this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
671 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2981 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Celebrity likeness is not new territory.

Crispin Glover successfully sued the filmmakers of Back to the Future 2 for using his likeness without permission. Even with dead celebrities, you need permission from their estate in order to use their likeness.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but it's new territory in the sense of AI and creative works. If I were to use a photo of Tom Hanks for commercial purposes, that would be clearly stealing his likeness. If I were to create a drawing or painting of Tom Hanks, it becomes a lot less clear cut, and the answer depends on weather my work can be considered, "transformative."

Many people using AI today are claiming that the works being created are transformative; they're not using a picture of Tom Hanks, AI is creating a picture of Hanks from existing pictures, just like a painter uses references. This is essentially what the creators of the Carlin special are saying in their disclaimer; this is an AI impression of Carlin, not the real Carlin, and should be treated like any comedian doing an impression.

This is the new territory. I don't know how the courts will rule, but based on the recent ruling against the Warhol estate, there will be a high bar for what is considered transformative.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Even professional impersonators must pay royalties to the original artist or their estate. The Carlin example seems to me to be impersonation rather than an impression.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I hope it comes up at trial.