this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
56 points (96.7% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2119 readers
21 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 7 months ago

It never should have happened. It was just a marketing gimmick by two guys with a shitty podcast. Fuck you for besmirching a great artist’s name.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 7 months ago

I'd like to believe George would've done a great bit on this whole situation and show us why everyone here is an idiot.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stardust@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not at all. I'm saying that this use doesn't seem to violate any laws.

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As I said, they don’t have resources (funds, time, patience, motivation, etc.) to fight it.

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 1 points 7 months ago

LOL! Not at all. It’s always nice to realize at the end of the day that we agree. We just express it differently. :)

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Let's all download it and spread it every where. It's what he would have wanted.

EDIT: I'm already propagating it

[–] Edgarallenpwn@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago

Streisand effect in action