Simon WillisonJan 25, 2024

I'm quoted in this @arstechnica piece about that recent "AI generated" George Carlin special

I don't think it was written by AI

I found the whole thing grossly disrespectful, but I do slightly appreciate the meta-joke here that the AI generated text is fake and was actually written by humans

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/01/did-an-ai-write-that-hour-long-george-carlin-special-im-not-convinced/

Did an AI write that hour-long “George Carlin” special? I’m not convinced.

"Everyone is ready to believe that AI can do things, even if it can't."

Ars Technica
Show threadSimon WillisonJan 25, 2024
“The real story here is… everyone is ready to believe that AI can do things, even if it can't,” Willison told Ars. “In this case, it's pretty clear what's going on if you look at the wider context of the show in question. But anyone without that context, [a viewer] is much more likely to believe that the whole thing was AI-generated… thanks to the massive ramp up in the quality of AI output we have seen in the past 12 months.”
Show threadSimon WillisonJan 27, 2024

Confirmed by the New York Times:

> Danielle Del, a spokeswoman for Sasso, said Dudesy is not actually an A.I.
>
> “It’s a fictional podcast character created by two human beings, Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen,” Del wrote in an email. “The YouTube video ‘I’m Glad I’m Dead’ was completely written by Chad Kultgen.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/arts/carlin-lawsuit-ai-podcast-copyright.html

George Carlin’s Estate Sues Podcasters Over A.I. Episode

The lawsuit claims that an hourlong comedy special on YouTube violated Carlin’s copyright.

The New York Times
Show threadSimon Willison

The lawsuit still has legs I think, since it's not just about using copyrighted content to train an AI (which they didn't do) - it also complains about "violation of rights of publicity" - see point 81 in this PDF:

> Defendants have knowingly and intentionally utilized and continue to utilize the name, image and likeness of Carlin without the consent of Plaintiffs

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/George-Carlin-AI-lawsuit.pdf

Jan 27, 2024 at 6:03pmWeb
Show threadKeith IveyJan 27, 2024
@simon Reminiscent of Tom Waits successfully suing Frito-Lay long before AI imitations.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/79648/when-tom-waits-sued-frito-lay-over-doritos-ad
When Tom Waits Sued Frito-Lay Over a Doritos Ad | Mental Floss

“There's a new tortilla chip called SalsaRio Doritos," Crooned the Waits impersonator. "It's buffo, boffo, bravo, gung-ho, tallyho but never mellow.”

Mental Floss
Show threadRobert ThauJan 27, 2024
@simon If anything, right of publicity is a much stronger legal case. It's well-established in US law -- and while there have been multiple suits alleging that training an AI on copyrighted text is infringement, or that publishing the output is, or... something like that, I don't think there's been a ruling on any of them. Also, in some of those suits, especially the NY Times case, it's at issue that the LLM can be induced to recite training data *exactly*; that's clearly not at issue here.
Show threadJames GrimmelmannJan 27, 2024

@simon A colleague notes that both the right of publicity claims are likely to fail. The California common-law right is subject to caselaw (from a case involving Bela Lugosi's estate) that it doesn't continue after the celebrity's death. The California statutory right is post-mortem, but excludes "fictional or nonfictional entertainment.” They might be winners in some other state, but not in California.

State-specific details at https://rightofpublicityroadmap.com/state_page/california/

California – Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity

Show threadGlyphJan 27, 2024
@simon one of the areas of IP law I have *zero* understanding of is “likeness rights” or “rights of publicity”. Like I know if X takes a photograph of Y then Y has no *copyright* because X is the “author” of the photo. But what rights *do* they have? In what jurisdictions?