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.
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.
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.
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.