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.
“That use AI to violate the law”
Watch out impressionists. If you get too good you might become a lawbreaker. The AI hysteria is beyond absurd.
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.
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?
This is complex – I was surprised to learn paparazzi have been suing celebrities:
A New Type of Internet Troll: How Paparazzi Use Copyright Law to Cash Out on Celebrity’s Instagram Posts
More generally, terms of interest here are “privacy rights” and “publicity rights”. They’re not the same in every state (in the US).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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)
August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.
EDIT: Minor clarification
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.
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).
“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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to a comedian as well.
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
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.
Carlin had a unique and distinctive voice and cadence, which was absolutely part of his act. And this fake album imitates it.
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.
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.
In that case why can’t I demand that my face not appear on Facebook? If the law is very clear here.
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.
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.
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.
yeah, that’s exactly the point i was trying to get at. it’s all fucked already anyway…
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?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
This is the concise way of putting it that I’ve been missing.
Using AI to do something that actually intelligent beings already legally do, like impressions and parody (with disclaimers and all that), isn’t suddenly theft or stealing because AI was used in the process. I’m really disappointed in the Lemmy community for buying into all this bs
Not trying to be glib but
That’s another way.
I’ll concede that there is some skill involved in generating some this content, but nowhere near what the humans it purports to replace. And seemingly less and less skill or even intent is required with each advancement. It’s conceivable that someone could mimic real artistic output without actually caring about it.
Not at all, I think this is the most valid take in the whole thread.
Personally I don’t think automating the process should have all that much of an effect on whether or not it infringes on copyright, but I definitely see where you’re coming from. I can see that being a big point of contention in courts if/when they try to sort this stuff out.
Impressionists have nothing to do with this.
If I scraped all Beyonce’s videos, cut it up and join it into another video, and called it “Beyonce: resurrected”, I’m not doing am impression. I’m stealing someone’s work and likeness for commercial purposes.
Are you sad that your garbage generator is just a plagiarism machine?
Actually cutting it up into another video makes it transformative and it’s protected under the DMCA. Thank you for proving you don’t know what you’re talking about. Take care.
Sure mate. You try selling a copy of it.
Likewise. You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is.
Typical “AI” techbro.
It’s possible to get away with quite a lot under transformative use even when it’s commercial, consider Cariou v. Prince for example: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/landmark-copyright-lawsuit-cariou-v-prince-is-settled-59702/
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.
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?
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?
Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.
I really want to drill this home, search YTP (YouTube Poop) on YouTube. The volume of evidence against your claim is enormous.
“evidence”
Take a Taylor Swift song. Sing on top of it. Try selling it with the name “Taylor Swift - I’m Not Dead”
You can sell it as “My garbage cover remix of Taylor Swift’s song”, but you cannot make an impression that this originated from Taylor Swift.
Same thing with Carlin, Beyonce, etc.
It is using the name and identical appearance of Carlin, to appear as if Carlin was speaking himself. A person who cannot read would not be able to differentiate. It is plagiarism and malicious copyright infringement.
I see so the law now depends on the illiterate and not the reasonable person standard?
We’ve shifted the goalpost from splicing together her entire discography to singing on top of a song. Neither of which is what AI does, or what that channel did with Carlin’s work.
A person who can’t read or hear. If you can’t understand the narrator telling you for nearly a full minute that this is not George Carlin’s work then you can’t understand the next hour of the video that uses his voice anyways.
I’m trying to dumb down the problem so we can have a conversation. I am not saying it is what “AI” is doing.
I’ve said this elsewhere, a sticky note with a “no cppyroght infringement intended lol” is absolutely worthless.
Then I point you to the mountains of monetized, copyrighted and most importantly transformative YTP videos… and all of the sudden your new example is
Which is a copyright violation, and still not how the Carlin vid was made. But yeah…not shifting goalposts.
Making your examples more irrelevant and “dumbed down” isn’t going to convince anyone. But maybe you’re not even trying to convince anyone. If you want to make a convincing argument, tone down the vitriol and seething, and just talk about how this vid was actually made and how this actually constitutes a copyright violation.
Sold for 71 million. Which if that were people would be more than the UK.
Your comment reads like ChatGPT generated garbage.
You must be a hit at parties.
Is that what you do in parties? Interrupt people’s discussions with completely unrelated nonsense?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Oh no, did I offend your AI girlfriend? Talk about being a sad fuck
Tell me about how great Elon Musk and Joe Rogan are, bro.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ego at work
Wait did Beyoncé die?
Edit: no.
She still alive? Damn.
That title had me having to check though.
Again, video editing, plagiarism, and garbage generation have all always been possible. All AI did was make it easier.
That’s like being mad at matches because now anybody can make a fire, and by George, one of those fires could burn down an orphanage. But just forget about all the good things that fire can do like cook food or provide heat or forge steel or whatever else you use your fire for idk I’m not here to judge or kink shame you.
If the skills required are the justification for making AI bad, that’s cool. Let me just take away your GPS apps until you become a pro at operating a sextant.
No disagreement here. I’m using GPT for basic programming help.
Better tools, faster, skill bla bla bla. I couldn’t give two shits about the contemporary garbage created. It’s jut not interesting to me. It’s like listening to someone about a dream they had.
