Ask HN: Genuine confusion over AI generated fake Disney Pixar movie posters

Post by yeetard » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 12:50 AM UTC

GaggiX wrote: post #8

yeetard wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not legal right? I can kinda get posters but unless they aquired the right to every single frame in every single movie they used... Google can't show you links to streaming websites. Get caught making a camrip you go to fucking jail. Don't get how any of this is allowed to happen. I mean, is Disney just retarded? They do realize that once Dall-e video edition gets released they're going to not have a business a…

I don't know why you're taking this to such a personal level, but the images are clearly parody, so in no way illegal.

Post by yeetard » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 1:01 AM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #9

yeetard wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a human in the loop.

Does it matter? When Google automated the scanning and digitization of millions of books for searching purposes, they were awarded Fair Use[0] protection despite using an automated system to derive unauthorized digital copies of copyright-encumbered material. AI is clearly more derivative than that. It's too early to call for sure, but it's hard to imagine what a "victory" for copyright holders even looks like at thi…

Post by yeetard » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 1:38 AM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #12

yeetard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They've had their content mocked, copied and even used as hate speech for decades now. Yeah, by actual PEOPLE not corporations. Even then you aren't allowed to use copyrighted trade marks what the hell?? >There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not. That doesn't even make sense. >The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but…

> in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media? Nope. Here's an easy test for your claims; prove it. None of your examples are copyrighted works. They resemble copyrighted works, but my so does my framed painting of Super Mario smoking weed. As long as I'm not using it to identically reproduce copyrighted material in full (which is impossible), what i…

Post by smoldesu » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

yeetard wrote: post #15

smoldesu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media? Nope. Here's an easy test for your claims; prove it. None of your examples are copyrighted works. They resemble copyrighted works, but my so does my framed painting of Super Mario smoking weed. As long as I'm not using it to identically reproduce copyrighted material in full (which is impossible), what i…

You can not compare a single instance of whacky artwork created in parody of a pop culture figure to the machine that plagiarizes the work of thousands of people and an artstyle developed over decades. >what is the potential harm here? Like, harm to whom? Short term, for the viewer: none. The brand reputation aspect I have already mentioned. Mid-term it's media getting boring and predictable. Long term it's culture d…