Are you a muppet?

[uk_lefty]

I don't think anyone is getting ripped off here. Unless there's a BC kids TV show starting featuring all of these puppets...

[nige1968]

Can't get this out of my head now. Thanks everyone.

 

 

[Rich]

Me...

 

...and my Band Of Muppets

Edited yesterday at 17:11 by Rich

[Pseudonym]

30 minutes ago, Rich said:

 

You're in a band with Elton John? Well played.

[ezbass]

36 minutes ago, Rich said:

Me...

 

 

4 strings, 4 tuners and 4 capstans? This cannot be AI. 

[Beedster]

Yep, you're all muppets for sure 

[Beedster]

On 29/04/2025 at 10:08, Kev said:

Sincerely hope none of the members crying IP Theft have ever bought a cheap bass copy before  

So @Kev, you're a moderator yes? Just checking

[Kev]

42 minutes ago, Beedster said:

So @Kev, you're a moderator yes? Just checking

Last time I checked, forever appreciated

 

Just on the topic of my little joke that I presume you didn't chuckle at, it does still open an interesting debate as to why it is OK to accept an individual deliberately copying another person's/company's work for a profit without license, but a computer doing it anonymously for free is somehow abhorrent?  (presumably it is free and people aren't paying to do this, I haven't tried making a muppet me, as indeed I am already too much of one as it is) 

[Buddster]

9 minutes ago, Kev said:

Presumably it is free and people aren't paying to do this

Depends, subscription to Chatgpt is paid, or it's free for a limited number of pictures 

[Beedster]

3 minutes ago, Kev said:

Last time I checked, forever appreciated

 

Just on the topic of my little joke that I presume you didn't chuckle at, it does still open an interesting debate as to why it is OK to accept an individual deliberately copying another person's/company's work for a profit without license, but a computer doing it anonymously for free is somehow abhorrent?  (presumably it is free and people aren't paying to do this, I haven't tried making a muppet me, as indeed I am already too much of one as it is) 

 

Kev, thanks. Yes it does open up a debate, and one that could have happened here in this thread, because two well respected members highlighted IP and ecological factors, and I'd have hoped that the community response, as well as the moderating response, would have considered whether, as a online community, we should think more carefully about responsible use of the web. Absolutely we've probably all been on the wrong side of both debates at some point, but given we're currently sleepwalking into potentially catastrophic I/P and ecological crises - which effects us all as musicians and probably beyond (AI has already had a pretty disastrous impact on my field) - it would have been lovely to see support for those members who voiced concerns 👍   

[wateroftyne]

My God, I hate AI with a firey passion.

[Beedster]

5 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

My God, I hate AI with a firey passion.

Likewise Michael, it’s undermining quality and creativity in so many professions at present, not just the arts, we should be pushing back at every opportunity 👍

[binky_bass]

This might all be well and fun, and perceived as innocent, but it is the start of a slippery slope. I personally believe that people that use these AI services that blatantly, and with no apology, rip off IP from multiple trademarked platforms, have absolutely no right to complain when their IP, job, industry they work in etc. becomes impacted by this form of AI. What this AI is doing, and by virtue what people using it are doing is theft, it's that straight forward. 

 

AI in the not-so-intelligent form that it exists in, and is being used in, today is not a positive thing. 

 

In my humble opinion, something as blatant and obvious as this shouldn't be infecting this forum and I suspect it probably could leave BassChat open to legal ramifications. 

[stewblack]

43 minutes ago, binky_bass said:

it is the start of a slippery slope

Not going to join the debate other than to say I feel we've passed that point and are already in free fall.

It's just too damn exciting to computer people and to much fun for punters.

 

[PainInTheBass]

People need to calm down and read up on fair use. Also see the following advice from Gemini. I'm not a lawyer so take from this what you will. And if Disney issue a takedown notice, just comply.

 

Recommendations:

 * Make it Distinctive: To minimize risk, try to make your character and its style significantly different from existing Muppets. Avoid directly copying recognizable features.

 * Avoid Using the Term "Muppet": Don't explicitly call your creation a "Muppet" or use the Muppets trademark in your description.

 * Clearly State It's Fan-Created: If your image could be interpreted as being officially related to the Muppets, explicitly state that it is fan-created and not affiliated with Disney.

 * Be Prepared for a Takedown Request: Even if you believe your use is fair, Disney could still send a takedown request to the forum. You would then need to decide whether to comply or challenge it (which can have legal implications).

In conclusion, while the risk of legal action for a non-profit, original image on a small forum is likely low, technically it could still be considered copyright infringement if it draws too heavily on the established Muppet style. Creating a distinctly different character and avoiding the use of the "Muppet" trademark will help to minimize any potential issues.

[Downunderwonder]

^ An AI telling you how to avoid being confused with a Muppet.

[PainInTheBass]

Beautiful isn't it?

[Burns-bass]

1 hour ago, PainInTheBass said:

People need to calm down and read up on fair use. Also see the following advice from Gemini. I'm not a lawyer so take from this what you will. And if Disney issue a takedown notice, just comply.

 

Recommendations:

 * Make it Distinctive: To minimize risk, try to make your character and its style significantly different from existing Muppets. Avoid directly copying recognizable features.

 * Avoid Using the Term "Muppet": Don't explicitly call your creation a "Muppet" or use the Muppets trademark in your description.

 * Clearly State It's Fan-Created: If your image could be interpreted as being officially related to the Muppets, explicitly state that it is fan-created and not affiliated with Disney.

 * Be Prepared for a Takedown Request: Even if you believe your use is fair, Disney could still send a takedown request to the forum. You would then need to decide whether to comply or challenge it (which can have legal implications).

In conclusion, while the risk of legal action for a non-profit, original image on a small forum is likely low, technically it could still be considered copyright infringement if it draws too heavily on the established Muppet style. Creating a distinctly different character and avoiding the use of the "Muppet" trademark will help to minimize any potential issues.

Your focusing on the practical protection for doing this rather then the principle here.

 

Tech companies (billionaires) are using media and content that has been provided for free on the internet to train its models and effectively replace humans in the generation of creative endeavours. And charge us to do so.

 

It may not mean much to you, but for lots of people AI will be an existential threat. In my industry it already is.

 

This stuff is funny, but it normalises what is effectively theft. 
 

16,000 artists against it here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/21/we-need-to-come-together-british-artists-team-up-to-fight-ai-image-generating-software

 

1,000 here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyd3r62kp5o.amp

 

More here: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/10/24/artists-statement-opposing-artificial-intelligence-content-scraping

 

People against machines aren’t luddites looking to stop progress. AI (in its current forms) isn’t progress. It’s derivative rubbish.

 

[PainInTheBass]

Edit: on second thoughts, I'm not getting drawn any further into this. But just to say, I love all the Muppet style pictures so far. Very entertaining!

Edited 17 hours ago by PainInTheBass

[binky_bass]

9 hours ago, PainInTheBass said:

People need to calm down and read up on fair use. Also see the following advice from Gemini. I'm not a lawyer so take from this what you will. And if Disney issue a takedown notice, just comply.

 

Recommendations:

 * Make it Distinctive: To minimize risk, try to make your character and its style significantly different from existing Muppets. Avoid directly copying recognizable features.

 * Avoid Using the Term "Muppet": Don't explicitly call your creation a "Muppet" or use the Muppets trademark in your description.

 * Clearly State It's Fan-Created: If your image could be interpreted as being officially related to the Muppets, explicitly state that it is fan-created and not affiliated with Disney.

 * Be Prepared for a Takedown Request: Even if you believe your use is fair, Disney could still send a takedown request to the forum. You would then need to decide whether to comply or challenge it (which can have legal implications).

In conclusion, while the risk of legal action for a non-profit, original image on a small forum is likely low, technically it could still be considered copyright infringement if it draws too heavily on the established Muppet style. Creating a distinctly different character and avoiding the use of the "Muppet" trademark will help to minimize any potential issues.

It's not about legally wriggling out of it, it's about recognising what is right and wrong. Illegally using someone else's trademarked property is wrong, in fact it's theft. 

 

Think about the forward ramifications of accepting this now as 'just a bit of fun'... it will normalise that thought process and when AI expands to start impacting you personally, for instance you being made redundant and your job going to AI (or someone you know), then it will be your acceptance of this that paved the way for that. 

 

AI is devaluing humanity under the guise of it all being just a bit of fun. It's also hugely preventative in the growth of real art and skills like graphic design. I personally know at least 3 people that have had to take up second 'unskilled' jobs just to keep afloat due to the impact of this kind of AI on their industry.

 

Also, using an AI engine to justify the use of AI infringing on IP is, to say the least, ironic and I'd say very much confirms the above! 

Edited 11 hours ago by binky_bass

[tegs07]

10 hours ago, Beedster said:

Likewise Michael, it’s undermining quality and creativity in so many professions at present, not just the arts, we should be pushing back at every opportunity 👍

One of the biggest challenges is that heads of organisations get wind of whatever buzzwords are flavour of the month and start demanding IT departments introduce it into the company. They don’t really know anything about the technology or it’s variants nor what specific problems they are trying to solve but want AI or Cloud or feckkng RoboGubbinBiscuits and frequently bypass their internal IT teams seeing out “experts” (snake oil salesmen) to deliver the solution to the problem they haven’t yet identified.

 

Can you imagine this in any other industry? Hello BigBuild inc were all extremely excited about RoboBlocks and how it can help in our new office block. Here’s a fat blank check.

[Beedster]

7 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

Your focusing on the practical protection for doing this rather then the principle here.

 

Tech companies (billionaires) are using media and content that has been provided for free on the internet to train its models and effectively replace humans in the generation of creative endeavours. And charge us to do so.

 

It may not mean much to you, but for lots of people AI will be an existential threat. In my industry it already is.

 

This stuff is funny, but it normalises what is effectively theft. 
 

16,000 artists against it here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/21/we-need-to-come-together-british-artists-team-up-to-fight-ai-image-generating-software

 

1,000 here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyd3r62kp5o.amp

 

More here: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/10/24/artists-statement-opposing-artificial-intelligence-content-scraping

 

People against machines aren’t luddites looking to stop progress. AI (in its current forms) isn’t progress. It’s derivative rubbish.

 

 

21 minutes ago, binky_bass said:

It's not about legally wriggling out of it, it's about recognising what is right and wrong. Illegally using someone else's trademarked property is wrong, in fact it's theft. 

 

Think about the forward ramifications of accepting this now as 'just a bit of fun'... it will normalise that thought process and when AI expands to start impacting you personally, for instance you being made redundant and your job going to AI (or someone you know), then it will be your acceptance of this that paved the way for that. 

 

AI is devaluing humanity under the guise of it all being just a bit of fun. It's also hugely preventative in the growth of real art and skills like graphic design. I personally know at least 3 people that have had to take up second 'unskilled' jobs just to keep afloat due to the impact of this kind of AI on their industry.

 

Also, using an AI engine to justify the use of AI infringing on IP is, to say the least, ironic and I'd say very much confirms the above! 

 

These posts sum it up nicely, over the next few years AI is going to make many professionals, including musicians, redundant. It's also going to mean that many of us to have our work in the public domain see that work plagiarised, often inappropriately and out of context, by the machine. Members here will find a piece of their music, text, artwork, will suddenly appear, possibly widely, and they will have no control, comeback, or royalties (there might be someone somewhere pissed off about the muppets in this thread for that very reason). And over and above that the energy consumption is ridiculous, if you really want all those lovely green fields to become battery farms in the next few years, go ahead....

 

We should think a little more carefully before clicking a link these days  

[Beedster]

4 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

One of the biggest challenges is that heads of organisations get wind of whatever buzzwords are flavour of the month and start demanding IT departments introduce it into the company. They don’t really know anything about the technology or it’s variants nor what specific problems they are trying to solve but want AI or Cloud or feckkng RoboGubbinBiscuits and frequently bypass their internal IT teams seeing out “experts” (snake oil salesmen) to deliver the solution to the problem they haven’t yet identified.

 

Very true, in part because it has been aggressively marketed to those business leaders by Big Tech

[tegs07]

12 minutes ago, Beedster said:

 

Very true, in part because it has been aggressively marketed to those business leaders by Big Tech

Agreed. This and the inevitable media hype and associated stock market frenzy. One of my biggest concerns about AI other than the potential job losses is entering the a Kafkaesque world of utter babble. Phone based support has declined after covid for a lot of organisations and replaced by email. This is for sales, IT support, customer service etc. Email responses from a human are slow and inefficient compared with a phone call but when the response comes via AI we’re going to end up in a world of pain. There are limitations with a lot of the current AI systems already even if they are implemented correctly. When they are simply shoehorned in as a knee jerk reaction the end user experience will be horrible. Technology should be able to do some of the heavy lifting to make organisations more efficient. What it shouldn’t do is cut down a workforce at the expense of the customer experience. Technology is literally driving the population mad. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Edited 10 hours ago by tegs07

[Beedster]

17 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

Agreed. This and the inevitable media hype and associated stock market frenzy. One of my biggest concerns about AI other than the potential job losses is entering the a Kafkaesque world of utter babble. Phone based support has declined after covid for a lot of organisations and replaced by email. This is for sales, IT support, customer service etc. Email responses from a human are slow and inefficient compared with a phone call but when the response comes via AI we’re going to end up in a world of pain. There are limitations with a lot of the current AI systems already even if they are implemented correctly. When they are simply shoehorned in as a knee jerk reaction the end user experience will be horrible. Technology should be able to do some of the heavy lifting to make organisations more efficient. What it shouldn’t do is cut down a workforce at the expense of the customer experience. Technology is literally driving the population mad. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

 

In my field it's the subtle errors AI makes that are concerning, because some of them are hard to spot for anyone but an expert. And those subtle errors will of course be amplified the more the machine uses the information in question. 

 

Businesses think they can do things cheaper by using AI, which they can, but in doing so they risk doing things less well. This might not matter in for example advertising or similar text/image generation, but can be critical in law, engineering, medicine and science, where it's increasingly being used.