George Carlin Estate Forces 'AI Carlin' Off the Internet For Good

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The George Carlin estate has settled its lawsuit with Dudesy, the podcast that purportedly used a "comedy AI" to produce an hour-long stand-up special in the style and voice of the late comedian. Dudesy's "George Carlin: Dead and Loving It" special, which was first uploaded in early January, gained hundreds of thousands of views and plenty of media attention for its presentation as a creation of an AI that had "listened to all of George Carlin's material... to imitate his voice, cadence and attitude as well as the subject matter I think would have interested him today." But even before the Carlin estate lawsuit was filed, there were numerous signs that the special was not actually written by an AI, as Ars laid out in detail in a feature report.

Shortly after the Carlin estate filed its lawsuit against Dudesy in late January, a representative for Dudesy host Will Sasso told The New York Times that the special had actually been "completely written by [Dudesy co-host] Chad Kultgen." Regardless of the special's actual authorship, though, the lawsuit also took Dudesy to task for "capitaliz[ing] on the name, reputation, and likeness of George Carlin in creating, promoting, and distributing the Dudesy Special and using generated images of Carlin, Carlin's voice, and images designed to evoke Carlin's presence on a stage." The resulting "association" between the real Carlin and this ersatz version put Dudesy in potential legal jeopardy, even if the contentious and unsettled copyright issues regarding AI training and authorship weren't in play.

Court documents note that shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Dudesy had already "taken reasonable steps" to remove the special and any mention of Carlin from all of Dudesy's online accounts. The settlement restrains the Dudesy podcast (and those associated with it) from re-uploading the special anywhere and from "using George Carlin's image, voice, or likeness" in any content posted anywhere on the Internet. Archived copies of the special are still available on the Internet if you know where to look. While the settlement notes that those reposts are also in "violat[ion] of this order," Dudesy will not be held liable for any reuploads made by unrelated third parties.

AI lawyers?

[penguinoid]

Now taking bets on whether there were AI lawyers taking part on either side of this lawsuit.

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You mean AItorrneys?

disclaimer

[cstacy]

All characters and events in this show—even those based on real people—are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices and content are impersonated... poorly.

Re:

[leonbev]

And... it also wasn't funny.

Re:

[Rei]

Meh, I thought it was pretty funny, as did a good number of people in the comments section of the original article (even though it was immediately suspected to not actually be AI).

Re:

[Powercntrl]

South Park (which is what I'm assuming you're basing your disclaimer on) is very obviously mocking celebrities as a form of parody. If I made my own animated show, called it "South Park", used AI to simulate the voices, and decided to write my own Tweek and Craig episode because there hasn't been one of those in awhile, is it really parody?

Fan fiction has always run into these kind of issues and if you really want to tell a story with someone else's characters, you have to change enough details so that it

Oh you sweet summer child

[Rinnon]

George Carlin Estate Forces 'AI Carlin' Off the Internet For Good

Archived copies of the special are still available on the Internet if you know where to look.

Re:

[quonset]

George Carlin Estate Forces 'AI Carlin' Off the Internet For Good

Archived copies of the special are still available on the Internet if you know where to look.

True, but these folks are no longer profiting from using Carlin's likeness. That's the point.

Re:

[Teppy]

Should a human impersonating George Carlin (or anybody, really) be able to profit off of that person's voice, mannerisms or likeness?

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Nothing wrong with impersonating someone as part of your act, it's parody and well established. However making it your entire act is where it becomes problematic.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

However making it your entire act is where it becomes problematic.

Weird Al made an entire career out of his parodies. It's probably worth factoring in that even though he didn't need permission to do so, he always asked the original artists first. In the vast majority of cases, most musicians considered it an honor to be parodied by Weird Al.

Course, Carlin is dead so you'd probably need a ouija board to ask permission. In all seriousness though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a likeness can be legally protected from beyond the grave simply because an estate

Re:

[Mononymous]

Weird Al made an entire career out of his parodies.

I love his originals, from "Happy Birthday" to "Mission Statement".
Obviously his parodies get a lot more attention, but every album has several good originals.

Re:

[slack_justyb]

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a likeness can be legally protected from beyond the grave simply because an estate still owns the rights

IP law in America and other countries. Law makers making law don't have to make sense. They just cannot run afoul of the fundamental rights established in their nations. If your nation has carved out estates holding likeness protections, then that's just the roll of the die given to you till someone decides to remove it from law.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

It's important to note that Weird Al seeks the approval of the artists he is parodying. Technically it's not likely in many cases he has to, since US copyright law generally protects parody, but he's a good faith actor who understands not everyone is going to want to be parodied. Still, the fact that he does seek permission gives him an extra layer of protection.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Weird Al made an entire career out of his parodies. It's probably worth factoring in that even though he didn't need permission to do so, he always asked the original artists first. In the vast majority of cases, most musicians considered it an honor to be parodied by Weird Al.

He didn't need to ask permission because parody is fair use. All Al did was re-use the song rhythm and notes. He used his own words, and even in his videos, it was clear it was not the original song.

This AI Carlin is less parody than

Re:

[ewibble]

Why is making your entire act a problem, there are Elvis impersonators who their entire act is impersonating Elvis.

Does it detract from Elvis, does it mean people listen to less Elvis, or watch less of his movies, most probably not.

As long as you are clear you are not the real thing then I see no problem with it.

Re:

[vlad30]

George Carlin Estate Forces 'AI Carlin' Off the Internet For Good

Archived copies of the special are still available on the Internet if you know where to look.

Should I look for Aye Carlin or Arrrrgh Carlin Now? Does he come with an eyepatch?

Re:

[RockDoctor]

True, but these folks are no longer profiting from

The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities will be sending the Thought Police SWAT team round. Please have your affairs in order, and a concrete overcoat ready for your midnight swimming lesson.

Re:

[NomDeAlias]

It wasn't the point of the statement being criticized.

Missed Opportunity

[TwistedGreen]

Should've called it the Bill Cosby bot

"Off the Internet For Good"

[imperious_rex]

Yeeeeah. Let's see how well that works out, eh? I mean, it's not like anybody who has already downloaded the video can't just post it to YouTube [youtube.com], Bitchute [bitchute.com], etc. "Off the Internet For Good"? Hah! I guess they haven't heard of the Streisand Effect (but they will very soon).

Who?

[GotNoRice]

If their goal is to make sure that no one under age 35 knows who George Carlin is, then they are doing a great job.

Re:

[Rei]

There's an extreme irony to the hypercapitalist approach being taken by the estate of George Carlin, a guy who didn't even believe that property should exist.

Re:

[Nicholas Schumacher]

You have to wonder how much he actually believed that vs just espousing it as an act - especially since his estate was worth around $10million when he died.

Re:

[Rei]

I think it's pretty clear that the guy was a disillusioned hippie who had given up on his ideals and decided instead to just watch the world burn.

But there's no question IMHO what his ideals actually were.

Things you never see.

[Pezbian]

What I'm still curious about after all these years is whether Carlin got to see that video where Chris Raab is, in fact "a guy taking a shit while running at full speed".

"For Good"?

[Lord Kano]

I don't think they understand how this works.
It's going to be an eternal game of whack-a-mole.
Good luck, though.

LK

Predictable and sad

[sinkskinkshrieks]

I thought it was hilarious and on brand, but I made a backup because this sure seemed like something that was too cool to stick around. It's already copied many places out there on the interwebs, so it will never go away. A better approach would've been to Microsoft it: embrace, extend, extinguish.