Suit alleges copyright infringement and illegal use of Carlin's name and likeness.
See full article...
See full article...
George Carlin’s heirs sue comedy podcast over “AI-generated” impression
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Fuzzypiggy
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Sick of seeing AI being used to reincarnate people from the dead. Which parts of R, I and P do you greedy scuzzwads not get?! Leave the dead to their rest.
Upvote
221
(290
/
-69)
I wonder if the podcast might have actually hoped for this. Dumber things have happened. It certainly put the name of the podcast out in front of far more people than it was before. Especially if it was really just some guy(s) doing a voice and person creating a hacky Carlin routine. If so, perhaps the suit would be dismissed before it cost them more in legal fees than they got back in promotion.
I don't really believe in the "any publicity is good publicity" platitude, but it's not entirely wrong.
Edit: typo
I don't really believe in the "any publicity is good publicity" platitude, but it's not entirely wrong.
Edit: typo
Last edited:
Upvote
133
(139
/
-6)
I'm pretty open minded generally on what constitutes fair use for satire but this is so far over the line I hope these opportunists get hit with a summary judgment and a big fine. Would be good for the industry as well, as a wake up call.
Upvote
189
(213
/
-24)
I'm sure a desire for attention was a big part of the motivation for making the special. But I think they were probably hoping for "cease and desist letter" levels of controversy and not "federal lawsuit from Carlin's estate" levels.
Upvote
303
(304
/
-1)
I watched a few minutes and it was nearly a full repeat of old material. Carlin was smarter than that, he created new material all the time. Usually when someone recreates an artist, they add something to the library of the past and add to the experience. This is just someone hoping for views and a payout.
Upvote
166
(170
/
-4)
I'm pretty sure they did, at least, use AI to deepfake the voice. That's entirely in the realm of possibility; people have also done that with songs, to make legendary singers "cover" newer material.
Upvote
45
(48
/
-3)
Upvote
39
(47
/
-8)
Here's an interesting question: what if they reveal the script was actually human written?
I don't actually know, but does Legends in Concert have to get a license from the Elvis estate?
I don't actually know, but does Legends in Concert have to get a license from the Elvis estate?
Upvote
60
(71
/
-11)
I hope Carlin's estate wins the lawsuit, and this becomes another item on the"Seven Things You Can't Do With AI" list.
Upvote
179
(194
/
-15)
That's an interesting question, actually. I found a few articles about Elvis's estate trying to claim rights over his likeness and force impersonators to pay royalties in 2022, but I have no idea what the resolution of that was.
Upvote
81
(81
/
0)
I just looked at their website and Legends in Concert does seem to be working with Elvis Presley Enterprises.
Upvote
73
(73
/
0)
I'd guess this gets settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. The threat of setting a precedent on impersonations in comedy could be nasty so I'm sure other third parties would be invested in avoiding an official ruling if it did get that far.
Upvote
22
(26
/
-4)
Black Mirror was not a guidebook on how to resurrect the dead. This 'special' is deeply offensive to me, and sadly makes my viewpoints on AI that less favorable. If not outright extremely against.
Upvote
64
(83
/
-19)
I hate all of this. The dilution of content and culture, the need to churn out endless goo to clog up our minds and our media channels. The internet is going to be useless in the very near future for finding anything real and worthwhile.
Upvote
105
(120
/
-15)
If a person, company,etc., wants to go this way, at the bare minimum ask the family permission, then involve the family in the process, and then if the product sells beyond budget costs, share the fair share for all parties involved. It shouldn´t be that hard.
If it is not possible, then do other things, and if it is possible It might end up being supported or not by fans, but everybody did their best to avoid instances like this and to offer a product that honors the person in question.
AI Shouldn´t be devoid of decency, good practices and common sense.
If it is not possible, then do other things, and if it is possible It might end up being supported or not by fans, but everybody did their best to avoid instances like this and to offer a product that honors the person in question.
AI Shouldn´t be devoid of decency, good practices and common sense.
Upvote
89
(93
/
-4)
This is theft, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's AI or human written.
