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.

  • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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?

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

          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.

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

            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.

            • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.