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
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        ·
        9 months ago

        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
          ·
          9 months ago

          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
            9 months ago

            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
              ·
              9 months ago

              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
                ·
                9 months ago

                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
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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
                    9 months ago

                    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.