Producing : AI News - George R.R. Martin et al Move To Trial Against ChatGPT by Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg

I'm glad to hear it, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg! I hope George R.R. Martin wins! Producers, studios, etc. are big on copyright. I don't see them using generative AI/buying generative AI material and risking having to pay thousands, millions, or billions down the line if copyright issues come up.

My opinion: I hope they get sued into complete non-existence. Generative ai is one of the worst things humans have created.

I believe there are several distinct creative states.

Some creators generate both ideas and language themselves — the fully human pipeline with linguistic command and conceptual expertise.

Others use AI for ideation but write and edit the final English independently.

Another group develops the ideas personally but uses AI to generate and expand text.

A more reliable fourth pathway is where humans originate the concepts and language, and AI serves only in refinement — improving clarity, grammar, and structure without altering ownership or creative direction.

I think ideas outweigh language in creative importance. AI-generated concepts alone are often rejected because they can resemble recombinations of existing narratives rather than genuine novelty. AI does not create ex nihilo — meaning from nothing — but from patterns it has already learned. The truly original spark still comes from the human mind.

However, AI is powerful for language refinement. In my case, I generate the ideas and basic text, and then use AI only for correction and refinement. There is always the risk that AI, while refining prose, could echo the style of well-known authors. To mitigate that, creators should apply plagiarism-detection tools, similar to academic integrity checks in scientific research.

A logical next step would be developing AI-assisted plagiarism-scanning pipelines — embedding originality verification directly into the writing process, much like research software does today.

As long as the outputs aren't published on a large scale, what's the problem?

Willem Elzenga 2 These are simply my honest opinions on gai and how I see it. I don't mean to offend or come at you or anyone else in any kind of mean or aggressive manor. Most gai models are built on a lot of stolen work from actual humans they had no permission to use, it's unethical and anti-human. Aside from that, it promotes laziness and is anti-skill developing. It also completely eliminates the entire purpose of art. Why even bother? When I see people using gai I immediately assume they, 1: are lazy 2: are unethical, anti-human and shouldn't be trusted in any capacity. I personally feel that gai has no place in the artistic world, full stop.

I think your so off track I can't even argue with you. Your totally wrong!

Willem Elzenga 2 Several things. 1. They didn't pay to use the material. It's not in public domain. and 2. ChatGPT will let anyone do it, and has (this is just one of many dozens of lawsuits), so it is making money from unauthorized use of other people's property. 3. However, making money isn't required. Only passing the results off as yours is, and that is what LLMs do and that is what ChatGPT is doing here. 4. Consider as well that the authors have outlines now or might make outlines for their work in the future - AI generated content is not copyrightable - so even generating this ruins the IP of the author. Someone generates this, puts it out there, and now the author cannot credibly use it even if it is identical to one they already created, or intended to create. Those are just a few of the issues here.

I’ll eat my hat when ChatGPT is going to pay authors. Basically Google is doing the same thing.

It's not different than doing a scene from a play and posting it on YouTube. I must write "for educational purposes only" as I do not have the playwright's permission. I can use it in my reel, but I cannot charge people to watch it. Technically, you can't even put on a live play without paying for the use. Just like for music.

I don't see how it would be any different because AI created it. It is copywrited material and therefore cannot be used without the author's permission. AI can use source from the public domain, just like us humans have to.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg, it's an important development! Investors for instance will need to know the particulars of this news. Certainly depending on the outcome public relations factors will have a lot of weight with relative decision makings!

The world of entertainment again watches on!

Eon C. Rambally We'll see how it goes. The AI companies have won in some courts the right to train on copyrighted material. So it's not clear how this will turn out. Unfortunately, the legislators are a decade or two behind the times across the entire world, and this is going to require considered legislation to resolve.

SCOTUS just ruled on something similar

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/30/supreme-court-case-music-piracy-cox-sony/87481019007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z115140d00----v115140b0057xxd005765&gca-ft=27&gca-ds=sophi&gnt-djm=1

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg those are some signature and definitive legal developments. Certainly influences and insinuates, almost compulsory futuristic implications in favor of Generative AI and legislations. In the meanwhile, included, I’ll be as non-bias a demeanor as can be. The fact that not just one, but several AI companies (who are obviously world renown and dominant) have already won their respective legal battles, it seemingly denotes opposition objectively, to other aspects and prospects that remains respected!

Artistes therefore should be given due respect and accreditation to at least demonstrate said respect for originality aspects!

Suzanne Bronson, That just to some extent endorses further, the implications I’ve mentioned!

I think what the ruling shows Eon C. Rambally is the parent company that owns the platform that the music is shared on for free - is responsible for copyright violations. I think it may end up being the same for publishing companies. GenAI may write a GOT script, but whomever publishes the copywrited or owned IP, will be on the hook for distributing it. It is definitely something to keep watching Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg

Suzanne Bronson the people scraping it wouldn't be allowed to keep that copyrighted data even if that is the case. Doesn't matter Who's to blame. In the end you can't keep stolen property.

Interesting topic! I'm a retired screenwriter that's not written anything for about 20 years but the urge has started stirring around once again. I'm thinking about utilizing AI as an aid in story development and the writing process. I'm unaware of any potential downside but maybe I'm not aware. Is there anything I should be educated about?

Doug Nelson Hey haven't seen you around for a while! The issues with generative AI are many, copyright being one, open plagiarism being another, the fact LLMs can only produce something already done is another - ie. if an idea or text is created by the AI, by definition it's already been done and it is also being given to many people aside from yourself, often verbatim. I have pitches containing similar and in one case IDENTICAL AI generated content come across my desk a lot - we dismiss pretty much all of them as soon as we see the AI stuff.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg, I feel the need to further importantly state! With the mentioned court matters results it, is ever more obvious the massive attempt by many AI Co. to render human element obsolete! To what efficiency and extent, it is statistically unclear!

A woman back here at home claimed on a presentation of raw natural talent, she had to re-write on assertions that AI was used for the particular transaction, hence was denied. This claims that there are individuals with incredible competitive talent, but how does the system detects and differs from who uses it or not?

Suzanne Bronson, Piracy is another aspect effecting the artiste, to the extent it is alleged said pirates got their tech. from “secret agreements” with “prominent figures”, to again affect the copy rights of artistes.

Whether or not we believe the said account of the woman’s story, human talent wisely cannot be forgotten!

Doug Nelson, To my recollection, an advanced form of a template is where AI is best recommended, where human talent should then edit, particularly in the case where emotions for example is concerned.

We will have to update and educate ourselves as matters progress!

Hey Shadow; yeah been layin' low for awhile. I've been thinking about using AT as a research assist, not as an author. I'll write my own dam* scrip but I'm thinking that AI, with it's speed and available data, may be of some worth. Maybe.

Doug Nelson Well if you still have my email reach out to me there and we can set up a call. I'll give you some tips on the AI phenom - we work with it daily in all it's glory and muck. Otherwise DM me and we'll go from there.