Hollywood Demands Copyright Guardrails from Sora 2 - While Users Complain That's Less Fun (yahoo.com) 56
Enthusiasm for Sora 2 "wasn't shared in Hollywood," reports the Los Angeles Times, "where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash" that "appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business."
[OpenAI] executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology. This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach. Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said. OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company's intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.
The response was immediate.... [Big talent agencies objected, along with performers' unions and major studios.] "Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to 'opt out' to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP," Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement... The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said... One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don't believe a flat fee works.
Meanwhile, "the complete copyright-free-for-all approach that OpenAI took to its new AI video generation model, Sora 2, lasted all of one week," writes Gizmodo. But that means the service has "now pissed off its users." As 404 Media pointed out, social channels like Twitter and Reddit are now flooded with Sora users who are angry they can't make 10-second clips featuring their favorite characters anymore. One user in the OpenAI subreddit said that being able to play with copyrighted material was "the only reason this app was so fun."
Futurism published more reactions, including ""It's official, Sora 2 is completely boring and useless with these copyright restrictions." Others accused OpenAI of abusing copyright to hype up its new app. "This is just classic OpenAI at this point," another user wrote. "They do this s*** all the time. Let people have fun for a day or two and then just start censoring like crazy." The app now has a measly 2.9-star rating on the App Store, indicative of growing disillusionment and frustration with censorship... [It's not dropped to 2.8.]
In an apparent effort to save face, Altman claimed this week that many copyright holders are actually begging to have their characters appear on Sora, instead of complaining about the trend. "In the case of Sora, we've heard from a lot of concerned rightsholders and also a lot of rightsholders who are like 'My concern is you won't put my character in enough,'" he told the a16z podcast earlier this week. "So I can completely see a world where subject to the decisions that a rightsholder has, they get more upset with us for not generating their character often enough than too much," he added. Whether most rightsholders would agree with that sentiment remains to be seen.
Business Insider offers another reaction. After watching Sora 2's main public feed, they write that Sora 2 "seems to be overrun with teenage boys."
The response was immediate.... [Big talent agencies objected, along with performers' unions and major studios.] "Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to 'opt out' to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP," Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement... The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said... One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don't believe a flat fee works.
Meanwhile, "the complete copyright-free-for-all approach that OpenAI took to its new AI video generation model, Sora 2, lasted all of one week," writes Gizmodo. But that means the service has "now pissed off its users." As 404 Media pointed out, social channels like Twitter and Reddit are now flooded with Sora users who are angry they can't make 10-second clips featuring their favorite characters anymore. One user in the OpenAI subreddit said that being able to play with copyrighted material was "the only reason this app was so fun."
Futurism published more reactions, including ""It's official, Sora 2 is completely boring and useless with these copyright restrictions." Others accused OpenAI of abusing copyright to hype up its new app. "This is just classic OpenAI at this point," another user wrote. "They do this s*** all the time. Let people have fun for a day or two and then just start censoring like crazy." The app now has a measly 2.9-star rating on the App Store, indicative of growing disillusionment and frustration with censorship... [It's not dropped to 2.8.]
In an apparent effort to save face, Altman claimed this week that many copyright holders are actually begging to have their characters appear on Sora, instead of complaining about the trend. "In the case of Sora, we've heard from a lot of concerned rightsholders and also a lot of rightsholders who are like 'My concern is you won't put my character in enough,'" he told the a16z podcast earlier this week. "So I can completely see a world where subject to the decisions that a rightsholder has, they get more upset with us for not generating their character often enough than too much," he added. Whether most rightsholders would agree with that sentiment remains to be seen.
Business Insider offers another reaction. After watching Sora 2's main public feed, they write that Sora 2 "seems to be overrun with teenage boys."
copyright should be about a single work (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also no need for copyright to protect style when trademark law already handles the commercial side. Trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion about the source of goods or entertainment, not to police creativity. Copyright, by contrast, exists to encourage the creation of new works. Mixing the two systems produces the worst outcome: censorship of reinterpretation with no public benefit. By allowing registration of character depictions, Congress and the Copyright Office has quietly transformed the protection of expression into the protection of concept, eroding the barrier between idea and form that once defined the system's fairness. Forbidding others to write new versions of Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes stifles cultural dialogue. This kind of control limits creativity and weakens the public domain. Copyright law was meant to protect expression, not to freeze imagination. Limiting the reuse of character archetypes harms artistic development and public participation in culture.
If someone wishes to write about a wizard boy, a detective, or a talking mouse, they should be free to do so provided they do not mislead consumers through trademark misuse or copy the exact material. That balance preserves both artistic freedom and commercial clarity. Characters are part of the shared language of culture, and language must remain free for all.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The thing about these LLVMs is they don't really store the original work. You can't go into that massive set of layers with billion
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing about these LLVMs is they don't really store the original work.
Neither does compression. Yet somehow from a pile of garbled data its able to come to life again.
Re:copyright should be for a reasonable period (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright law is completely corrupt, Hollywood stole out culture from us so they can rip us all off. I refuse to pay for movies, cable or streaming and I avoid buying new books because I won't support unethical and classist industries that' cheated us and perverted our laws. Piracy is a responsibility in age of culture control and economic exploitation. The media moguls and the superstars are perfect examples of self-aggrandizement, greed and arrogance.
Re:copyright should be for a reasonable period (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
why, don't you share stuff with those you know? look if copyright was for seven years and let the AI pay single admission prices and single copy book prices, i'm sure Altman can afford it but eventually it's we who will pay
Style yes but appearance? (Score:3)
On the other hand our basically perpetual copyright system is all kinds of fucked up. Author's life + 20 years to let the potential kids grow up would be the most I could see. Even that's lo
Someone is confusing copyright with trademark. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, trademark is about using an image ot phrase to identify a specific brand as such and not an imitator. That is why trademarks do not transfer to types of good and services other than the one for which the trademark was originally issued. To use a famous example, Apple Records and Apple Computer do not infringe on each other's trademarks.
Re: Someone is confusing copyright with trademark. (Score:2)
Until Apple Computer started selling music.
No. Apple Corp's 1989 lawsuit came about when Apple (Computers) added MIDI capabilities to the Apple IIGS. Apple (Computers) had previously agreed to stay out of the music business but it was perhaps inevitable that they would renege eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
A CHARACTER'S style or appearance, no. But a specific artist's performance of that character? That feels like a creative work by that artist to at least 50% degree.
To be clear, I wish indeed that we were debating the first principles and original intent of copyright but let's be honest, current interpretation is a rather far distance from those.
The principles that are in play today - eg the ones that have girded the inviolate title/ownership of a cartoon mouse for 50 years past the creator's death (which
Re: (Score:2)
"character's style or appearance should not be protected at all."
The plastic surgeon who CREATED that appearance should get the money, after all painters get it too, not the model.
Entertainment industry (Score:4, Interesting)
The Entertainment industry wants to have it both ways with copyright. They want everyone talking about their stuff and creating interest in their characters, personalities, sound, and other properties because otherwise nobody gives a hoot and they don't make any money on them. The instant someone else earns a dollar with it thought they demand the entire pie and the right hold onto it until the heat death of the universe!
Let's be perfectly honest ever since some guy probably refereed to as 'ook' started banging to sticks together and dancing in a circle for the amusement of others everything in entertainment has been in some way derivative. If it is worth anything it comes down to two things, was enough effort put in to make the new thing good, as in well executed, and did the creator add any new vision. To that end I think a good prompt + quality GenAI probably meets the definition of 'art', just because a machine did most of the effort does not negate the value, after all the machine required input energy run and capital to build.
If GenAI can make as good a movie as troop of thespians, team of writers, camera operators and directorial staff, VFX studio and associated staff, all while doing it cheaper and faster, why not? While some people are worried about 'jobs' there certainly isn't the same 'omg omg omg, the customer support reps' there isn't even the same sentiments for internal devs cranking out CRUD apps being replaced with 'vibe coders'. This entire concern here is just Hollywood Neppo-Baby Privilege talking. They are 100% right about the threat it represents to the them though. If you can make a decent 1:30 clip for next to to nothing, you can do the same thing with a 1:30:00 art-house film for not much more, and it won't be long after a few successes there you can do feature films. A-List Actors, and big Hollywood Studios are probably seeing the beginning of their final act here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Entertainment industry (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they'd be *more* successful with shorter copyright?
If copyright was (say) 20 years, then fans (and AI companies!) could be making all sorts of derivative works from 20 years old stuff, instead of stuff made more recently. It's probably possible for the AI scrapers to roughly even get those dates right themselves - if it looks like $film_released_before_2005 then it's okay, otherwise no. As it is, copyright is so unimaginably long, that people are just ignoring it completely, not least because working out when something may or may not drop out of copyright is too hard, and of course leaves you with such a small training set as to be pointless.
Of course, they're likely far too bone-headed stubborn to even consider such an idea, let alone go along with it. I'd bet they'd prefer to lengthen copyright to "keep AI out of it" before they'd ever think about any other options.
Re: (Score:2)
This deserves an up mod.
I think you are spot on here. If we had a more balanced system where it was possible to build on something that was at least popular in ones own lifetime, people would be a lot more likely to chose the path of legal-challenge avoidance and play with the availible content.
By taking essentially everything from living memory off they table they have invited direct challenges and scoff-laws alike
Re: (Score:2)
It's all good. China doesn't give a fuck about our copyright law and they are releasing more models then we are. We can just use the Chinese stuff that isn't crippled by insane copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they're likely far too bone-headed stubborn to even consider such an idea, let alone go along with it.
"Everything is mine. You should consider yourself fortunate that I even let you participate in the experience for a fee."
Same reason rival studios can't (Score:5, Insightful)
If GenAI can make as good a movie as troop of thespians, team of writers, camera operators and directorial staff, VFX studio and associated staff, all while doing it cheaper and faster, why not? While some people are worried about 'jobs' there certainly isn't the same 'omg omg omg, the customer support reps' there isn't even the same sentiments for internal devs cranking out CRUD apps being replaced with 'vibe coders'. This entire concern here is just Hollywood Neppo-Baby Privilege talking. They are 100% right about the threat it represents to the them though. If you can make a decent 1:30 clip for next to to nothing, you can do the same thing with a 1:30:00 art-house film for not much more, and it won't be long after a few successes there you can do feature films. A-List Actors, and big Hollywood Studios are probably seeing the beginning of their final act here.
OK...so what if a Hezbollah studio "can make as good a Marvel movie as troop of thespians, team of writers, camera operators and directorial staff, VFX studio and associated staff, all while doing it cheaper and faster, why not?"...would you let them? OK...Thor and Iron Man will now team up and fight the Zionist threat. Oh Superman and Homelander have joined in as well...oh no...the Jews have brought their western allies in to help...and the Americans all turn into xenomorphs...slaughtering the faithful...now Omni Man has come in to save the day!!!!
Or let's just make it a porn...Omni-man fucks superman...in their suits while Hawkeye gobbles superman in his mouth...should someone be able to make money off it?
Your argument forgets the entire history of entertainment. if you come up with an idea, someone else can't steal it just because they can make it better, faster, cheaper. We don't need Generative AI to make clones of movies...any studio can make a knock off version. Porn companies have been doing that for a long time...trying to make money off it...and getting sued if their parody is too close. Foreign studios have long made knockoffs...and gotten sued if they tried to distribute internationally.
You make hate entertainment companies...and that's cool & all...but this is a business....people shitting out this generative AI slop want to monetize their lazy efforts built on the name recognition of companies that spent over 50 years building up IP and lore. It's illegal for good reason...not your irrelevant nepo-baby rant, but because no...it's fucking hard work making a good story and character...I suggest you try it and see how hard it is...any idea you have in your head? 90% chance it's just some other story you heard from another writer...OK, you have an original idea?...taking a cool idea into a decent script?...really fucking hard....nearly every bad movie ever made started with a cool idea and got ruined by a bad script. Lots of extremely talented individual shit out horrible work. A great example?...Avatar...James Cameron is as talented as they get and Avatar 2 is boring AF....really high quality from talented people, but no one cares!!!!...same with Ridley Scott's Prometheus movies.
If you eliminated protections, you'd only get lazy, low-effort human slop...like reality shows. No one would risk millions to create complex stories if they can be stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
OK...so what if a Hezbollah studio "can make as good a Marvel movie as troop of thespians, team of writers, camera operators and directorial staff, VFX studio and associated staff, all while doing it cheaper and faster, why not?"...would you let them?
Of course I would let them, how could I even stop them? Now would I buy such a film and show it in my theater chain, probably not but maybe some operators in Jordan and Syria would..
The entire history of entertainment? Really? There were a lot of Everyman plays. You bet the troop in the next town just "stole" it and did their own.. You are the one trying to apply a lens of what is actually very recent history here.
Yes someone should absolutely be allowed to generate and sell Superman Porn, the character is
Finally! (Score:2)
There's a solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine. You want your fun? PAY THE PEOPLE WHOSE STUFF YOU'RE APPROPRIATING. Then have your fun after you've paid
Re: (Score:2)
Its tricky because just about every company I have to deal with in my personal life doesn't pay me when they want to have fun with my credit history.
