George Carlin’s heirs sue comedy podcast over “AI-generated” impression

Suit alleges copyright infringement and illegal use of Carlin's name and likeness.

See full article...

 

[Spudster]

I wonder what Carlin what have thought of all this?

I'm with what Kyle proposed in his article:

Given his views on the afterlife, I’m inclined to think he’d have said something along the lines of “What the fuck do I care? I’m dead. This is your fucking problem.”

 

[MST2.021K]

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.

Alas, the acronym now stands for Reap In Profits.

 

[neuroklinik]

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.

Hey now. Where would Case & Molly be without McCoy Pauley, aka the Dixie Flatline, to aid in their cause?!

 

[Jackattak]

I wonder what Carlin what have thought of all this?

He would've thought you were dumb (and he would've thought the same of me).

 

[Sheep Disorder]

But the AI is not doing an existing Carlin routine, it's doing a Carlin-like performance. That's the problem with using existing copyright against AI, the output is not what usually counts as a "copy" or derived work. "In the style of" is not copyrightable.

Complicating things here are publicity rights and trademark. Elvis® is trademarked so use of the name in commerce is restricted. Don't know about "George Carlin".

That is not the definition of derivative work. Since the AI training data is copyrighted work then any output is going to be a derivative work. As per that link, it also has to contain sufficient of the original - which is exactly what is needed for someone to say it's a Carlin-like performance and not a Gallagher-like performance.

Name and likeness as in Right of Publicity, is not at all complex as people try to get away with that all the time. Using it without permission is obviously wrong especially in California as it exists long after death of the person.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

I mean yeah this is a horrible idea. But can you not link to the actual video? Can you just do an image of the loading screen of it?

Yeah, please. I have not clicked, and will not click, but can some one give us a hand here?

 

[sasenach]

Just a thought but wouldn’t it be better not to embed the YouTube video which all ends up adding to clicks and view counts and revenue for the idiots involved?

Edit .. bit slow typing and ninja’d by Z1ggy

 

[jtwrenn]

The legal arguments are all fine and good but the decency part is right out the window. This is so obviously an attention grab which is the same as a money grab nowadays. A simple and disgusting theft of a great comics likeness to make money. It takes little to no talent to do, and they should lose their shirts for it. AI resurrection stuff is not my cup of tea but it's not on it's face evil or indecent....if you have the ok of their families. If you don't and you do this, you are just a bad person.

 

[jjmorris2000]

Name and likeness as in Right of Publicity, is not at all complex as people try to get away with that all the time. Using it without permission is obviously wrong especially in California as it exists long after death of the person.

Yeah - the "AI" element around this is not actually where the problem is going to lie. Especially when Sasso and Kultgen end up on the witness stand swearing that it was actually them that created the script as a comedy bit and that saying it was an AI that did it is part of the gag (taking comedy writers at face value when they're performing is a bit like believing pro wrestling is real. Pro wrestling could be real, but it isn't. And comedians telling you anything during the course of a performance should be treated as schtick until proven otherwise).

Where they're going to run into trouble is using Carlin's likeness without permission of his estate. That's where their problem is going to lie, not in the AI training that they actually didn't do to create the script, but in the training they did to create the sound-alike voice and the use of his name to sell their podcast. And they're likely going to get clobbered over it. (Unless it also turns out that there's no Carlin AI at all and they were using an impersonator to read their script - it could be schtick all the way down after all)

 

[EnPeaSea]

Maybe but I swear I've heard that first 'God' routine before...

I mean, it's basic High School Atheist arguments; not really original nor particularly insightful. All edge and no point. Carlin would have had more style and substance.

 

[adespoton]

Is it just me, or do a lot of the audience members bear a striking resemblance to Mark Zuckerberg?

 

[Deleted member 192806]

With tech like this, is not hard to imagine language barriers soon becoming a thing of the past.

Check with the UN.

 

[sword_9mm]

Is it just me, or do a lot of the audience members bear a striking resemblance to Mark Zuckerberg?

So what are you trying to say? All robots look the same??

Racist/robotist!!

 

[JoHBE]

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.

Welcome to Team Human! We're a small group right now, but growing fast!

 

[yippiekayakotherbuckets]

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.

Too much of the AI we are seeing is driven by corporations and bad actors, both of which are devoid of decency, good practices and common sense, so the AI products they generate reflect that.

 

[first_citazen]

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.

I was on a Carlin kick recently, before the controversy, and was watching some of his appearances on Johnny Carson, and watched how he evolved over the years. He was funny and always relevant to the times.

 

[idspispopd]

I am so sick of people stealing other people's work. I am so sick of all the lieing and cheating and misrepresentation.

It is like we totally forgot the intent of copyright, and instead are mindlessly following the letter of laws build for a different world. Fair use is not protecting journalist and people actually creating unique additions to culture. But it is protecting parasites who are contributing nothing except new ways to game the system.

 

[UserIDAlreadyInUse]

Obviously, I don't speak mandarin, or whatever language that is. So I had the idea to just have the video dubbed for easy consumption

I can understand Mandarin, and for the 30 seconds I spent listening to the dub, it was pretty spot-on.

 

[UserIDAlreadyInUse]

So what are you trying to say? All robots look the same??

Racist/robotist!!

Organicist!

 

[Kamus]

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.

I get where you're coming from on the Black Mirror episode. Personally, I thought it was one of the best in the series. It explores the idea of 'resurrecting' someone using the data they've left behind, which, while it sounds like sci-fi, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility with advancing technology.

Ray Kurzweil, has even talked about a similar goal to 'resurrect' his father using collected data. This idea sounded far-fetched to many back in 2010 (It only took me a short time to 'get it' though), but as technology evolves, the concept becomes more conceivable. It's like how .par files work in data recovery. They reconstruct missing parts of a file from the remaining data. Similarly, with enough data about a person, theoretically, you could recreate a semblance of them.

While it's not exactly the same (especially recreating their experiences), this concept is fascinating. It shows the potential of technology to bridge gaps we once thought unbridgeable. Sure, it's a complex and sensitive topic, but it's undeniably intriguing to think about the possibilities.

 

[JoHBE]

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.

Yes, and this isn't but some early shit hitting the fan.

By sometime next year, NO fans will be visible anymore, as they will be completely inundated by an ocean of shit

(With apologies to anyone who happened to be having lunch while reading this)

 

[terrydactyl]

There was a fight back in the 80s over advertisers using images of dead celebrities. It resulted in the California Celebrities Rights Act. So the issue has been around quite a while.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

While it's not exactly the same (especially recreating their experiences), this concept is fascinating. It shows the potential of technology to bridge gaps we once thought unbridgeable. Sure, it's a complex and sensitive topic, but it's undeniably intriguing to think about the possibilities.

So I could post here long after my death.

 

[JoHBE]

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?

That, and using "We were wrong!" or "This changes everything!", or "What THEY don't tell you about <subject>", or <insert ridiculous thumbnail that doesn't occur anywhere in video> or <some other sh*t I'm sick off that makes me actively avoid the channel>.

 

[lordcheeto]

Yeah - the "AI" element around this is not actually where the problem is going to lie. Especially when Sasso and Kultgen end up on the witness stand swearing that it was actually them that created the script as a comedy bit and that saying it was an AI that did it is part of the gag (taking comedy writers at face value when they're performing is a bit like believing pro wrestling is real. Pro wrestling could be real, but it isn't. And comedians telling you anything during the course of a performance should be treated as schtick until proven otherwise).

Where they're going to run into trouble is using Carlin's likeness without permission of his estate. That's where their problem is going to lie, not in the AI training that they actually didn't do to create the script, but in the training they did to create the sound-alike voice and the use of his name to sell their podcast. And they're likely going to get clobbered over it. (Unless it also turns out that there's no Carlin AI at all and they were using an impersonator to read their script - it could be schtick all the way down after all)

Rights of the Deceased

California has a separate statute protecting posthumous rights of publicity, found at Cal. Civ Code § 3344.1. The right lasts for 70 years after death, and is considered a freely transferable, licensable, descendible property right. The substance of the right is largely the same, with the following exceptions:

* The holder of a deceased person's right of publicity must register the claim with California's Secretary of State, and the rights-holder cannot recover damages for any use that occurs before registration. § 3344.1(f)(1).

