The dispute stemmed from an hourlong special featuring an AI-generated Carlin that was created by Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen. The legal action was among the first complaints to be filed over the unauthorized use of a celebrity's voice using AI tools.
Always wondered when some big industry would throw their might against gAI, and I did notice that there was a certain lack of ‘AI generated this music’ vs ‘AI generated this copyrighted art/movie’ (Which I assumed was in part because the companies behind the latter want to use the AI to go after their workers’. But I do fear this is going to be of using one demon to slay the other. So if this all plays out I reserve the right to say ‘See! The problem is capitalism!’. Like an AI trained on other AI’s this will all just get worse.
I am no fancy copyright lawyer, but if I understand the legal situation in the US, you cannot claim copyright unless there is a human being involved. There was a case a decade ago with a photographer setting up a camera that a monkey or ape used to take a selfie. PETA sued on behalf of the animal, claiming the copyright, and the court ruled that only humans can have copyright so the picture had no copyright.
Though the prompt fans will probably claim to be artists, so I guess more legal wrangling.
Probably ending in something like every time an AI image is created Disney get a cent. And following that, to combat piracy, social media platforms demand proof of current AI subscription to upload image. Sure, in theory you can upload an image you yourself has created without AI, but in practice the algorithm will find it to similar to something else and execute automatic takedown. Isn’t it simpler just to pay your AI/Disney tax?
I think the jury (no pun) is still out on whether gen-AI extruded content can be copyrighted. No doubt there will be a human in the loop “signing off” on the extruded product.
Underpaid artists in China and India “repainting” or "touching up” or "customizing” the images, like those mass-produced Thomas Kinkade prints that would have a few highlight dabs painted on by hand by someone.
Then, I assume, the AI-generated part would be protected the same way a Photoshop-generated background gradient would be as part of a completed image.
Always wondered when some big industry would throw their might against gAI, and I did notice that there was a certain lack of ‘AI generated this music’ vs ‘AI generated this copyrighted art/movie’ (Which I assumed was in part because the companies behind the latter want to use the AI to go after their workers’. But I do fear this is going to be of using one demon to slay the other. So if this all plays out I reserve the right to say ‘See! The problem is capitalism!’. Like an AI trained on other AI’s this will all just get worse.
Can you copyright AI products?
I am no fancy copyright lawyer, but if I understand the legal situation in the US, you cannot claim copyright unless there is a human being involved. There was a case a decade ago with a photographer setting up a camera that a monkey or ape used to take a selfie. PETA sued on behalf of the animal, claiming the copyright, and the court ruled that only humans can have copyright so the picture had no copyright.
Though the prompt fans will probably claim to be artists, so I guess more legal wrangling.
Probably ending in something like every time an AI image is created Disney get a cent. And following that, to combat piracy, social media platforms demand proof of current AI subscription to upload image. Sure, in theory you can upload an image you yourself has created without AI, but in practice the algorithm will find it to similar to something else and execute automatic takedown. Isn’t it simpler just to pay your AI/Disney tax?
I think the jury (no pun) is still out on whether gen-AI extruded content can be copyrighted. No doubt there will be a human in the loop “signing off” on the extruded product.
@gerikson
Underpaid artists in China and India “repainting” or "touching up” or "customizing” the images, like those mass-produced Thomas Kinkade prints that would have a few highlight dabs painted on by hand by someone.
Then, I assume, the AI-generated part would be protected the same way a Photoshop-generated background gradient would be as part of a completed image.