1 hour ago, studiot said:

But did the makers pay anyone for the use of the older material ?

I’m fairly certain Fred isn’t in a position to spend anything. Or was in a position to consent to the use of his likeness, or to decide to endorse the product.

This is a fairly standard case of IP licensing wherein the family, an estate, or an entertainment firm of some sort is recognized as having the rights to the likenesses, images, voice, etc. (whether they purchased or inherited or argued for their ownership in court, they become the person who must approve use and who gets paid later when that happens). 

“AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

U.S. copyright law, [the judge] underscored, “protects only works of human creation”

(Implications will probably be wider than Hollywood, of course)

1 hour ago, swansont said:

“AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

U.S. copyright law, [the judge] underscored, “protects only works of human creation”

(Implications will probably be wider than Hollywood, of course)

I'm still wondering what mixed human-AI creations qualify as or how would prove AI contribution.

The one tool previously offered by OpenAI has been removed due to false positives.