Exactly my point that it is not clear, since it’s exactly Carlin’s likeness. A person who tunes in at a random moment has no idea that this is what it it stated in the beginning and could 100% assume it’s Carlin.

It is incredibly clear. The fact that it would take a person to pause the video before the first three seconds, skip to a random point, ignore that the topic of the standup is events that occurred since his death and being an AI, fail to read the written notices on-screen and in the description, etc. is evidence of this.

using their exact likeness as a basis is not transformative work

I think you’re still getting wires crossed between different domains of IP law in a way that makes your objection meaningless. Transformative nature comes in as a part of a fair use defense specifically to copyright infringement - whereas elements of a person’s likeness, like their face or voice, are not protected by copyright.

You’d have to be careful about Nike’s trademark and the sales contract between you and the buyer. In the George Carlin case, neither of these apply.

Do you honestly think that context will matter legally, whether the dead “person” is talking/singing about love or their own death?

Yes, there is legal relevance to whether a reasonable person would interpret the remarks as really being from George Carlin, thus painting him in a false light, and the whole concept of George Carlin riffing on events occurring after his death (plus the disclaimer preceding the video and in the description) is relevant to determining that.

When I say copyright, I mean in a general sence. Infringement of IP might be a better suited phrase, but I assumed the synonymity was implied.

I don’t see how this tracks. Consider your following comment:

You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is. Typical “AI” techbro."

Surely that’s a reference to the character factor of fair use, a defense specifically against copyright infringement? It’s not a term used in trademark law as far as I’m aware for example (and “George Carlin” is not a registered trademark anyway).

Were you just referring to, and telling them to google, the broad layperson definition of “transformative”? In which case I think you’ve misunderstood their comment, because I’m pretty sure at the very least they were referring to the fair use factor.

By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.

If you do lie to the buyer that it was a brand new Nike shoe, it’d be the concern of the sales contract between you and the buyer, and trademark law.

The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.

Lennon’s vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren’t about his own death and events occurring after it.

No?

To quote the US Copyright office:

Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain
an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-
tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words.
Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity
to support a claim in copyright include
The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
[…]

Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”

I don’t think Spotify allows individuals, as opposed to music distributors, to upload tracks at all - but more importantly their policies on impersonation are not what defines copyright.

Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.

A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer

Have you watched the video? It’s a thousand times more obvious than any legal disclaimer I’ve ever seen. They are not in any way hiding the fact that it is using AI.

There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc.

Talking about death in the abstract is entirely possible while you’re still alive. Creating material ~two decades after your own death about your death and events that happened since then, less so.

has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.

Copyright doesn’t protect names or titles.

I think it’d be entirely plausible to argue that, while transformative, current generative AI usage often falls short on the other fair use factors.

I don’t really see how it can be argued that the linked example - relatively minor edits to a photograph - are more transformative than generative AI models. What is your criteria here?

The title is “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead (2024)” and it talks about his own death. Even if someone believes in communication beyond the grave to the extent that they could still mistake it as really being George Carlin, it’s immediately explained as AI in the opening segment of the video.

Whether it’s presented as real seems a reasonable line to me.

Fox News could not use it to mislead people into thinking Biden said something that he did not, but parody like “Sassy Justice” from the South Park creators (using a Trump deepfake) would still be fine.

It’s possible to get away with quite a lot under transformative use even when it’s commercial, consider Cariou v. Prince for example: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/landmark-copyright-lawsuit-cariou-v-prince-is-settled-59702/