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.
If you think this is what AI is doing I recommend looking more into how generative AI actually works. Even if that was what it did, as long as the ones publishing the work are not claiming or leading people to believe that this is Beyonce’s work, then who cares? Should the entire genre of YouTube Poops be paying royalties to all the commercials and politicians they sample and splice?
No, this is not (and never was) how copyright works, nor how it should work.
If you take a second to read the article, you’ll knotice that the title of the supposed standup is literally “George Carlin”.
The video spends nearly a full minute telling you that the channel is dedicated solely to AI content, and that this is not the work of George Carlin. It fills the entire screen with “THIS IS NOT GEORGE CARLIN” several times as the words are spoken by the narrator.
As valid as uploading a copyrighted song to Youtube and saying “No copyright infringement intended” in the description.
A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It’s why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It’s a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.
The video is now private so I can’t check, but I’ve read that the disclaimer stated that it was an impersonation.
That’s not why south park had that “disclaimer”. South Park doesn’t need it, it’s a parody.
You’re right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally recognized relationship. In contrast to other terms for legally operative language, the term disclaimer usually implies situations that involve some level of uncertainty, waiver, or risk. A disclaimer may specify mutually agreed and privately arranged terms and conditions as part of a contract; or may specify warnings or expectations to the general public (or some other class of persons) in order to fulfill a duty of care owed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm or injury. Some disclaimers are intended to limit exposure to damages after a harm or injury has already been suffered. Additionally, some kinds of disclaimers may represent a voluntary waiver of a right or obligation that may be owed to the disclaimant.
to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about
The title is “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead (2024)” and it talks about his own death. Even if someone believes in communication beyond the grave to the extent that they could still mistake it as really being George Carlin, it’s immediately explained as AI in the opening segment of the video.
It really was good material and I liked the alluding that AI was as close to heaven as you can get. Too bad it has been taken down. Locking our culture up is a disservice to everyone who has ever existed.
A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer, nor it has any legal value. It’s like writing a “disclaimer” about privacy on your facebook wall. There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc. Carlin being dead has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.
Have you watched the video? It’s a thousand times more obvious than any legal disclaimer I’ve ever seen. They are not in any way hiding the fact that it is using AI.
Talking about death in the abstract is entirely possible while you’re still alive. Creating material ~two decades after your own death about your death and events that happened since then, less so.
Copyright doesn’t protect names or titles.
The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.
No? Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”
Lennon’s vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren’t about his own death and events occurring after it.
To quote the US Copyright office:
I don’t think Spotify allows individuals, as opposed to music distributors, to upload tracks at all - but more importantly their policies on impersonation are not what defines copyright.
Do you honestly think that context will matter legally, whether the dead “person” is talking/singing about love or their own death? This is nit-picking.
When I say copyright, I mean in a general sence. Infringement of IP might be a better suited phrase, but I assumed the synonymity was implied.
Yes, there is legal relevance to whether a reasonable person would interpret the remarks as really being from George Carlin, thus painting him in a false light, and the whole concept of George Carlin riffing on events occurring after his death (plus the disclaimer preceding the video and in the description) is relevant to determining that.
I don’t see how this tracks. Consider your following comment:
Surely that’s a reference to the character factor of fair use, a defense specifically against copyright infringement? It’s not a term used in trademark law as far as I’m aware for example (and “George Carlin” is not a registered trademark anyway).
Were you just referring to, and telling them to google, the broad layperson definition of “transformative”? In which case I think you’ve misunderstood their comment, because I’m pretty sure at the very least they were referring to the fair use factor.