Comment on Tesla, Warner Bros sued for using AI ripoff of iconic Blade Runner imagery, despite the producers having previously rejected any association between their iconic sci-fi movie and Musk or his companies

QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

  source

  • Klear@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I’m terrified how fear of AI is suddenly making tighter copyright laws more popular.

    source
  • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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… 🤔

    source

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source

      • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 you got 17 upvotes is beyond me.

    source

    • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

  source

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Username checks out

    source

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I mean, yeah it might have been, not because that makes it okay but because of a lack of attention on the subject. Then again he also might have gotten sued after the fact like Trump with his campaign trail music he keeps using without permission.

        However, Elon did ask first, and was met with the response of “no, we absolutely do not want our product associated with you or your business in any fashion.” So he then carried on to create a barely legally distinct derivative which easily calls to mind the iconic scene in question, and then name drop Blade Runner in the accompanying speech.

        Imagine for a moment, you write Bill Gates and ask him if you can use his likeness for advertisement. He tells you no, absolutely not, go kick rocks. So instead you have your local AI whip you up a character - Bull Gotes, a thin, white haired, elderly, bespectacled Caucasian man who made a lot of money on his computers, which he calls Macrosoft. This might be permissible as parody, but I don’t think you’re going to win a court case if you use it in business advertising and Bill decides he has something to say about it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments