A$AP Rocky’s “Shroom Clouds” video is now at the center of a credit and authorship dispute that has produced two distinct responses: an acknowledgement of an attribution failure involving AI-generated assets, and the public release of a director’s cut that its makers say represents the version originally delivered to the client.
Gallardo, identified as creative director at AWGE, said a failure in the team’s process for reviewing AI assets resulted in the use of work associated with artist Cache Bunny without attribution. He accepted responsibility as the project’s creative lead and said he had contacted Cache Bunny to begin a conversation about resolving the matter, including proper credit and a potential collaboration.
The issue is not simply whether an image resembles an earlier work. It also concerns which version of a high-profile video reflects the work of its originally credited creative team, where later AI-assisted changes entered the process, and what responsibility a production has when material connected to another artist makes its way into a finished release.
What Cache Bunny says was used
The contested imagery traces back to a 2019 piece made by Cache Bunny and Ari Fararooy featuring parkour athlete Jason Paul. Paul was filmed on a football field using a 360-degree camera. Cache Bunny then applied visual effects to transform that field environment into a tunnel-like setting.
Cache Bunny alleged that Rocky’s production used this work without permission, replacing Paul with the rapper through AI. The artist highlighted matching grass and shadows between the earlier piece and the sequence in question. Cache Bunny also raised a straightforward practical question: why was the existing clip not licensed, or why was a new version based on the concept not created instead?
Paul has questioned how his footage could have reached the finished video, while making clear that he does not personally blame Rocky. That distinction matters. The available account describes a dispute involving a larger production chain, rather than assigning every creative or approval decision to the performer.
Gallardo’s acknowledgement focuses on review
Gallardo’s statement frames the problem as a breakdown in the review of AI-generated material. He said protecting creators, respecting their work and preserving the integrity of AWGE were responsibilities of his creative-director role. He also said that, as creative lead, he must be accountable when that process fails.
Gallardo said the team was open to discussing appropriate attribution and a possible collaboration with Cache Bunny.
That is an important, but limited, response. It acknowledges that work associated with Cache Bunny appeared without credit and says direct contact has been made. It does not, on the information available, establish a final agreement, state that a license has been secured, or set out the eventual remedy. Those are separate matters that remain unresolved publicly.
AI-generated assets is a broad production term. In this case, it refers to imagery or alterations made with AI tools that were used in the video workflow. The allegation is especially sensitive because AI is described as having been used to replace the athlete in pre-existing footage with Rocky. Whatever tools are used to alter an image, their use does not erase questions around permission, credit, provenance, or whose underlying visual work was incorporated.
ProdCo and Seitov say the contested material was not in their delivered cut
Director Aisultan Seitov and production company ProdCo have addressed a connected, yet distinct, aspect of the situation: the difference between the widely released video and the work they say they completed.
ProdCo said its original version was finished and delivered in January 2024. It said that edit did not include the later AI shots, AI processing, or the imagery at the heart of Cache Bunny’s complaint. The company further said subsequent editing and AI alterations took place without its knowledge or Seitov’s consent. It also objected to how its production role was credited.
On October 27, Seitov and ProdCo released a director’s cut. ProdCo characterized that release as the original Rocky-Seitov collaboration and said it marked the end of its participation in the project.
A director’s cut generally denotes a version presented as a filmmaker’s preferred or original edit. Here, its relevance is unusually concrete: ProdCo says the new release shows the pre-alteration production it delivered, rather than merely offering alternate pacing or bonus scenes. The director’s cut is therefore part of the dispute’s record of competing project versions, not simply an extra for fans.
Credits and creative provenance
The credits listed on the director’s cut identify Rocky and Seitov as directors. Production is credited to ProdCo and North of Now Films, while Mathematic and Silent Studios receive effects credits.
Those credits outline the set of contributors attached to the version ProdCo says it made. They do not by themselves resolve Cache Bunny’s complaint about the later material. But they help clarify why credit has become a major issue on two fronts: attribution for Cache Bunny’s underlying work, and recognition of the production team’s role in the original cut.
Creative provenance means the traceable history of how a work or particular asset was made, changed, approved and delivered. In a conventional shoot, that path might include raw footage, visual-effects work, edit versions and final approvals. AI-assisted revisions can make the chain more complicated when assets are processed, repurposed or combined after an original cut has left a production company.
ProdCo’s statement effectively draws a line between its delivered project and the later release. Gallardo’s statement, meanwhile, places the attribution failure within an AI-asset review process. Taken together, those statements indicate that the problematic imagery is alleged to have entered after ProdCo had completed its version—not as part of the cut it says it initially supplied.
Why this matters beyond one video
Music videos regularly combine performance footage, post-production, visual effects and work from multiple companies. AI can add another layer, particularly when a team uses it to modify people, environments or footage that did not originate with the final production. The core issue is not that AI exists in an edit; it is whether the people responsible for approving assets can identify their origins and confirm that the production has permission to use them.
For creative teams, a workable review process has practical checkpoints: retain documentation showing where an asset came from; identify any third-party source footage; confirm permissions before compositing or transforming it; ensure final credits match the contributions that remain in the release; and notify the appropriate creators when a significant post-delivery change affects their work. These are process implications, not claims about steps AWGE, ProdCo, or any other participant did or did not take beyond the statements already made.
The public disagreement also illustrates why credit cannot be treated as an afterthought. Attribution recognizes authorship, but it is not automatically the same as permission. A credit may address acknowledgement, while a license concerns authorization to use a work. Cache Bunny’s questions encompass both: the lack of recognition and the allegation that the material was used without permission.
There is a broader creative-industry concern in the background as well. AI alterations can make it more difficult for viewers to see where an image began and who built the visual foundation beneath a final scene. Matching environmental details, such as the grass and shadows identified by Cache Bunny, can become relevant clues when artists seek to establish a connection between an older work and a new release.
For further context on why AI’s role in creative work is increasingly debated across entertainment and technology, see this look at concerns over AI and the creative experience lost through studio closures.
What remains open
Gallardo has said he reached out to Cache Bunny and is willing to discuss appropriate credit and a possible collaboration. That signals an effort to address the dispute, but no completed resolution is described in the available information.
Likewise, ProdCo and Seitov have made their own position visible through the director’s cut and their account of the production timeline. Their release makes clear that they do not regard the disputed AI-related material as part of the version they completed and turned in.
The result is a case with overlapping but separate questions: whether work connected to Cache Bunny was used without authorization or credit; what terms, if any, might settle that issue; and how the release history of “Shroom Clouds” should account for the original production team’s delivered cut. The statements so far establish responsibility being accepted for a review failure and a director’s cut being offered as a record of the earlier collaboration. They do not settle every claim surrounding the finished video.
