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.

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.

    • @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0•5 months ago

      Those were tracks made by Jackson, not generated after the fact. Doesn’t really have much bearing on this discussion in particular. Those were quite literally the IP of the Jackson estate.

      Miller v Ford Motors was less about the impersonation, and more about the implication of endorsement and the skirting of paying her for her voice. Neither of which applies here. There’s also no chance of this being mistaken for Carlin by the listener, especially when it starts with “I’m dead” and the title of the video makes it explicitly clear that it was AI generated.

      By “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar” do you mean “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar v General Motors”? Because that isn’t about impersonation. That’s literally about a trademarked name being used without permission.

      And do you mean Carson v Here’s Johnny? Because that was dismissed. As was Blackwell v Carson which was a claim of defamation because of specific things said while impersonating Blackwell, not because of the impersonation itself.

      And the ABG has not moved past a simple cease and desist from what I can find. I’m seeing no court cases, and the chapels in question are still doing Elvis weddings.

      Do you have an actual case that would apply? Because I’m honestly not fond of spending so much time digging through the cases you’re providing to see if they actually apply/exist/were upheld.

        • @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0•5 months ago

          Ha, okay we can shift away from the cases if you like. There really aren’t any that apply anyway.

          I think the one getting confused, is the one who:

          • Said it’s different because it’s not human without actually providing any reasoning behind that logic.
          • Said it was essentially copy and paste, despite the content being new and unique.
          • Said it would be illegal if human, despite your inability to provide relevant case law.

          You keep spitting out reasons, without backing up your claims. And when challenged on them you either ignore them, or spit out a new reason.

          So what will it be, are you going to actually articulate your arguments beyond surface level, or are you going to throw out some back handed comment while continuing to downvote me the second you see I replied?