The creators of a much-derided A.I. George Carlin video have agreed to remove it from all platforms, never to be seen or heard again, to settle a lawsuit with
On one hand, I get it. Carlin was one of my favorites.
On the other, though, the case as reported doesn’t add up. Dead people have no rights, so there was no violation. It was clearly identified as an impression, much like Carlin himself might have done. As a derivative work, it wouldn’t violate copyright. It’s hard to see the basis for this — unless the creators are just acknowledging that they don’t have the resources to fight it.
Dead people may not have rights, but their very living family definitely does. When my dog died, I got upset when my mom kept trying to shove reminders in my face when all I wanted to do was forget for awhile - I can’t imagine how I’d feel about an actual human being.
How would you like it if you were grieving and someone posted some tasteless shit about your loved one? (assuming you aren’t a sociopath, of course, which may be a bit much considering this is the internet)
I don’t think I’m a sociopath. But then, who does? ;>
I take your point, and I’m not saying that it wasn’t tasteless or insensitive (although, in fairness, 15 years would be a looooong time for unresolved grief). I’m just saying that it doesn’t seem that any laws were broken, so it isn’t clear why these creators settled.
You’re telling me nobody owns his shows, the material used to train the LLM, whatever trademark is used to allow redistributing his works etc just because he’s dead?
I think that’s up to the courts to decide and perhaps in this case, the company decided a verdict against them would be more damaging than a settlement.
On one hand, I get it. Carlin was one of my favorites.
On the other, though, the case as reported doesn’t add up. Dead people have no rights, so there was no violation. It was clearly identified as an impression, much like Carlin himself might have done. As a derivative work, it wouldn’t violate copyright. It’s hard to see the basis for this — unless the creators are just acknowledging that they don’t have the resources to fight it.
Dead people may not have rights, but their very living family definitely does. When my dog died, I got upset when my mom kept trying to shove reminders in my face when all I wanted to do was forget for awhile - I can’t imagine how I’d feel about an actual human being.
How would you like it if you were grieving and someone posted some tasteless shit about your loved one? (assuming you aren’t a sociopath, of course, which may be a bit much considering this is the internet)
I don’t think I’m a sociopath. But then, who does? ;>
I take your point, and I’m not saying that it wasn’t tasteless or insensitive (although, in fairness, 15 years would be a looooong time for unresolved grief). I’m just saying that it doesn’t seem that any laws were broken, so it isn’t clear why these creators settled.
You’re telling me nobody owns his shows, the material used to train the LLM, whatever trademark is used to allow redistributing his works etc just because he’s dead?
Not at all. I’m saying that this use doesn’t seem to violate any laws.
I think that’s up to the courts to decide and perhaps in this case, the company decided a verdict against them would be more damaging than a settlement.
As I said, they don’t have resources (funds, time, patience, motivation, etc.) to fight it.
You did. I misread at the time or not at all.
I guess it might have been a waste of time they’d rather have skipped. Same as this chain of replies might be for you.
Huh.
LOL! Not at all. It’s always nice to realize at the end of the day that we agree. We just express it differently. :)