this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
217 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
58692 readers
3970 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like I want to agree with you, but on the other hand what would happen if everyone were free to use any dead celebrity's likeness any way they wanted? Keeping in mind that Sinéad O'Connor's estate just sued Trump for using her music without permission at a rally that goes against everything she stood for, if we weren't allowed to keep a tight reign on these things then it would unleash some truly unspeakable horrors. For example, what if a speech from MLKJ were allowed to be twisted by white supremacists to spread hatred? It could get out of hand so quickly and the good deeds done by these people could be white-washed. I think we just need to accept certain restrictions in order to safeguard the strongest voices that speak up for the rest of us.
This was quite obviously a parody which is protected speech in the US. There is no ambiguity on this, the creation was not some pure AI generation, it was output based on the parameters set by the Dudesy guys, one of whom is well known comedian Will Sasso of MadTV fame.
The anti-AI circlejerk crowd is leaning hard on the wrong example to attack, and the Carlin family has this all wrong.
People don't seem interested in thinkng beyond a knee jerk reaction against anything labeled AI.
I was under the impression that it was more so a satire than a parody, which have less protection. (Key difference being one is a commentary other topics vs being a commentary on the original works) Then again I haven't watched the full 60 minute video.
Well, only based on this reply, you certainly aren't making a case for yourself being rational and thoughtful, by taking that last line as an attack rather than a commentary on the general state of reactions on this ongoing subject of discussion.
Put your pitchfork away. This isnt reddit, no need to instantly go with the minute of hate as a default state of reaction.
You shouldn't own anything well after your death, including your likeness. By your logic we couldn't make films about Cleopatra or use Shakespeare's work.
Hey if a fscking mouse can be copyrighted for 100 years, why shouldn't the work of real people also be protected? Of course neither of the examples your cited would still have copyrights even under those extreme terms.
I don't think the Mouse should have that copyright either. I'm not a total copyright abolitionist, but the time needs to be much shorter like patents. And I think likenesses should fall into the same category.
I do actually agree with that, these lengths of times are pretty ridiculous.
Difference is, the mouse can’t die, a person can. But the mouse can be continued by anyone…