249
submitted 9 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles on Thursday asks that a judge order the podcast outlet, Dudesy, to immediately take down the audio special, “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead,” in which a synthesis of Carlin, who died in 2008, delivers commentary on current events.

Carlin’s daughter, Kelly Carlin, said in a statement that the work is “a poorly-executed facsimile cobbled together by unscrupulous individuals to capitalize on the extraordinary goodwill my father established with his adoring fanbase.”

The Carlin estate and its executor, Jerold Hamza, are named as plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of Carlin’s right of publicity and copyright. The named defendants are Dudesy and podcast hosts Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

This is great. There was no reason for there to be any mention of George Carlin in the video's title, especially not crediting it to him and especially not with a title like that. I'm curious if the creator ever sat back and thought that what they were doing was wrong.

A real AI comedian trained by living comedians would be an interesting feat, but coming right out the gate with the first real example being such a blatant theft of likeness sours so much opinion people will have on the idea in the future.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

I agree with you, and think that people are overplaying the AI hype. People think that training an AI is like training a human, and that's not really true.

But even if it were, what this guy is doing with his AI goes beyond that. I think anyone would agree that there is nothing preventing a new comedian from binging on all the George Carlin material, then making their own show, under their own name . But if that human literally put on a George Carlin mask and billed their show as "George Carlin", his estate would (rightfully) get upset, even though everyone understands this can't be the real George Carlin. Why should this guy get a pass just because he had an AI do all the hard work of writing the jokes?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social -5 points 9 months ago

Did you try watching it? The first minute or so is nothing but disclaimers that this isn't "really" Carlin, and the AI itself makes numerous jokes about its AI nature throughout the special. There's no false credit going on here.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago

If the creators didn't get permission to use Carlin's name and image, they deserve to be sued.

They could just as easily have generated an image to use if they didn't want to be taken to court. Instead they will have an expensive FAFO episode.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

They could just as easily have generated an image to use if they didn’t want to be taken to court.

I don't know what you mean by this.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca -2 points 9 months ago

AI can be used to generate images of people. So they could have generated an image, put a fake name - or no name at all - on it, and gone ahead with the "comic relief".

Instead they co-opted Carlin's name and face.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Ah. You haven't actually watched the video in question, then. At no point did they ever use Carlin's face.

[-] neurogenesis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nobody should watch it, because AI is bad. /s?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

If you're going to complain about things that it did then it kind of behooves you to know whether it actually did them.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 months ago

If the creators didn’t get permission to use Carlin’s name and image, they deserve to be sued.

wrong. the man is dead. do you think i should be sued by the lincoln estate for wearing a tophat and counting my drinks by the score?

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca -3 points 9 months ago

Maybe check on copyright and estate laws, so you can understand what's being discussed here.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

don't be condescending.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

i understand.

if the law supports it, the law is wrong.

[-] CodeName@infosec.pub -1 points 9 months ago

Someone could snip out a joke and claim it was Carlin. Then the disclaimers are meaningless. This happens on the internet all the time.

Writing a comedy set (ai or not) and then having a Carlin bot read it out and then releasing it under his name is definitely crossing some major lines. I'm not sure what the legality of it is at this point, but if it is legal it shouldn't be.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

Someone could snip out a joke and claim it was Carlin.

Then that someone has done something wrong.

I could dig up one of your old comments, snip out something from one of them out of context, and use it to defame someone. Should you be hauled off to court for having posted that comment? I haven't even done it yet.

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
249 points (97.7% liked)

News

23320 readers
2989 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS