In a nut shell, people are creating film trailers with AI and sharing on YouTube. Film studios are now asking Google for a slice of the profits as it’s their intellectual property.
Doesn’t that imply that artists own material that the AI was trained on and therefore the output?
I’m all for that.
As far as i know, if you upload a video with superman on youtube, the studio has the right to claim a portion of the money made by that video, even though they are not the ones who made the video
To my knowledge, no one technically owns the AI made material, since it wasn’t made by a person. Thus no one should be getting any ad revenue from these videos since no one actually owns it.
DougDoug did a video on AI copyright a few months ago and is rather informative. Would recommend.
Not a lawyer, but I thought trademarks are distinct from copyright. Even if copyright went poof, it’s still possible to violate a trademark.
Correct. This is why Disney is now using a sniper of steamboat Willy in it’s opening logo - making it part of its trademark
I’ve seen that, and figured that was exactly the story. They even used a clip of the Willie’s whistled tune to lock that up, too.
It is possible to get AI images copyrighted if they contain portions that are edited by a human. For instance, this year InvokeAI copyrighted an image that was completely generative, but used extensive inpainting, by arguing that the human decision process was a necessary part of that work.
I personally disagree with that ruling (but then again I disagree with the concept of copyright altogether).
Google is earning ad revenue. So should Google get to keep it all then?
That is a good question that I do not know. But since they’re the ones hosting it on their servers, they may have the most legitimate claim to the ad revenue since it does cost money to keep the trailers on their servers and to stream it to viewers.
I am not a lawyer, though. This is just pure speculation on my part.
AI and operator cannot hold copyright to AI produced material, but that does not mean running copyright-protected material through AI removes the original copyright.
Do we have legal president yet?
Yes. It’s all over the place, no clear lines really
We do not have a legal president and we don’t have a legal precedent for this case.
People have been doing this without AI for years. AI just means these are just pumped out with more frequency and faster. The YouTube algorithm loves to recommend,
“Official Spider-Man 4: Homeward Bound The Incredible Journey Trailer | Tom Holland, Zendaya | Marvel Cinematic Universe | Official Trailer 2025 Fan Trailer”
See, it isn’t misleading, they clearly stated it was a fan trailer.
If the YouTube algorithm didn’t recommend it, people wouldn’t make it. If they were clearly labeled, the videos wouldn’t get the views. If giving this money to studios kills this style of content I’m all for it. Of course, I’m sure that won’t be misused.
Edit: Oh! Had I but read the next article in this community, https://lemmy.world/post/27579531
Well, this seems kind-of-sort-of fair. Better than taking down. And maybe it’ll bacame a Trojan horse of profit-sharing with non-AI artist.
