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.

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.

    • @[email protected]English
      0•11 months ago

      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.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•11 months ago

          although as I outlined even an impersonation can require approval from an entity claiming ownership over the likeness of the character.

          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?

            • @[email protected]English
              0•11 months ago

              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.

                • @[email protected]English
                  0•11 months ago

                  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:

                  • Said it’s different because it’s not human without actually providing any reasoning behind that logic.
                  • Said it was essentially copy and paste, despite the content being new and unique.
                  • Said it would be illegal if human, despite your inability to provide relevant case law.

                  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?