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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district courts decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

      I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to a comedian as well.

      • wikibot@lemmy.worldBEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

        Midler v. Ford Motor Co. , 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) is a United States Court of Appeals case in which Bette Midler sought remedy against Ford Motor Company for a series of commercials in the 1980s which used a Midler impersonator.

        to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Carlin had a unique and distinctive voice and cadence, which was absolutely part of his act. And this fake album imitates it.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.

        • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          125·
          1 year ago

          those the use ai for it, yes actually. in fact, if we’re following the letter of copyright law, almost every meme is technically illegal.

            • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              31·
              1 year ago

              I’m not trying to say what’s right or wrong it should out shouldn’t be. I’m just saying that if we apply copyright literally and aggressively there’s numerous things that we take for granted that would go away.

                • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  and it could still be worse… like i said, technically every single image macro is copyright infringement. and to your question, which I’m sorry, i don’t care about, it’s not what i was replying for, it really depends. performing another person’s song for money is actually a big deal and illegal. so yeah, in your example that’s a very very easy case. weird al is a great example of what you need to do to differentiate. cover bands are often a grey area, but can be gone after, it’s just often easy to get away with.