Ars OpenForum

This will lose. If this was an AI (which I'm inclined not to believe from the prior article on this topic), the material was not "copied", but rather used for training. While they might have a case there -- the courts are still deciding what copyright means in this sense -- they are arguing the wrong point. If they wanted to claim false advertising or misrepresentation, or unauthorized use of Carlin's name in the title of their video, that might get a judge's ear.

If a person wrote it, they have even less of a case. All they can really claim is "you impersonated that person's voice", but there are no laws against that; a whole segment of the comic population would have been imprisoned were that true.

But what I hate the most is that George Carlin was a staunch advocate of first amendment rights. He prevailed in a landmark case in the US Supreme Court over it. That his heirs would sue to effectively block someone from releasing material that -- let's be honest, honors his legacy, if anything -- is hugely disappointing. George would probably have been pissed, and he would have devoted a year's worth of touring to point out how awful the material is, and earning respect for his scathing response. He would never have turned to the courts to stifle it.