Why do Republicans have so little respect for intellectual property rights? They certainly hold dear their physical property and monetary rights.

They consistently use songs without permission. They appropriate imagery and words without acknowledgment. Trump even created a fake AI poster of Taylor Swift endorsing him, (that backfired when Ms. Swift turned around and endorsed VP Harris!).

Music and art ain't free!

Their credos: "It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission".

More like "That was mine anyway so the hell with you"

SMDH at all the people who are talking about copyright here. There is no copyright to a general look and feel of a photo, painting, film, etc. This is literally what both artists were hired to do by endless corporate clients, as well as what AI was created to do - create images evocative of another famous image without dealing with copyright issues.

Much as I hate AI and the MuskRat, this was a perfectly legit move. Alcon does not own the right to anything under the sun that simply “looks like” its movie. It owns its movie, and its digital and material artwork, not the general idea for anything with similar lighting, color scheme, etc.

Interestingly, the linked article doesn’t show the 2 images. Here is a link that does:
https://petapixel.com/2024/10/22/elon-musk-and-tesla-sued-for-using-ai-generated-blade-runner-2049-images-at-robotaxi-event-cybercab-alcon/

You can clearly see the Tesla image is not the movie. Same general lighting scheme? Yes. Same general kind of reddish dirt on the ground? Yes. The AI’s is more dramatic - looks really good. Same concept of a cityscape rising on the horizon? Yes, with a totally different set of computer generated buildings, and none of the other constructions seen in the movie. The back of a lone male figure in both? Yes, dressed differently, with the AI version being obviously cartoonish. It’s not the same image. There is a huge difference between copyright infringement and “inspired by.”

Should Alcon feel pretty salty about it? Sure. They don’t want MuskRat and Tesla associated with their movie in any way. But suing because they don’t want anyone (especially MuskRat) using their idea for a cool looking piece of art with a certain color scheme? Nah. They might have more of an argument about BRAND confusion if the image was similar to their logo or a piece of film added to the beginning all their distributed movies like the MGM lion or the 20th Century Fox searchlight clips, which would be their branding.

This is not the first time such controversies have erupted. Sci-fi and fantasy book covers have been playing these games for decades. Back in the 1980s or 1990s if you couldn’t afford Michael Whelan to paint you a dragon-themed book cover with glowing golden light? No problem! Hire a kid out of art college, throw them the Whelan image you love, and tell them to make it just like that, but with these few little changes, then pay the kid peanuts as they desperately fight their way into a career doing book covers. Currently, you see it a lot with games, like Magic card images, or band t-shirts (especially heavy metal). The industry doesn’t try to fight it out with copyright infringement suits, by the way. The practices became so rampant that it’s covered in contracts, and publishers often try to do the right thing to avoid stupid conflicts, like when Wizards Of The Coast was confronted with one of its contracted artists copying bits and pieces, or even large portions, of multiple other artists’ work. It wasn’t a copyright issue, but the artist was suspended from doing further work for the company.