Key Alleged Facts:

• • The AI-generated “Presentation Slide 2” image depicts a man in a distinctive duster coat surveying an orange-hued post-apocalyptic cityscape, evoking BR2049’s iconic “K explores ruined Las Vegas” scene.
  • Musk displayed the image while saying he loves Blade Runner but that future “is not the bleak apocalypse” he wants, though he likes the “duster” the character wears.
  • The infringing image appeared for 11 seconds of a presentation pitching Tesla’s AI-powered autonomous “Robotaxi,” which Alcon claims was a bid to affiliate the product with BR2049’s famous brand associations around AI and autonomous vehicles.
  • Before the event, Alcon expressly denied Tesla/Musk permission to reference BR2049 and objected to any affiliation between the film and Musk’s companies or products.

Potential Impact:

• • As a seminal sci-fi film with famous branding around artificial intelligence and autonomous cars, Alcon claims unauthorized affiliations with BR2049 carry huge financial stakes, with past legitimate auto brand partnerships commanding 8-figure fees.
  • Alcon alleges the infringement muddies the waters for its ongoing talks with auto brands about partnerships on its in-production BR2049 TV series sequel “Blade Runner 2099.”
  • Widespread re-shares of the livestream perpetuate the allegedly false BR2049-Tesla association, which Alcon says is extra fraught given controversies around Musk that clash with its desire not to affiliate with him.

Why It Matters:

• • This case sits at the cutting edge of applying copyright law to AI-generated content and the alleged misappropriation of entertainment IP for commercial exploitation.
  • It highlights the immense value, stakes and sensitivities around unauthorized associations between famous entertainment brands and polarizing public figures/companies.
  • Navigating IP rights clearances and control in an age of easy AI reproduction of distinctive copyrighted content is an increasingly critical challenge.
  • Brands must consider not just the letter of licensing agreements but the optics and impact of affiliations in today’s hyper-charged media environment.

Direct Infringement Elements:

• • Ownership of a valid copyright – Alcon has a registered copyright in BR2049
  • Violation of an exclusive right – Alcon claims unauthorized reproduction, creation of derivative works, distribution and public display of BR2049 content
  • Actual copying – Alleges the “Presentation Slide 2” AI image copied and derived from iconic stills at the dramatic core of BR2049
  • Substantial similarity – Argues the AI image captures distinctive visual elements and overall feel of key BR2049 scenes

Likely Key Battlegrounds:

• • Are the specific BR2049 images allegedly copied protectible expression or unprotectible ideas/scenes-a-faire?
  • Is the AI-generated image substantially similar to BR2049 stills or merely inspired by general cinematic cyberpunk aesthetics?
  • Was any copying legally fair use – and can fair use apply to commercial exploitation to sell products?
  • Did Musk’s comments create an unauthorized derivative work by fashioning a new “Blade Runner” story?
  • How to apportion liability among Musk, Tesla and WBDI – who did what and who had control to stop it?

Potential Defenses:

• • Argue the AI image doesn’t actually copy protectible original expression from BR2049, just generic sci-fi/cyberpunk tropes or ideas
  • Contend the image is inspired by BR2049 but not substantially similar – a remix rather than a reproduction
  • Assert commentary/parody fair use as a transformative meta reference (may be undercut by commercial exploitation)
  • Challenge Alcon’s copyright ownership/control or ability to show actual damages from the alleged infringement

False Endorsement Elements:

• • Use of a distinctive mark (BR2049 title, branding, iconic imagery)
  • Without consent (Alcon expressly denied permission)
  • In commerce (Tesla/Musk used marks in commercial robotaxi product reveal)
  • Likely to cause consumer confusion re: affiliation, sponsorship or approval (implies BR2049/Alcon involvement with Musk/Tesla)

Key Considerations:

• • How strong/distinctive are BR2049’s marks and brand identity?
  • How closely does the AI image evoke BR2049 vs. just a generic sci-fi aesthetic?
  • Did Musk’s verbal invocation of “Blade Runner” amplify an implied endorsement?
  • How plausible is consumer confusion about Alcon authorizing this Tesla tie-in?
  • What’s the magnitude of harm to Alcon from an involuntary Musk/Tesla association?

Possible Pushback:

• • Dispute strength/distinctiveness of BR2049 marks for specific vehicles vs. just a film
  • Contend BR2049 elements used (duster, apocalyptic city) lack secondary meaning
  • Argue no explicit false claims of affiliation made, just inspiration invoked
  • Challenge likelihood of confusion – would consumers really think BR2049 approved this?
  • Question reputational harm – might association increase BR2049’s pop culture clout?

Potential WBDI Culpability:

• • Did WBDI breach contractual obligations or good faith duties to Alcon through its actions or inaction?
  • Should WBDI have escalated Tesla’s request to use BR2049 IP to Alcon in a clearer, more timely manner?
  • Did WBDI violate past clearance practices and undermine Alcon’s rights by unilaterally allowing the use?
  • Does WBDI share liability for any infringement as the stage/platform for Musk’s infringing presentation?

Conspirator or Caught in the Middle?

• • Did WBDI actively enable the infringement or get unfairly stuck between a rock (Musk) and a hard place (Alcon)?
  • Was WBDI obligated to “pick sides” or cancel a contracted event at the 11th hour based on IP disputes between third parties?
  • Did WBDI’s conduct rise to the level of a civil conspiracy with Musk/Tesla to violate Alcon’s rights?
  • Can WBDI credibly claim it lacked control over content at a third party’s event on its premises?

What to Watch:

• • Will the event contract between WBDI and Tesla surface in discovery and what will it reveal about content control/permissions?
  • How will evidence of escalating internal warnings at WBDI about potential infringement impact assessments of their culpability?
  • Will Alcon pursue separate contract or tort claims against WBDI for its role beyond the IP causes of action?
  • Could WBDI seek indemnification from Tesla/Musk to shift liability for any fall-out from Alcon’s claims?

Ripple Effects:

• • Will this case drive changes in how entertainment brands protect their IP as AI enables easy reproduction of distinctive characters/elements in new contexts?
  • Does it portend more aggressive policing by image/character rights holders of even borderline unauthorized uses in areas like AI training data?
  • Will studios and tech giants agree on ground rules for mining each others’ IP in AI-driven products and experiences?
  • How will the reputational stakes around brand associations with polarizing figures like Musk impact corporate collaborations and risk assessments?

Looking Ahead:

• • Expect studios to demand tighter AI data audits and restrictions in licensing deals
  • Creatives may seek new contractual protections around AI exploitation of their work and likenesses
  • Some studios may mine their own vault IP to build exclusive AI assets vs. competitors
  • Rising focus on digital image provenance/authentication to clarify authorized vs. infringing AI use
  • Reputation risk calculus may deter some brands from tie-ins with polarizing partners regardless of strict legality

What are the key claims in Alcon’s lawsuit?

• • Copyright infringement: Unauthorized reproduction and derivative work based on distinctive BR2049 imagery
  • Lanham Act false endorsement: Falsely implying BR2049/Alcon affiliation with Musk/Tesla without permission
  • Vicarious/contributory infringement: Musk, Tesla and WBDI had control over infringing content and still enabled it
  • Willful/bad faith infringement: Musk/Tesla exploited BR2049 IP after Alcon expressly denied permission

What are the key defenses Musk/Tesla may raise?

• • The AI image doesn’t copy protectible BR2049 IP, just generic sci-fi aesthetics
  • No substantial similarity to BR2049, just a transformative “remix” evoking the vibe
  • Musk’s comments were artistic commentary/parody, not an ad or endorsement
  • No plausible confusion that Alcon approved or was involved with the Tesla event
  • Alcon can’t show actual harm to its BR2049 brand from the brief, one-time image use

Why does this case matter beyond the parties involved?

• • Tests limits of IP law in adapting to AI’s new capabilities to reproduce and remix distinctive creative elements
  • Illustrates culture clash between Hollywood studios and Silicon Valley over leveraging each other’s IP in new tech
  • Highlights growing battle for control over pop culture touchstones and storytelling in evolving media landscape
  • Reveals perils of involuntary associations between brand IP and polarizing figures in today’s charged climate
  • Could impact future Hollywood-Silicon Valley deals, talent contracts, and reputation risk management practices