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.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What’s the alleged crime? Comedy impersonation isn’t illegal. And the special had numerous disclaimers that it was an impersonation of Carlin.

    Sounds like a money grab by the estate, which Carlin himself probably would have railed on.

    • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

      If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

      If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

      The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

      • lucidinferno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        How is the AI impersonation of Carlin different from when Paramount used actors who looked like Queen Elizabeth or Barbara Bush, or human impersonators who sound just like the real person they’re impersonating (besides the obvious difference)?

        I’m not saying Dudesy is in the right. Making an AI system sound like someone somehow feels different than an impersonator doing the same thing. But I don’t know why I feel that way, as they’re extremely similar cases.

        • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s because a person is directly doing it. It’s not odd that our laws and mores exist for the benefit of people trying to do stuff.

          Even comparing a photocopy to a forgery, at least the forgery took some direct human skill, rather than just owning a photocopier

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think your Madonna example is completely fine as long as they don’t call themselves Madonna and start uploading videos on YouTube with her name on it (like is the case here).

        Madonna owns her name and trademark but not her tone of voice, style of songs or her wardrobe choices.

        In the same way, The George Carlin estate doesn’t own his speech mannerism or comedic style but they certainly own his name.