3 ms·

Yeah, people are parsing the headline wrong. The "problem" here clearly isn't Mickey Mouse doing something offensive, it's Mickey Mouse doing something offensiv

Yeah, people are parsing the headline wrong. The "problem" here clearly isn't Mickey Mouse doing something offensive, it's Mickey Mouse doing something offensive. One of the most copyright-litigious corporations will definitely take issue with their mascot being flagrantly misused by a company that has the legal staff to know better.

morkalork 3y ago
Not just Disney but Nintendo too! They just sleepwalked into a bear trap.
dagmx 3y ago
I’d bet on a cease and desist being sent imminently. Followed by a blocked list of certain terms, and then followed by people trying to game it to get around the filters. Honestly, it perplexes me how little thought must have gone into the logistics here by Meta. But at the same time they’ve shown this level of disregard for all their tech
hbn 3y ago
Why did the article exclusively highlight offensive examples then? Why not just "Facebook's AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse"? Why did they show that it can generate child soldiers? That's not infringing on IP.
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  Because it's specifically the combination that's toxic to Meta. "Mickey Mouse stickers" gets you a standard C&D. "Disney Characters doing things that Disney perceives as damaging to their family friendly™ brand" gets you a rabid lawyer personally handing you the C&D and instructing you to fix it now. I.E. not only is it offensive, it's offensive in a legally actionable way. Which I suppose is the opposite of my earlier emphasis, but different context.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Okay? So people here should have the ability to not look at things at purely a surface level. But regardless, the act of trademarked character doing something that damages the brands image is definitely a lot worse than just infringement alone.
  - hbn 3y ago
    The comment I was replying to was specifically saying that people are misunderstanding the article because they're misinterpreting the headline. Are we talking about what the article should have been about or what it's actually about? Because it's actually about the offensive angle.

morkalork 3y ago

Not just Disney but Nintendo too! They just sleepwalked into a bear trap.

dagmx 3y ago

I’d bet on a cease and desist being sent imminently. Followed by a blocked list of certain terms, and then followed by people trying to game it to get around the filters. Honestly, it perplexes me how little thought must have gone into the logistics here by Meta. But at the same time they’ve shown this level of disregard for all their tech

hbn 3y ago

Why did the article exclusively highlight offensive examples then? Why not just "Facebook's AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse"? Why did they show that it can generate child soldiers? That's not infringing on IP.

LordDragonfang 3y ago
Because it's specifically the combination that's toxic to Meta. "Mickey Mouse stickers" gets you a standard C&D. "Disney Characters doing things that Disney perceives as damaging to their family friendly™ brand" gets you a rabid lawyer personally handing you the C&D and instructing you to fix it now. I.E. not only is it offensive, it's offensive in a legally actionable way. Which I suppose is the opposite of my earlier emphasis, but different context.
dagmx 3y ago
Okay? So people here should have the ability to not look at things at purely a surface level. But regardless, the act of trademarked character doing something that damages the brands image is definitely a lot worse than just infringement alone.
- hbn 3y ago
  The comment I was replying to was specifically saying that people are misunderstanding the article because they're misinterpreting the headline. Are we talking about what the article should have been about or what it's actually about? Because it's actually about the offensive angle.