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
    12
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    “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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district courts decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

      I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to a comedian as well.

      • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

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

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Carlin had a unique and distinctive voice and cadence, which was absolutely part of his act. And this fake album imitates it.

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

            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.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        9 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
          ·
          9 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
            ·
            9 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
            9 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
              ·
              9 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
                9 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
                  9 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.