zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
Copyright holders make all kinds of arguments for why they should be get money for incidental exposure to their work. This is all about greed and jealousy. If someone uses AI to make infringing content, existing laws already cover that. The fact that an ML model could be used to generate infringing content, and has exposure to or "knowledge" of some copyrighted material is immaterial. People just see someone else making money and want to try and get a piece of it.

>>andy99+gf
> People just see someone else making money in a way that is completely dependent upon their own prior work and want to try and get a piece of it

>>ethanb+of
It's actually impressive that Weird Al has made it as far as he did now that I think about it

>>qt3141+En
Weird Al gets permission and licenses for every song parody he makes. The legal definition of parody in fair use wouldn't exactly cover everything he does.

That being said, there's still occasionally times where he gets screwed over by the licensing machine anyway - either because the label forgot to ask the artist (Amish Paradise) or because the artist forgot to ask the label (You're Pitiful).