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.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      810·
      11 months ago

      It is not in any way in line with Satire.

      Oh good, you understood what I said.

      If a real human did this, no AI involved, then that human’s interpretation of Carlin’s mannerisms, speech patterns, and humor would all be much more varied than if that human remixed Carlin’s own words and copied his own imagery.

      Tell me you’ve never seen a high quality impersonator without telling me you’ve never seen a high quality impersonator. 🤦🏻‍♂️

      Plus, if somebody came out on stage and started calling themselves Stephen Colbert or Larry the Cable Guy, then guess what? That’s fucking illegal.

      No, it really isn’t. Why would it be? Is Carlin a law enforcement officer? Is there an attempt to commit fraud I missed in the middle? What law do you think impersonating a random person breaks?

      Not to mention, the title description and opening line make it pretty obvious this isn’t Carlin.

      I also noticed a lot of skirting around my question with a distinct lack of a direct answer. So I’ll ask it again: If that was a human who put out the exact same video, and AI was not involved, would you have a problem with it? Because it really seems like you wouldn’t.

        • Arcka@midwest.socialEnglish
          32·
          11 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.eeEnglish
          11·
          11 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.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          35·
          11 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?

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              11·
              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.

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  11·
                  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?

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        51·
        11 months ago

        I remember when impersonators, such as Rich Little, used to show up on TV. Their whole bit was the skill it took to do the impersonations, not so much what they said. And I don’t remember any instance of them only doing one person. There are single impersonation shows, like a Judy Garland concert, but I am not sure where that falls legally.

        • DeadlineX@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          When I think of impersonator personally, I go straight to Elvis impersonators. It’s a running joke in movies, they’re all over Las Vegas, and you can rent an Elvis impersonator for various events, including weddings, in just about any major city.