quandary, for sure.
Programming isn’t a human skill? Shit I am in big trouble.
Drag shows do stuff like this all the time with zero issue. Artistic freedom is a thing.
This is the sort of thing a person rattles off on gut alone. “Artistic freedom” is not legally defensible - if your work isn’t entirely unique, you need to fit within Fair Use in the US.
If you’re in many places outside the US (like Japan) there is NO Fair Use carve-out to copyright (which is why Palworld may be more fucked than if they were a US company.)
Wait, so America’s Got Talent aired a crime with this Elvis impersonator?
Granted, the AI Carlin made it clear that he was NOT the real Carlin, but this Elvis is trying to be Elvis. 🤷♂️
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
America’s Got Talent
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I think your Madonna example is completely fine as long as they don’t call themselves Madonna and start uploading videos on YouTube with her name on it (like is the case here).
Madonna owns her name and trademark but not her tone of voice, style of songs or her wardrobe choices.
In the same way, The George Carlin estate doesn’t own his speech mannerism or comedic style but they certainly own his name.
Obscenity.
Publically exhibiting a disgusting object,
Oh like that law they are trying to pass in Texas now that outlaws porn?
In what way?
They are claiming porn is obscenity
I’ll take Lawyers Maximizing Billable Hours for $500, Alex
Why sue? I got through 2 minutes… And the voice was not even close to George Carlin… Like it doesn’t get down his rasp, and sounds like 70s George Carlin
For the same reason that, for example, Kevin Hart would sue someone for releasing an “AI Kevin Hart” album that was a poor imitation of his comedy. It’s appropriating his name and his artistry for publicity. Did the album itself make money? No, because they didn’t charge for it. Did they make a shitload of publicity- thus generating money- for their podcast? You bet they did.
Good. Can’t wait for Nintendo to sue Palworld, too. All this AI garbage needs to be put in it’s place.
It’s worth pointing out here that this script was probably written by a human.
arstechnica.com/…/did-an-ai-write-that-hour-long-…
Edit: reporting now indicates that it was human written arstechnica.com/…/george-carlins-heirs-sue-comedy…
.
Ripped it from YouTube last night to add to my media server; curiously it’s no longer available on youtube this morning… (at least the original Dudesy upload I’d grabbed, there’s re-uploads)
Ah… How can I get that file, I haven’t seen it.
It’s called ‘George Carlin: I’m glad that I’m dead’. Have a look around, the original upload was removed, but there are others.
I refuse to watch it - I love the original guys stuff so it wouldn’t feel right.
However, is it any good?
It doesn’t compare with any of George Carlin’s performances, but as it is I liked it, it’s quite ammusing. It’s hard to imagine an ai came up with all the text and topics by itself, I’m convinced there’s at least human editing there.
Just finished it:
It’s an interesting piece. I’m not sure I’d pay to watch it or any other AI comedy specials (didn’t even watch it via YouTube to avoid ad revenue), but given free access I wanted to at least see what’s up.
It both starts and ends with very clear disclaimers that this is not George Carlin but an AI impersonation of him. The voice is pretty close, but not quite right, though it matches his cadence quite well. Even without the disclaimers, it’s pretty obvious to me it’s not actually George Carlin.
The majority of the video is clearly AI generated art to match the current topic, mostly stills with a handful of short sections of AI people mouthing the words. I’m fairly sure the script and art were curated by a human, along with the overall editing of the special.
Quite a bit of highly political comedy in a very similar style to Carlin, but definitely doesn’t hold a candle to his original/genuine work. It also discusses what he/it is, some of the controversy around it’s existence, and the possible future of AI use throughout all professions, but mainly standup comedy roles and similar (like talk show hosts and news anchors for example)
Worth a watch, if you can keep an open mind and recognize there’s a difference between the original and an artistic representation of him. I don’t think the tools used changes that, especially with it clearly stated as being an impersonation.
Internet: this is awful, of course your inheritors own your own image as stewarts.
Also Internet: I have a right to take pictures of you, your car, your house, or record you without consent. Edit it however I want. Make as much money as I want from the activities and you have no rights. Since if technology allows me to do something you have no expectation that I won’t.
We are demanding that a public figure who is dead have more rights than a private person who is alive.
Im probably out of the loop, or just way too tired to work out what you mean.
Who is the “also internet” part roughly referring to? It reminded me of the sssniperwolf incident, and if i recall, the internet was not happy with that, so it doesn’t make sense to me.
Im also not comfortable with the generalised use of “the internet” because by its very nature saying “the internet” is almost akin to saying “humans”
Every individual member of “the internet” is different and has different views, so pointing out a discrepancy and framing it like it shouldn’t be there is a bit redundant.
Its like saying
Humans: like affordable housing
Also humans: raise interest rates to unaffordable levels.
There are two different groups here that are both humans. So its not particularly useful to group them together with the collective word when trying to point out a disparity.
Just many many times over the years I have seen little pervs on social media brag how they are citizen journalists and have every right to publish any photo that they could physically take. Since no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home.
Good. I sincerely hope they win.