www.indiewire.com: Amazon has vehemently denied using artificial intelligence to finish its upcoming remake of “Road House,” despite a new lawsuit alleging the studio did just that to race the film out before the studio’s copyright on the original IP lapsed. But whether or not the studio did employ AI for the project, it won’t matter to a jury when it comes to determining if Amazon screwed the original “Road House” screenwriter out of some royalty money.
3 comments:
Something that really worries me is that there's already AI generated movies out there, and I just think that we need to have some sort of protections in place for determining if something is AI generated or not. I think that there should be work done to protect the original owner of the work, and I think that copyright should also be worded in a way to to prioritize the small creators instead of the big multimedia conglomerates. Currently the issue with copyright law is that something written to protect some small player from a big player inherently also protects the big player from the small player. There's something that is equal, but not necessarily equitable. I think that we need better legislation when it comes to copy rate to make sure that there is equitable treatment under the law for people who create things. I want to make sure that people have the opportunity to provide for themselves, and I think that decentralization of media is inherently better than centralization.
I know the whole focus of this lawsuit is not about Amazon’s possible use of AI, but the copyright issue. However, if Amazon did use AI to finish the movie before the deadline got them, then, as the article states, it goes against everything that the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes were about. It doesn’t matter that this happened during the strikes, in fact all it does is reinforce how important these strikes were to the industry. Now, am I surprised that Amazon is doing something questionably legal and ethical, no, that’s par for the course with them. On another point, I wasn’t aware of the 1976 Copyright Act and that it gives the creator back their rights after a period of 35 years. It will be interesting to see what comes from this lawsuit, part of me wonders if it will change the landscape of how situations like this are being handled by the legal system.
I hate AI. Genuinely it’s been one of the most annoying things I’ve ever had to deal with. It’s actively stealing from artists of oh so many forms, it creates shitty ripoff art and creates shitty fanboys all fanatically trying to defend it to their dying breath. Just yesterday for the first time in about a year I saw something that made me actually think I could start liking ai again. It was a prototype jarvis someone made in python (Yes in that python) that would laser cut material for them and everything. It was insanely cool and made me think just for a minute I might be liking ai again. And then I read this article and now I hate it again. Congratulations. I really dislike hating ai, I know it’s a big part of the future of technology but I really just wish it didn’t have to be
Post a Comment