“AI” isn’t bad, it’s the garbage that’s being pushed as revolutionary. Nothing has changed. If you can’t write a good poem, even if AI writes it for you, you still can’t write a good poem. And that is what matters to me.
Any image generated by the garbage collecting machine using my input will never be better than my scribble on a piece of paper. Because it’s just not “my”.
That’s a much bigger discussion around licensing.
AIs are nothing without that the precious input that it learns from. That input comes from tons of different licenses and tons of different creators from tons of different countries and tons of different laws. You ironically need an AI lawyer to even start to sort it all out.
Thats kind of a significant issue, especially if you create something that years later, the AI later regurgitates a significant portion or obvious recreation of.
On your last point, for me, the output of an AI is the combination of its prompt, the inputs it has available to it (or at least the curation of said inputs), and the underlying code that combines it. If an individual or team of people create unique and novel art while being responsible for all three, I would say that deserves proper attribution and compensation where appropriate.
But for any schmuck just typing “alien with purpel boobs” in DALL-E is not an artist. I don’t care how many adjectives he uses to describe the nipples, or even if he fidgets with the lighting to accentuate the curls in her mane. I’m not even going to question why an alien species is assumed to be mammalian, even though that’s just patently absurd right off the bat. Like, seriously, the number if evolutionary dice rolls to get from self-replicating protein to a species that generates milk to feed its young is insane. The chances of that happening in two completely different environments is insane^2. None of that matters to me, because that person has nowhere near enough skin in the game to be considered a creator.
Theft means to deprive someone of their property. How is editing a video of Beyonce doing that? The owners of the videos still have it.
You’re understimating what generative AI can do. I was shocked when I realized that GPT-3 was able to do creative writing, something that we thought would be out of reach after things like doing management and self driving cars. Turns out, creativity is what AI can actually do. Watch the video. This is like George Carlin but not using any of his material, instead creating something completely new in the style of George Carlin. They could have used the style and a slightly different voice, but they wanted to make a point here.
If your argument is that minds, be they artificial or human, are not allowed to learn from other peoples works then… well then that is a very immoral argument to make imho.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you think that LLM has a “mind”, there’s no discussion with you, sorry.
That’s not what I’m saying, What we currently have is more like the disembodied creative writing center of a brain, without memory or conscience but able to do creative writing. But it seems pretty clear now that we will have sentient artificial minds sooner than later.
And the last thing we need is to use intellectual “property” arguments to regulate this.
Me: hey chatgpt how many words were in your last response to me
Chatgpt: there were 79
Me: what is the approximate limit on your contextual window?
Chatgpt: The approximate limit on my contextual window is around 2048 tokens, which usually translates to around 1500 words, depending on the complexity and length of the words used. This limit affects how much text I can consider from previous interactions in a single conversation.
Define mind or at least list off criteria.
If you think this is what AI is doing I recommend looking more into how generative AI actually works. Even if that was what it did, as long as the ones publishing the work are not claiming or leading people to believe that this is Beyonce’s work, then who cares? Should the entire genre of YouTube Poops be paying royalties to all the commercials and politicians they sample and splice?
No, this is not (and never was) how copyright works, nor how it should work.
If you take a second to read the article, you’ll knotice that the title of the supposed standup is literally “George Carlin”.
The video spends nearly a full minute telling you that the channel is dedicated solely to AI content, and that this is not the work of George Carlin. It fills the entire screen with “THIS IS NOT GEORGE CARLIN” several times as the words are spoken by the narrator.
As valid as uploading a copyrighted song to Youtube and saying “No copyright infringement intended” in the description.
A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It’s why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It’s a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally recognized relationship. In contrast to other terms for legally operative language, the term disclaimer usually implies situations that involve some level of uncertainty, waiver, or risk. A disclaimer may specify mutually agreed and privately arranged terms and conditions as part of a contract; or may specify warnings or expectations to the general public (or some other class of persons) in order to fulfill a duty of care owed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm or injury. Some disclaimers are intended to limit exposure to damages after a harm or injury has already been suffered. Additionally, some kinds of disclaimers may represent a voluntary waiver of a right or obligation that may be owed to the disclaimant.
to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about
The video is now private so I can’t check, but I’ve read that the disclaimer stated that it was an impersonation.
That’s not why south park had that “disclaimer”. South Park doesn’t need it, it’s a parody.
You’re right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.
The title is “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead (2024)” and it talks about his own death. Even if someone believes in communication beyond the grave to the extent that they could still mistake it as really being George Carlin, it’s immediately explained as AI in the opening segment of the video.
It really was good material and I liked the alluding that AI was as close to heaven as you can get. Too bad it has been taken down. Locking our culture up is a disservice to everyone who has ever existed.
A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer, nor it has any legal value. It’s like writing a “disclaimer” about privacy on your facebook wall. There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc. Carlin being dead has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.
Have you watched the video? It’s a thousand times more obvious than any legal disclaimer I’ve ever seen. They are not in any way hiding the fact that it is using AI.
Talking about death in the abstract is entirely possible while you’re still alive. Creating material ~two decades after your own death about your death and events that happened since then, less so.
Copyright doesn’t protect names or titles.
The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.
No? Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”
Lennon’s vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren’t about his own death and events occurring after it.
To quote the US Copyright office:
I don’t think Spotify allows individuals, as opposed to music distributors, to upload tracks at all - but more importantly their policies on impersonation are not what defines copyright.