AI Video, Copyright, and the Turning Point No One Wanted to Talk About

19 February 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

For years, artificial intelligence has been quietly absorbing the creative world.

Illustrators watched as models produced images in their style. