Legal representatives of a prominent figure in the tech industry are preparing to file a motion aimed at dismissing allegations that he utilized AI-generated visuals inspired by a classic sci-fi film during a promotional event for his electric vehicle company.
In documentation submitted to a federal court in California, the attorney team representing this individual, along with the vehicle company, signaled their intention to seek the dismissal of all charges with prejudice, meaning the case would be permanently closed and not subject to re-filing.
The plaintiff in question, a well-known film production company, has indicated it will contest this motion, as noted in the legal filing.
The lawsuit was initiated in October when the production company, which is behind a recent sequel to a notable science fiction film, brought legal action against both the tech executive and his company, alongside a major entertainment studio. They assert that there was a deliberate infringement of their intellectual property rights.
According to the claims made by the production company, there were discussions about potentially using visual content from their films to market new concept vehicles just hours before the planned presentation at a studio lot. When the studio declined to provide licensing rights, the suit alleges that the vehicle company, under the direction of the tech figure, turned to using AI technology to replicate the visual content without permission. Although the specific AI model used is not mentioned in the court documents, the implications are significant.
During the unveiling of the vehicles, the executive reportedly presented the disputed visuals while referencing the film, which sparked additional controversy.
The production company asserts that it was not privy to any agreements between the vehicle entity and the entertainment studio that should have been in place before the event took place. Their legal action seeks a restraining order to prevent the continued distribution of the contested promotional materials. Alongside this, they are pursuing unspecified monetary damages—highlighting that under copyright law, penalties can soar up to $150,000 for each infringement detected. Furthermore, they provided a broader assessment that indicates potential financial damages could significantly exceed those figures:
“Considering previous affiliation agreements with auto industry collaborators for the referenced film, it’s conceivable that the vehicle company would have incurred substantial costs—at least in the low six-figure range, potentially reaching into the tens of millions—to secure a legitimate partnership to utilize the film’s branding. This was additionally compounded by the fact that the copyright violations seemingly enabled significant cost savings for the company,” states the initial complaint submitted by the plaintiff’s legal team.
