291
I really like there is now a legal definition Alcon has put together that any association of Musk with a brand is a risk to the brand.
This is the only way responsible corporate governance should be treating and referring to Musk, and yet so many corporations keeps an ongoing presence on X regardless of the fascist trash that is it's mouthpiece
If there were any doubts that this image was supposed to reference the Blade Runner movie, the lawsuit said, Musk "erased them" by directly referencing the movie in his comments.
"You know, I love Blade Runner, but I don’t know if we want that future," Musk said at the event. "I believe we want that duster he’s wearing, but not the, uh, not the bleak apocalypse.”
...
But producers argued that defense is "not credible" since Tesla explicitly asked to use the Blade Runner 2049 image, and there are "better" films in WBD's library to promote Musk's message, like the Mad Max movies.
Damn they clapped him hard on that last one
Make your own dystopia, Elon. Stop copying people.
He can't. He's not actually a visionary. But he has enough fanbois that he's shielded from that reality.
Reminds me of Miles Bron.
He literally is making his own dystopia. It's one where shitty dumb billionaires destroy centuries of successful democracy with good old fashion uncreative corpuption. We all get to live in it. Well except maybe immigrants, they'll be shipped out somewhere else.
According to the complaint,
Elon Musk's image:
Infringes on the copyright of this image from Blade Runner 2049:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
I'm terrified how fear of AI is suddenly making tighter copyright laws more popular.
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... 🤔
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.
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.
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.
No worries. Thanks for your input. 🍻
There's literally not as single common thing these images share. Afaik noone has monopoly on orange filter
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.
the fact that Musk referenced Blade Runner at least twice in his presentation.
While specifically refering to the image
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.
I doubt this will go anywhere, but I wish them luck. Go get that nonce.
They have an obligation to at least attempt to defend their copyright or risk losing it through inaction.
This is a bit different, in that it's not a trademark claim, but rather a copyright claim. They're saying that the still isn't meaningfully trying to be anything other than a Blade Runner still, and Musk's use is not protected by any sort of Fair Use. There would likely be a statue of limitations or something for the specific cause of action, but you can't lose copyright the same way you can a trademark.
Ah, gotcha. I was mistaken.
Rich entitlement. It’s not enough to be comfortable and have the capacity to play for the rest of your life, you have to bulldoze through others because you feel entitled to their stuff too.
Musk sucks but this lawsuit is bullshit, "no you can't have a picture of a guy in a trenchcoat with a sandstorm in the distance, we completely own that idea."
Rich people can pay their way out of crime in the ~~America~~ American "justice" system, so this won't do anything to Elon Schmuck.
You realize that this is a civil lawsuit right?
The only punitive action that can be taken, is monetary damages.
Unless you think that private entities, such as Alcon, should be allowed to privately prosecute criminal cases, with criminal penalties such as jail time...?
Nah, we don't need that, we have enough bullshit as is. Lol.
They would not be the owners otherwise. This is PoliSci 101 really but we got so many more to get to this point.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
291 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58818 readers
4987 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS