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.

  • Tyfud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s not what this is about though.

    AI should follow the standard norms and conventions we’ve established up to this point. Which, generally speaking, would prohibit using someone’s likeness without their consent to make a profit, and also not using the likeness of a well loved, dead man, in such a trashy way.

    You know, basic human decency.

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

      would prohibit using someone’s likeness without their consent to make a profit,

      On reddit years ago a whole mess of people attacked me and demanded that I agree that photographs have a right to take pictures of my house, car, property, and even children and put it on the internet.

      Which one is it? Do we humans own our image in which case we deserve compensation and permission for it’s use or do we not own it and in which case this is a perfectly acceptable?

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      While the estate might have a fair case on whether or not this is infringement (courts simply have not ruled enough on AI to say) I think this is a silly way to characterize the people that made this. If you wanted to turn a profit from a dead person using AI to copy their likeness, why Carlin? He’s beloved for sure, but he’s not very ‘marketable’. Without context to those who have never seen him before, he could be seen as a grumpy old man making aggressive statements. There are far better dead people to pick if your goal was to make a profit.

      Which leads me to believe that he was in part picked because the creators of the video were genuine fans of his work (the video even states so as far as I remember) and felt they could provide enough originality and creativity. George Carlin is truly a one of a kind comedian whose words and jokes still inspire people today. Due to this video (and to an extent, the controversy), some people will be reminded of him. Some people will learn about him for the first time. His unique view on things can be extended to modern times. A view I feel we desperately need at times. None of that would be an issue as long as it was made excessively clear that this isn’t actually George. That it’s a homage. Which these people did. As far as I see, they could be legally in the wrong, but morally in the right. It’s unfair to characterize them purely by their usage of AI.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        He’s beloved for sure, but he’s not very ‘marketable’.

        Au contraire, literally the only reason cares about this or is paying any attention to it at all is because George Carlin is widely recognized (correctly IMO) as one of the best standup comedians that have ever lived.

        If you took this same (tepid, garbage IMO) routine, removed Carlin’s “impersonation” (an interesting linguistic side point that George may have found interesting is how can something be an “impersonation” if there’s no person involved?) you’d get a lukewarm reception similar to the ones to the material the writers have had previously. But since it’s Carlin, you get headline after headline and even people who believe (my own brother for instance) that this material was actually composed in its full, hour-long, coherent format by some machine approximating George Carlin.

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I agree that George is one of the best stand up comedians, but that doesn’t change that his material is very much counter-culture. It’s made to rub people the wrong way, to get them to think differently about why things are the way they are. That makes it inherently not as good of a money maker as someone who tries to please all sides in their jokes. I’d like to believe if he was alive today he would do a beautiful piece on AI.

          In your second point I have to wonder though. Who made it a headline? Who decided this was worth bringing attention to? Clearly, the controversy did not come from them. There is nothing controversial about an homage. But it is AI, and that got people talking. You can be of the opinion they did it for that reason, but I would argue that they simply expected the same lukewarm reception they had always gotten. After all, people don’t often solicit themselves to be at the center of hate. Even when the association pays off, experiencing that stuff has lasting mental effects on people.

          And again, if they wanted to be controversial to stir up as much drama, they could have done so much more. Just don’t disclose it’s AI even though it’s obviously AI, or make George do things out of character, like a product endorsement, or a piece about how religion is actually super cool. All of that would have gotten them 10x the hate and exposure they got now.

          But instead, they made something that looks like and views like an homage with obvious disclosure. The only milder thing they could have done is found someone whose voice naturally sounds like George and put him in a costume that looks like George, at which point nobody would have bat an eye. Even though the intent is the same, just the way it was achieved is different.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            But it is AI, and that got people talking. You can be of the opinion they did it for that reason, but I would argue that they simply expected the same lukewarm reception they had always gotten.

            We can argue their motives all we want (I’m pretty uninterested in it personally), but we aren’t them and we don’t even know what the process was to make it, and I think that is because the whole thing sure would seem less impressive if they just admitted that they wrote it.

            I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny in addition to being a (reverse?) hack attempt by them to deliver bits of their own material as something Carlin would say.

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

              We can argue their motives all we want (I’m pretty uninterested in it personally), but we aren’t them and we don’t even know what the process was to make it

              Yes, that is sort of my point. I’m not sure either, but neither did the person I responded to (in my first comment before yours). And to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion.

              and I think that is because the whole thing sure would seem less impressive if they just admitted that they wrote it.

              It’s the first time I hear someone suggest they passed of their own work as AI, but it could also be true. Although AI assisted material is considered to be the same as fully AI generated by some. But again, we don’t know.

              I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny in addition to being a (reverse?) hack attempt by them to deliver bits of their own material as something Carlin would say.

              I definitely don’t think it meets George’s level. But it was amusing to me. Which is about what I’d expect of an homage.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                to make assumptions with such negative implications is very unhealthy in my opinion

                Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives. The actions a person takes also count a great deal and if these bozos truly wanted to create an homage to Carlin, they would have talked to his living family members and started the process with a conversation rather than throwing it up on YouTube.

                George Carlin worked his ass off in his last years on Earth purposefully to provide for his family and relatives and to create a legacy that he could pass onto them…not consulting them at all is at least a little bit of a piss on his grave.

                Watch “George Carlin’s American Dream” which was made with the full consent and involvement of his family by a person who truly admired him and you will see the difference in material. George wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and his material was often dark…but he was clearly motivated to continue working long after most people would have retired, and that had to do in large part with his family and the role he felt he needed to play within it.

                • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives.

                  Everyone likes praise to a certain extent, and desiring recognition for what you’ve made is independent from your intentions otherwise. My personal experience working with talented creative people is that the two are often intertwined. If you can make something that’s both fulfilling and economically sustainable, that’s what you’ll do. You can make something that’s extremely fulfilling, but if it doesn’t appeal to anyone but yourself, it doesn’t pay the bills. I’m not saying it’s not possible for them to not have that motivation, but in my opinion anyone ascribed to be malicious must be to some point proven to be that way. I have seen no such proof.

                  I really understand your second point but… as with many things, some things require consent and some things don’t. Making a parody or an homage doesn’t (typically) require that consent. It would be nice to get it, but the man is dead and even his children cannot speak for him other than as legal owners of his estate. I personally would like to believe he wouldn’t care one bit, and I would have the same basis as anyone else to defend that, because nobody can ask a dead man for his opinions. It’s clear his children do not like it, but unless they have a legal basis for that it can be freely dismissed as not being something George would stand behind.

                  I’ve watched pretty much every one of his shows, but I haven’t seen that documentary. I’ll see if I can watch it. But knowing George, he would have many words to exchange on both sides of the debate. The man was very much an advocate for freedom of creativity, but also very much in favor of artist protection. Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields. It’s not black and white.

                  In fact, there is a quote attributed to him which sort of speaks on this topic. (Although I must admit, the original source is of a defunct newspaper and the wayback machine didn’t crawl the article)

                  [On his work appearing on the Internet] It’s a conflicted feeling. I’m really a populist, down in the very center of me. I like the power people can accrue for themselves, and I like the idea of user-generated content and taking power from the corporations. The other half of the conflict, though, is that, traditionally speaking, artists are protected from copyright infringement. Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about solving this issue. It’s someone else’s job.

                  August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.

                  EDIT: Minor clarification

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

                    Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields.

                    I’m sorry but…no.

                    The people making money off of this are the same people making money off of everything.

                    The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft.

                    Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

                    There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?

                    If this was truly AI generated, they could release a new one every week, or do something like that perpetual Seinfeld wannabe thing or the endless Biden Trump debate.

                    There’s a reason it’s more coherent than anything you’d get from ChatGPT. There’s a reason why it’s not “endless Carlin”. There’s a reason why the people that supposedly created it aren’t already in a technical field but are instead in comedy. It’s because it’s a fraud. It’s a mechanical Turk.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I laughed maybe once, because the whole thing was not very funny

              It was very mediocre but this is basically the first version. Just wait a few years. Computers didn’t win in Chess and now apparently even running on smartphones they beat the strongest players.

              BTW impersonation probably makes a much better benchmark to compare the quality.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you want to promote your comedy podcast, doing it with a fake George Carlin album sounds like a pretty good way to do it (if you can get away with it).

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      9 months ago

      “using someone’s likeness”

      Again, so someone can’t do a gilbert gottfried impression while doing their own stand-up? That’s illegal to do because their voice itself is copyright protected? Man, all these AI covers on Youtube are fucked then.

      You completely misunderstand the law to appeal to emotion which continues to feed into the hysteria around generative AI. Photoshop isn’t illegal, generative AI isn’t illegal, doing impressions isn’t illegal. This would be no different if someone took that same script and did their best George Carlin impression.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district courts decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

        I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to a comedian as well.

        • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

          Midler v. Ford Motor Co. , 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) is a United States Court of Appeals case in which Bette Midler sought remedy against Ford Motor Company for a series of commercials in the 1980s which used a Midler impersonator.

          to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.

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

            Carlin had a unique and distinctive voice and cadence, which was absolutely part of his act. And this fake album imitates it.

            • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I don’t disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Building those isn’t illegal. Using them to make a profit without consent is. The law is very clear here. This is what is at issue here.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          9 months ago

          Right so every single song, every use of Frank Sinatra’s voice on YouTube to cover songs is wildly illegal, yes? They have ads, they’re doing it for profit. The people who made the special didn’t sell access to it so how’d they make money? Same way I’d imagine.

          • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            those the use ai for it, yes actually. in fact, if we’re following the letter of copyright law, almost every meme is technically illegal.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              This is the best argument I have ever heard for getting rid of copyright law. It can’t be followed even if you want to.

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Okay then let’s focus on impressionists. Grapple with that for a minute because you seem to be avoiding it. If someone does a stand-up special they wrote and did a highly accurate impression of George Carlin, why is that illegal?

              • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m not trying to say what’s right or wrong it should out shouldn’t be. I’m just saying that if we apply copyright literally and aggressively there’s numerous things that we take for granted that would go away.

                • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  It already is applied aggressively to the point things that are covered under the DMCA both for fair use and transformative content is ignored and claims are made anyway. This special didn’t exist and had to be created by the person who made it. Written by them. That’s such a significant change that using their voice, something that can be mimicked, seems inconsequential to the law.

                  If someone can sing a cover of a Michael Jackson song and end up sounding exactly like Michael Jackson, is that copyright? Hell if someone wrote a brand new song and tried to sing it like Michael Jackson would and ends up being indistinguishable, is that illegal? This is the question that needs answering.

                  • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    and it could still be worse… like i said, technically every single image macro is copyright infringement. and to your question, which I’m sorry, i don’t care about, it’s not what i was replying for, it really depends. performing another person’s song for money is actually a big deal and illegal. so yeah, in your example that’s a very very easy case. weird al is a great example of what you need to do to differentiate. cover bands are often a grey area, but can be gone after, it’s just often easy to get away with.