Lucasfilm hires deepfake YouTuber who fixed Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian:
The season 2 finale of The Mandalorian saw the titular lone bounty hunter complete his mission by delivering Grogu (formerly known as Baby Yoda) to the open arms of a Jedi. But not just any Jedi. A young Luke Skywalker showed up to the excitement, then disappointment of fans who raised eyebrows at his VFX-heavy look.
Enter the YouTuber known as Shamook, whose The Mandalorian deepfake, published in December, has earned nearly 2 million views for improving the VFX used to de-age Mark Hamill. It was so good Shamook then earned a new gig with Lucasfilm and its visual effects division Industrial Light and Magic.
[...] "[Industrial Light and Magic is] always on the lookout for talented artists and have in fact hired the artist that goes by the online persona 'Shamook,'" a Lucasfilm representative said in a statement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday July 29 2021, @03:23AM (3 children)
He's have been sued for copyright infringement rather than hired. He must be really good at what he's doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @03:43AM (1 child)
Suing is a waste of money. Companies can just claim partial or total ownership of videos using the Content ID system and get a revenue cut.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday July 29 2021, @03:57AM
That hasn't stopped copyright holders from trying to sue fans for obscene amounts of damage in the past.
More importantly in this case, I think they figured going after - whichever form it may take - somebody who made a wildly successful alternate version of their work would not have worked to their advantage from a public image standpoint. So instead they brought him onboard. Pretty smart of them for a change.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Fluffeh on Thursday July 29 2021, @04:25AM
Seems like a case of common sense prevailing over the legal dept showing off how large their collective dicks are.
Good for them. It's a nice change.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday July 29 2021, @07:53AM
Shamook is the guy that did Jim Meskimen's A Deeper Look Into The Life of An Impressionist [youtube.com].
The before and after [youtube.com] is informative.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by progo on Thursday July 29 2021, @01:21PM (4 children)
If the outsider used more than 30 seconds of source material it might be "that's cool, but it's a copyright violation, and we're required by shareholders to sue your ass into the ground. Sorry."
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 29 2021, @03:57PM (2 children)
Fairuse is ambiguous. He's just as likely to have been sued over 30 seconds as 35 seconds. At a certain point, it would cease to be fairuse, but fairuse is a legal defense, not a right.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday July 29 2021, @07:55PM (1 child)
Not true.
By default ALL works belong to the public domain, and nobody ever owns them, not even for a second. Technically, using any kind of work is a right that we possess. However, in the interests of promoting the creation of works we created temporary copyrights. Those are rights that we all agree to extend to the holder, and those are strictly defined by law. The purpose of which is to financially reward the creators through the enactment of certain controls, with specific exemptions [copyright.gov].
Fair use isn't ambiguous as much as it is testable and on a case-by-base basis. It is specifically defined in the law, so it isn't a legal defense. They're conditions that constrain the copyright holder which means in the absence of their copyright powers, my default right to do whatever I want with the works remains. It's like the Bill of Rights. Those aren't our only rights, just the ones we decided to define strictly into law. In other words, we define the restrictions on government power, not the enumeration of our rights. All rights not specifically defined are possessed by the citizenry.
Years of propaganda and bullshit by the copyright holders, Disney, IP lawyers, and shareholders are trying to convince the rest of us through their oppression and brutality otherwise. They want to extend copyright durations, create actual ownership if they could, and grant additional powers not defined.
In this case, you're correct about the duration. At a certain point it might cease to be fair use if it only showed the after result, and showed the majority of the original work. In other words, if you could view the modified work and still reasonably get the same experience as the original, it would affect the potential market value of the original through dilution. That would take away the fair use exemption as it failed the test.
In this case, I would argue that even a minute of side-by-side viewing with clear labels is fair use. Especially if the purpose is to educate and demonstrate technology.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday July 29 2021, @09:52PM
It may not be true, but it sure feels like it. The main issue is that, if you are relying on fair use; you are relying on an exemption that must be decided by the court system. There is no cut and dry, why yes, this is obviously fair use, at least to a certain extent. It's all subjective, which means, every case has to be heard and in a court scenario, the person with more money has a major advantage. I recently got to sit in as a member of a jury panel (not yet a jury member) and came to two very important points. First, the lawyers know what they are doing and are slick. Second, while you may have the opportunity to represent yourself, don't do it. Specifically with regard to the second point is that you don't have the experience needed and even, if you think you do, you really don't. Even a lawyer should get another lawyer to represent them, if for nothing else other than objectivity. So, really, it all gets down to who has the best lawyer. In which case, I can guarantee you that the corporation, will have that.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30 2021, @02:40AM
That 30 second number gets thrown about all the time, but it is essentially pulled out of someone's ass and repeated. There is no magic 30 second mark in any law. He could get sued for 5 seconds as much as 50 seconds.