Re:There's a solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw these entitled content creators; copyright (and moral rights) have been preverted beyond recognition, and need a reform. Not gonna happen though... but I feel not a shred of remorse for authors whose work now gets remixed in AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose I make an independent film and it becomes popular in the limited places I've shown it. Suppose at one of the showings, an audience member is a big movie studio executive who loves my film, then goes back to his studio and creates a very similar film, a derivative work, and makes many millions for the studio and I get nothing. Are you OK with that? Copyright works for both the big and little guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the line should be
That's: "Shouldn't be".
I do see you point about big and small players: the danger of looser copyright rules is that the big players are in a better position to steal your work and then just bankrupt you in court. But that is a failure of the court system rather than copyright.
Overrun with teenage boys (Score:2, Funny)
New low entry cost entertainment technology adopted first by teenagers. Next up: ursine defecates under trees, leader of Roman Catholic church discovered to be Roman Catholic.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean we all know they are just making porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now... it's not just teenage boys making dumb memes, it's people who ACT like teenage boys making dumb memes.
But, yeah, if you like video clips of Queen Elizabeth eating a bag of flaming hot Cheetos, you have a "wonderful" new source of content!
Because that's the way copyrights work..... (Score:3)
OpenAI going to content creators and demanding they opt out whomever they don't want to appear in videos is the most on-brand silicon valley Chutzpah move this year. Say what one wants about the U.S. intellectual property system, but that ask isn't anywhere any time reasonable.
Now if OpenAI were offering some sort of payment per use as a compulsory license subject to certain content guardrails, that might be a different story. But that wasn't the case either. Instead the "offer" was we're going to use your IP and actors' likenesses for free. You can request that we don't use certain ones but there's no guarantee.
As with just about everything these tech bros do, OpenAI wanted all the benefits with no obligation to pay anyone anywhere anytime. And that's just not going to work.
Adulting 101: Laws rarely are "fun" (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying "oh, I just want to make videos for fun" is like asking hearing a crackhead say "I'm only smoking crack to lose weight"...lets legalize medicinal crack! You fuckers are going to share it and try to make money off YouTube with it...because FFS...you can spend a few days prompting together videos that can make a decent amount of money. Oh..."you're different?"...yeah, well, for every user using this for non-commercial purposes, 12 others want a quick buck making money off someone else's IP. Then you have the situation you have in Roblox, where there's one great idea and 400 lazy clones of the same idea...a lot just cash grabs that halt the game and demand you pay money because they make 90% of your screen links to pay.
Sorry...IP theft is theft...especially when you try to make money off it. It's fun because it is shitty and illegal and there's a massive upside if you can get a viral YouTube/TikTok video.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm only smoking crack to lose weight"
I actually know someone who did this. She lost 100+ pounds in a few months. Amazingly, and I have never seen this before, she stopped after she lost the weight. I would STRONGLY advise against trying such a feat, as everyone else I have ever known who messed around with that stuff ended up in prison because they could not control themselves... but I had to mention this because, while completely outrageous, it is possible to smoke crack to lose weight.
Fake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whats worse is its already fallen into "trends" the people prompting the videos arent even creative enough to come up with their own idea for the AI to make, they just see what someone else prompted and think "ooh i should prompt that too"
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I don't try to distribute, then it's no longer protected under fair use. The problem right now is who do they sue, the distributor or the AI model that created it? I think right now they want to be able to sue both.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is, whoever has the most money. That's always who you sue.
Re: Fake (Score:2)
Disney and Square-Enix (Score:2)
united in demanding that the Sora AI could not have a keyblade.
Ok openAI need to declare which of their (Score:2)
Your favorite character (Score:2)
Sorry, whose favorite characters? Did you mean yours or did you mean Disney's?
Not that I have a problem with you actually making a video of Disney's characters. I haven't seen any evidence that these AIs have any idea how copyright law and Fair Use work, so obviously it doesn't make any sense to restrict what they're allowed to do. The user is perfectly qualified .. well, ok .. the most qualified of the two, to make such decis
I think this is missing in the discussion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ripoffright (Score:2, Insightful)
copyright was originally a tool to protect the little guy
i'm a little guy, i'm an indie musician
these copyright systems get in my way and prevent me from releasing my own music regularly
on soundcloud they now have an undisclosed AI deciding whether your new track is eligible for their "recommend track" booster program (they've also fired most of their support team in favour of a super flaky ai)
now it hinders the little guy, and increasingly funnels all the money to just a couple dudes, just like every other
Opt out (Score:2)
They've stolen even more (Score:2)