A legal dispute has arisen over an artificial intelligence (AI)-created video featuring a tour-de-force imitation of late comedian George Carlin. The video, which is said to have shocked fans, was created by a fictitious AI podcast host ‘Dudesy’. Although the video demonstrated the progress made in voice cloning, it infuriated Carlin’s estate, who are now suing the creators of Dudesy, Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen. The dispute revolves around allegations that copyrighted material was used without permission, infringing Carlin’s right to publicity.
While the video was initially thought to be the product of AI trained on Carlin’s published material, Dudesy’s creators have now stated that it was not written by an AI but instead by a human. Spokeswoman Danielle Del highlighted that the YouTube video ‘I’m Glad I’m Dead’ was entirely written by Chad Kultgen. Whether the creators used AI or a person to write the jokes, forms a pivotal part of the legal arguments.
The Carlin suit shares similarities with those faced by tech firms like OpenAI, Meta, and Stability AI. Several of these firms are battling lawsuits regarding whether it counts as copyright infringement if AI models are trained on copyrighted data. A Twitter post from Kelly Carlin, George Carlin’s daughter, echoes these sentiments, enflaming fears of infringement on personal property.
Interestingly, if a person had replicated Carlin’s performances without using Carlin’s stage name, there would likely be no legal backlash. Yet, the claim that AI was used to mimic Carlin’s show sparked a legal fire. The creators of Dudesy have now stated that a human, inspired by Carlin’s work, wrote the show, not an AI.
The lawsuit notably points out a false statement made by the defendants who claimed that Dudesy created its special in the same way a human impressionist would. The lawsuit argues that using AI technology to absorb George Carlin’s work is not akin to how a human impressionist would develop such an act. It remains uncertain how this legal battle will conclude, as there are many elements of the case that sit in a legal grey zone. While the content of the video has been deemed distasteful, its legality remains in question. The video is currently private on YouTube, pending the outcome of the ongoing lawsuit.
