Elon Musk may have personally used AI to rip off a Blade Runner 2049 image for a Tesla cybercab event after producers rejected any association between their iconic sci-fi movie and Musk or any of his companies.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, lawyers for Alcon Entertainment—exclusive rightsholder of the 2017 Blade Runner 2049 movie—accused Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) of conspiring with Musk and Tesla to steal the image and infringe Alcon’s copyright to benefit financially off the brand association.

Alcon said it would never allow Tesla to exploit its Blade Runner film, so “although the information given was sparse, Alcon learned enough information for Alcon’s co-CEOs to consider the proposal and firmly reject it, which they did.” Specifically, Alcon denied any affiliation—express or implied—between Tesla’s cybercab and Blade Runner 2049.

“Musk has become an increasingly vocal, overtly political, highly polarizing figure globally, and especially in Hollywood,” Alcon’s complaint said. If Hollywood perceived an affiliation with Musk and Tesla, the complaint said, the company risked alienating not just other car brands currently weighing partnerships on the Blade Runner 2099 TV series Alcon has in the works, but also potentially losing access to top Hollywood talent for their films.

The “Hollywood talent pool market generally is less likely to deal with Alcon, or parts of the market may be, if they believe or are confused as to whether, Alcon has an affiliation with Tesla or Musk,” the complaint said.

Musk, the lawsuit said, is “problematic,” and “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”

If Tesla and WBD are found to have violated copyright and false representation laws, that potentially puts both companies on the hook for damages that cover not just copyright fines but also Alcon’s lost profits and reputation damage after the alleged “massive economic theft.”

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, no. This is like suing someone because their picture of the sunset looks similar to yours. Obviously, the image is supposed to resemble that movie - I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that - but I don’t see any copyright infringement here.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Username checks out, you are right, except if you first ask the sunset for their picture and they refuse to give it to you you come up with an eerily similar one, even with the person in the foreground wearing the same clothes

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          So it would have been fine if they hadn’t asked? I don’t get your point. Like I said: I don’t think anyone denies that it’s supposed to look like it was from the movie. It’s not though. It’s similar but is not the same. I don’t see what the copyright infingement here is supposed to be. I don’t think you can own the idea of a man in a trenchcoat overlooking a city with orange filter on it.

    • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The producers think the image was likely generated—“even possibly by Musk himself”—by “asking an AI image generation engine to make ‘an image from the K surveying ruined Las Vegas sequence of Blade Runner 2049,’ or some closely equivalent input direction,” the lawsuit said.

      In my opinion, I hope that this lawsuit fails. I know that the movie industry already follows similar practices to what Musk has done. If a studio goes to a certain musician and the price is too high to include their music in the show, they’ll go to a different artist and ask them to create a song that sounds like the song that they originally wanted.

      If this lawsuit succeeds it’s going to open the door for them to sue anyone that makes art that’s remotely close to their copyrighted work. All they will need to do is claim that it “might have been created by AI with a prompt specifying our work” without actually having to have any proof beforehand.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        I don’t get your comment, first it’s an argument that says, others are doing fucked up wrong things, therefore Elon is justified doing it too.

        In the second paragraph you fear monger that anyone who creates anything remotely similar will be sued with no proof , but this case literally spells out that Elon first asked for the image, then used one similar anyway when denied, then mentioned the source in question twice in his speech.

        It’s literally nothing like the thing you fearmonger about, how your comment got 17 upvotes is beyond me.

        • lone_faerie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I think what they’re trying to say is that if asking AI to make something in the style of Blade Runner is copyright infringement, that opens the door to asking an artist to make something in the style of Blade Runner being copyright infringement. I don’t know how I personally feel about that, but it’s at least how I interpreted the comment.

          • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 minutes ago

            @kameecoding@lemmy.world exactly this.

            In the U.S. we have what’s known as a legal" precedent". If a court case makes a decision on something, it massively increases the chances that other courts will use that same decision in similar future cases.

      • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, don’t know what to think. Is this closer to copying a melody from a certain ballad or using the same chords that no-one owns and have been reused through decades to write a ballad… 🤔

        • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          It’s one thing to just do a similar melody by accident, and entirely another to ask the artist if you could use the melody, get explicitly denied, then go on and use that melody anyway, changing a single less relevant note in there.

          I think everyone gets this distinction innately, we just get caught up in the copyright law aspect of this, which I’m not claiming isn’t relevant. It’s just Musk being a clear scumbag, whichever way you lean on the lawfulness side of it.

          Edit: What I mean to say is, it’s fairly clearly morally corrupted and wrong, but it’s not so immediately clear to accept as such in this reality, where declaring so might have consequences beyond this instance.

          • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 hours ago

            If it wasn’t clear from my comment, I’m not defending Musk. Don’t care much about him.

            I just don’t envy the judge that has to consider this. I’m a musician, and find it complicated to judge such issues in the musical landscape.

            • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Was replying more in the general, not specifically to you, but yeah. I’m a musician too myself, and have a wide range of other creatives in my inner circle, and this whole copyright topic is extremely hard. But I think we mostly can ignore that aspect when we consider the moral side as-is. A lot less complicated that way. Again, more in the general sense for all the comments in this post, sorry to drop it all here.

    • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      16 hours ago

      There’s literally not as single common thing these images share. Afaik noone has monopoly on orange filter

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        15 hours ago

        One could argue it’s an uncreative derivative work not subject to a fair use exemption, and actively used in commerce to make money for Musk, while simultaneously it damages the Blade Runner brand if, as claimed, other car companies assume Tesla and BR have a relationship, or the BR brand is inextricably linked to Tesla and Musk. The fact that Tesla and WBD hurriedly sought a copyright clearance, once Tesla realized WBD didn’t have all the necessary rights, doesn’t speak well for Tesla’s position, nor does the fact that Musk referenced Blade Runner at least twice in his presentation.

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          13 hours ago

          the fact that Musk referenced Blade Runner at least twice in his presentation.

          While specifically refering to the image

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Yeah, I don’t think this goes to trial and rewrites the lawbooks or anything, but there’s enough here to litigate, and I reckon Tesla will settle to avoid going to discovery.