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.

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 年前

    That is transformative work. Remixes are tranaformative work. Impersonations are transformative work.

    Using a source and shuffling it around, then repackaging it as “from the same source” is not transformative work. It’s copyright infringement.

    • 4AV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      I think it’d be entirely plausible to argue that, while transformative, current generative AI usage often falls short on the other fair use factors.

      I don’t really see how it can be argued that the linked example - relatively minor edits to a photograph - are more transformative than generative AI models. What is your criteria here?

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        Take a Nike shoe. Draw a large dick on the shoe. Try selling it as a Nike Shoe.

        Vs.

        Take a Nike Shoe. Draw a large dick on the shoe. Sell it as a piece of art. (As commentary on capitalism, etc)

        Do you feel that one is copyright infringement and the other is a piece of transformative work?

        • 4AV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 年前

          Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.

          • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            You’re not just reselling, so the doctrine doesn’t apply.

            By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.

            • 4AV@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 年前

              By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.

              If you do lie to the buyer that it was a brand new Nike shoe, it’d be the concern of the sales contract between you and the buyer, and trademark law.

              • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 年前

                I’ll call it

                “Brand new shoes by Nike”

                And add a disclaimer

                “This is not brand new shoes from Nike”.

                Do you think it will protect me from Nike?

                • 4AV@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 年前

                  You’d have to be careful about Nike’s trademark and the sales contract between you and the buyer. In the George Carlin case, neither of these apply.