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.

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You said:

    I didn’t say this was satire, I said it was in line with satire on a legal front

    And FYI, Stephen Colbert got a Cease and Desist notice for being Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report when he left the Viacom network for CBS. Because that is how intellectual properties work, when you make money off of your character or your image then it is your property: that is also the basis for which public figures and actors can refuse images or artworks being used for monetary gain outside of fair use or depictions of public settings.

    • Arcka@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I could send you a Cease and Decist notice on my finest letterhead insisting that you stop being a stupid overreaching authoritarian. That doesn’t mean a court would uphold it. C&D isn’t proof of anything.

    • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Wouldn’t the issue there be the fact that “of the Colbert Report” is using the actual name of the show in a way that would create profit for him? This, profiting off of someone else’s IP? It’s not the fact that he is “Stephen Colbert”. It’s the part that isn’t his name.

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

        No, actually, they tried to claim ownership over the satirical character Stephen Colbert. I really love how he responded to it, btw, here is a clip TLDR: he brought on Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin Stephen Colbert, completely unrelated to the Colbert Report show and characters.

        • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

          clip

          Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

          I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

        • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Looks like you are correct mostly. It looks like it was actually the character and persona from the Colbert report that he can’t use. It would be like taking the show to a different network I guess would be the argument which usually involves the show being bought. It’s also weird because the company was basically suing itself.

          It also led to Colbert mentioning that he didn’t know how to act as the normal him, so I think it’s cool he at least got something positive out of it, even if it’s a huge blow for sure.

          It’s weird, because if the character was named like Sean Spencer, it would be expected that you couldn’t just use the same character. I’m surprised he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on given the character has his name, and he could argue that it’s simply his own personality, but if he and his lawyers didn’t expect it to be winnable I’ll take their word on it.

          Either way, it’s interesting information. Thanks for the correction.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      So you’re telling me you’ve never heard of celebrity impersonators? Elvis would be one of the more famously impersonated, but even living individuals have impersonators. Hilariously, there have been stories of impersonators winning in an impersonation contest when the actual individual being impersonated was also in the contest.

      You k ow what doesn’t happen with celebrity impersonators? They don’t get arrested or successfully sued. Because there’s nothing illegal about it.

      Now, the CnD Colbert got is a different story. He likely signed paperwork saying he wouldn’t “be the character” after leaving. Not to mention, he was the literal actor who portrays that character.

      On the other hand, you notice how SNL doesn’t get sued for their impersonations?…

      Are you noticing a theme yet?

      Because I am. You just won’t answer my simple question. So let me jump to the assumption that you’d be fine with it if it was fully human made. That begs the question, why is AI different? If the poster came out tomorrow with proof AI was not involved, why would it suddenly be okay?

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

        I’ve said it multiple times, you simply lack reading comprehension.

        A Human product is different enough from George Carlin in their parodies or impersonation, although as I outlined even an impersonation can require approval from an entity claiming ownership over the likeness of the character. However, the AI product is not notably different, it is more akin to a copy and paste job. If you had a high school diploma you would know you’re not allowed to copy and paste other people’s work and call it your own.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 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.

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

            When did I ever accuse this of being an impersonator? That’s the whole crux of the issue with you, you’re equating it with something that it isn’t.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 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?

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

                Oh yeah that is fair, kind of derailing the discussion by focusing on that little sidenote, but the Michael Jackson Estate forced Sony to remove tracks released after his death.

                The most famous past case of this nature is probably Midler v. Ford Motors. Also successful were Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Johnny Carson respectively.

                Also, Elvis Impersonators like Jesse Garon are in court fighting for their rights to be the King right now.

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 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.

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

                    Holy shit you really are deadset on intertwining the theft with AI with a Human Impersonator. I’ve been very clear to separate the two issues but you just keep getting confused.