I'm curious in case someone knows the answer. What is up with "Youtubers" and ridiculous facial expressions? Is that the secret sauce for increasing viewer count?
I'm curious in case someone knows the answer. What is up with "Youtubers" and ridiculous facial expressions? Is that the secret sauce for increasing viewer count?
Upvote
66
(79
/
-13)
I personally had never heard of this podcast before this whole incident. I have zero intention of checking out any of the material (the whole premise just sounds ridiculous and too hokey to me), but it was at least minimally successful in spreading the name, if the "any publicity" angle is what they were going for.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Unlike music, spoken comedy doesn’t have performance rights, which specifically exclude anything that isn’t “musical works” under the consent decrees covering BMI and ASCAP.
So, not the same. Music allows for covers, legally, as long as rights fees are paid. Comedy does not.
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/20...pros-claim-that-additional-royalties-are-due/
Upvote
64
(66
/
-2)
If 'Comedy' officially allowed for covers, the physicality and wringing of hands over plagiarism in the profession would be felt far and wide.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Cyber/<ender
Smack-Fu Master, in training
As soon as I heard the video was not just an hour of 'George' saying "I told you so!" I knew it was not a good replication...
If the jokes were decent, then Sasso and co. should have just told them themselves, rather than using Carlin's image to try and sell them.
If the jokes were decent, then Sasso and co. should have just told them themselves, rather than using Carlin's image to try and sell them.
Upvote
84
(85
/
-1)
Personally, I prefer the link. If, I, as a serious reader, who might want all the information I can get on the article's topic, appreciate the courtesy of the link, which provides immediate access to additional important information that helps me to more fully understand and to make informed judgments. The inclusion of the link is a journalistic professional courtesy.
Upvote
46
(55
/
-9)
'AI learns like humans do' is absolute unfounded bullshit. It is, unfortunately, espoused by some in the AI community who should know better, because it feed the current wave of AI hype that is very lucrative for people taking VC money for their startups.
The predominant algorithm for training models is stochastic gradient descent. You take a very high-dimension matrix of 'neurons', guess randomly at the values of connections between them, and then keep iteratively guessing new values for all the weights, while computing how 'right' the output is, along the hyper-dimensional gradient. The only thing really complicated about it, is just how freaking huge the matrixes are.
Biological cognition is not a random guessing machine. It has hard-wired heuristics, and an ability to create internal models that is absolutely not preset in artificial 'intelligence'.
Artificial intelligence, as it exists today, is closer to a compression algorithm than thinking.
The predominant algorithm for training models is stochastic gradient descent. You take a very high-dimension matrix of 'neurons', guess randomly at the values of connections between them, and then keep iteratively guessing new values for all the weights, while computing how 'right' the output is, along the hyper-dimensional gradient. The only thing really complicated about it, is just how freaking huge the matrixes are.
Biological cognition is not a random guessing machine. It has hard-wired heuristics, and an ability to create internal models that is absolutely not preset in artificial 'intelligence'.
Artificial intelligence, as it exists today, is closer to a compression algorithm than thinking.
Upvote
114
(123
/
-9)
Imagine being so unoriginal that you have to fake resurrect a comedian to get any attention.
Upvote
64
(69
/
-5)
Without the lybrary of routines-videos-material, the life- like performance could have been possible, I mean for the AI to do it?
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Exactly. The Fast and Furious series is dumb popcorn fun but their handling of Paul Walker's character has been a respectful use of a likeness so far.
It's rumored that AI & CGI might be used to give his character a final appearance in the last movie (Fast 11), but if so it's being done in consultation with his family and to fit the "family" theme of the series that some people mock.
Upvote
44
(45
/
-1)
Yeah and now I'm rolling my eyes at a podcast called "Dudesy". I'm assume they're sponsored by soon to be failing niche subscription services.
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
Let´s see how courts and experts view derived work under AI lens. To me it falls under that, since without them, the AI could have not done its life-like performance, also I Will argue the life-like term can be considered a form of derived, under the AI technology lens.
But like I said, let´s see how it goes- plays in the verdict.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)