this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
673 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59569 readers
3825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
YTP is satire. It is transformative. Christ, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. If you don't comprehend, you don't comprehend. IDGAF.
The fact is, the original video is taken private. So there's the concousion. Bye.
You started at "all these things that aren't analogous or comparable to AI violate copyright" and never strayed from that 🤔 but ok bud
This thread didn't need any more AI hysteria, but it's your prerogative to tap out before talking about how AI actually works or how the Carlin vid was actually made
I see so the law now depends on the illiterate and not the reasonable person standard?
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?
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