Parkour athlete Jason Paul has offered a notably restrained response to allegations that a sequence in A$AP Rocky’s “Shroom Clouds” music video reused and altered an earlier visual project without permission. Paul says he is considering what to do next, but has made a point of separating the dispute from Rocky himself.
“I’m not mad at ASAP Rocky. I love the dude’s music,” Paul said.
The issue centers on footage made in 2019 by Paul with visual artists Cache Bunny and Ari Fararooy. That earlier work featured Paul moving through a landscape that transforms into a tunnel. Cache Bunny has alleged that a short portion of “Shroom Clouds” retains that setting while using artificial intelligence to replace Paul with Rocky.
That is an allegation, rather than an established finding about how the music-video sequence was made. No identified party in the available information has confirmed who created the disputed shot, whether original material was licensed, or whether AI was used in the particular manner Cache Bunny described. The distinction matters: visual similarity, an AI credit elsewhere in a production, and proof of unauthorized reuse are not automatically the same thing.
What the dispute is actually about
The central complaint is not simply that two videos share a broad surreal or tunnel-like idea. Cache Bunny’s concern is that an existing work may have supplied the underlying visual environment and movement, with Paul’s likeness then replaced by Rocky through AI-assisted editing.
In plain terms, the accusation involves two possible layers of creative work. First is the original footage and its visual composition: the location or constructed setting, camera movement, edit, and transformation effect. Second is Paul’s performance within it. If the allegation is accurate, replacing a performer’s image would not necessarily erase questions about the source footage or the people who made it.
Paul did not direct public blame at Rocky, nor did he assume a label-level decision was responsible. He said staff could not reasonably be expected to know every clip circulating on Instagram. That response narrows his public focus toward understanding what happened rather than assigning guilt based solely on the finished video’s star billing.
Cache Bunny, meanwhile, questioned why the team had not sought permission to license the earlier work or made a new version of the concept independently. She also said she was unsure how to proceed, underscoring that the public discussion has not yet produced a clear resolution.
Why AI credits do not settle authorship
The “Shroom Clouds” production credits include AI artists Spike and Red, as well as Ces. Those credits show that AI-related work was part of the video’s wider production, but they do not identify the person or team responsible for the disputed segment. They also do not establish that the scene used Paul’s and Cache Bunny’s earlier material.
This is an important practical distinction when reading credits on ambitious music videos. “AI artist” can describe many different contributions, from image generation and compositing to post-production experiments or an isolated effect. Compositing generally means combining visual elements into a final shot. Generative AI, by contrast, is commonly used to create or transform imagery from a model’s output. Both can be involved in one video, and neither term alone explains a specific shot’s full production path.
Rocky shares directing credit on the video with Aisultan Seitov and Pietro Biz Biasia. That too does not, on its own, answer the narrower authorship question. Directing credits can reflect leadership of a complete work, while individual scenes may involve separate crews, vendors, artists, editors, or specialists. Establishing responsibility for a contested image would require more specific information than the public credits currently provide.
Paul said he contacted one “Shroom Clouds” director, who told him the video had been shot five years earlier and was “out of my hands.” The director was not named. That account adds another unresolved detail rather than a definitive explanation: the reported production timeline may help frame the question, but it does not determine whether the older parkour project was used, how a contested sequence was assembled, or who approved it.
A modern credit problem with an old creative concern
The dispute sits at the meeting point of a familiar creative concern and a newer technical anxiety. Artists have long asked for credit, consent, and compensation when their photographs, choreography, films, illustrations, or music are incorporated into another work. AI tools complicate that conversation because a finished image can appear to preserve elements of an earlier creation while changing a face, costume, texture, or setting.
For collaborators, the practical concern is provenance: the documented history of where an image, clip, model, or other production asset came from and what permissions traveled with it. A clear provenance record can identify the original creators, the person or company that supplied an asset, the relevant agreement, and the extent of permitted use. The available details do not reveal whether such records exist for the scene at issue.
That gap is why it would be premature to treat the online allegation as a final account of the video’s production. It is equally why the complaint cannot be waved away solely because AI artists were credited or because the purportedly affected performer does not want to accuse Rocky personally. Those are pieces of context, not a complete chain of evidence.
Paul’s tone is especially notable because it resists the common urge to turn an authorship dispute into an immediate feud between a celebrity and a creator. He has voiced admiration for Rocky’s music while keeping open the possibility of pursuing options. That approach leaves room for clarification, a licensing discussion, a correction, or another response without presuming which outcome is warranted.
“Shroom Clouds” and Rocky’s visual language
“Shroom Clouds” features reggie and Jeremih, with Sleeping Bear and Hector Delgado credited for production. The track had been performed years before its release and had previously circulated under the title “Mushroom Clouds.”
The video places the disputed sequence inside a larger set of references connected to Rocky’s own career. It includes a mural of A$AP Yams and a callback to “Purple Swag.” Those details help explain why the visual is being discussed as a carefully authored music-video object rather than a simple song upload: the project mixes personal, collective, and career-facing imagery.
Visual work has also been a substantial part of Rocky’s broader creative profile. In June, he received Tribeca X’s first Filmmaker of the Year Award, recognizing work across music, fashion, film, and brand storytelling. In accepting the honor, he described music videos as a medium through which he can express his past and experiences.
That context does not answer Cache Bunny’s allegation. It does, however, make the need for precise attribution more important. Music videos often bring together performers, directors, visual artists, production companies, editors, stylists, and technical specialists. A credit list can acknowledge a large group while still leaving audiences unable to see which person made a specific creative decision.
What remains unknown
Several key points have not been established in the information available. It is not known whether the creators of the 2019 footage granted any permission, whether the production accessed the original footage, whether the look was independently recreated, or whether AI was used to alter an existing clip as alleged. It is also not known whether anyone involved will issue a fuller response.
For now, the most grounded reading is a limited one: Cache Bunny has alleged unauthorized use of a prior project; Jason Paul is considering his options; and Paul has explicitly declined to place personal blame on A$AP Rocky. The public credits identify AI contributors and directors, but they do not prove who made the specific sequence under dispute.
As film, music, and digital-art teams lean further into AI-assisted workflows, this kind of disagreement will likely keep returning to practical basics: obtain permission when using identifiable work, document what assets were supplied, and make credits meaningful enough to trace creative responsibility. For a related example of how creative teams discuss continuity and interpretation around established screen material, see this discussion of a younger Aragorn performance in The Hunt for Gollum.
