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

673

George Carlin Estate Files Lawsuit Against Group Behind AI-Generated Stand-Up Special: ‘A Casual Theft of a Great American Artist’s Work’ (variety.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

251 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] 4AV@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.