> In this case I don't think it is terribly pertinent whether or not the content was AI generated. The issue here is someone is trying to capitalize on the leg

> In this case I don't think it is terribly pertinent whether or not the content was AI generated. The issue here is someone is trying to capitalize on the legacy of George Carlin. Admitting that it is human-written does not change that aspect. > It is hard to determine how much of the article text ...is a quote from the lawsuit. It is certainly not clear in a moral or legal sense whether training constitutes making an unauthorized copy. That is the big issue to be decided. Having an opinion and declaring it does not make it true. People are doing that on both sides already. The article is paraphrasing one of the three claims asserted in the complaint filed by George Carlin's estate (https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/24377438-govuscourtscacd91266210/?embed=1&responsive=1&title=1 https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/24377438-govuscour...): > Without authorization from Plaintiffs, or any right under law, Defendants have unlawfully used Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works for building and training a dataset for purposes of generating an output intended to mimic Plaintiffs’ copyrighted work (i.e., Carlin’s stand-up comedy). So regardless of whether the court will agree with this (I don't think the details of how training of AI models works in relation to copyright law have been settled in case law yet), it is in fact highly pertinent to the lawsuit because there will be no copyright claim if an AI was not trained on Carlin's work. That would still leave the two other claims though (violation of rights of publicity and deprivation of rights of publicity).