* To qualify under the statute, the deceased person's right of publicity must have had "commercial value at the time of his or her death, or because of his or her death." § 3344.1(h).

* There is an exemption for any uses in a "play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, audiovisual work, radio or television program, single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value," or an advertisment for any of these works. § 3344.1(a)(2).

This would seem to fall under those exemptions.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

I get where you're coming from on the Black Mirror episode. Personally, I thought it was one of the best in the series. It explores the idea of 'resurrecting' someone using the data they've left behind, which, while it sounds like sci-fi, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility with advancing technology.

Ray Kurzweil, has even talked about a similar goal to 'resurrect' his father using collected data. This idea sounded far-fetched to many back in 2010 (It only took me a short time to 'get it' though), but as technology evolves, the concept becomes more conceivable. It's like how .par files work in data recovery. They reconstruct missing parts of a file from the remaining data. Similarly, with enough data about a person, theoretically, you could recreate a semblance of them.

While it's not exactly the same (especially recreating their experiences), this concept is fascinating. It shows the potential of technology to bridge gaps we once thought unbridgeable. Sure, it's a complex and sensitive topic, but it's undeniably intriguing to think about the possibilities.

Ray Kurzweil has never really been able to deal well with the concept of mortality, has he? He's been obsessed with radical life extension since long before it became a techbro thing.

Sorry Ray, you're still going to die someday. We all will.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Everyone else can be outta a job but them arteests can't be touched.

Yeah! _{That's piratebay's job.}

 

[scrimbul]

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.

Republicans and AI companies are fighting to keep doing this.

What wake up call were you hoping for? They're going to downplay a technology that has a higher destructive potential than the nuclear bomb in terms of eroding people's standard of living or outright killing them.

They don't even have to do the latter, they can just defame them and it will be impossible to litigate the crime in doing so.

There is no floor to this and the concept of the technology is impossible to remove from the Internet even if you successfully take down major for-profit AI research firms and cloud platforms. Rogue states can spin up data centers with pirated or re-built training sets in a matter of weeks even if you could regulate it in the USA and Republicans need the disinformation tool in their quiver badly right now even if it gets trained back on them.

And it most certainly will, it might be illegal to put all those politicians in videos with AI generated children but it's not illegal and/or impossible to enforce to shift to animals or their own family members, and if the left-wing doesn't do it, the rogue states will and they will successfully pin it on the left-wing.

It's a national security concern but it's impossible to do anything about it or de-escalate it.

 

[Deleted member 1064244]

IMO? Cause it's better and may someday be indistinguishable.

Ars posters have drawn a line about jobs AI can take and it seems Them Pictures and arts stuffs are the line that has been drawn. Everyone else can be outta a job but them arteests can't be touched.

"Artists are replaceable, give me AI-genned ideas" says individual with "Sword_9mm" (a Black Lagoon reference) as a handle. I guess when you squat on someone else's ideas all the time, they feel cheap.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

IMO? Cause it's better and may someday be indistinguishable.

Ars posters have drawn a line about jobs AI can take and it seems Them Pictures and arts stuffs are the line that has been drawn. Everyone else can be outta a job but them arteests can't be touched.

It'll come for all our jobs eventually (sure, people can laugh all they like with all the mistakes and hallucinations and limitations of the current tech, but they won't be laughing in a few years) and anyone who thinks there's any stopping it is very likely in for an unpleasant shock. "Information wants to be free" isn't an ethos; it's an observation about putting toothpaste back in the tube or keeping Pandora's Box closed. We'd be better served figuring out how what the impact is going to be, how we can accentuate the benefits, and how we can mitigate the harms.