Technology

59235 readers

3412 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

654

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

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

251 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

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

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You try selling a copy of it.

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

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

"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.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I see so the law now depends on the illiterate and not the reasonable person standard?

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

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

A person who cannot read would not be able to differentiate

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

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

I've said this elsewhere, a sticky note with a "no cppyroght infringement intended lol" is absolutely worthless.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

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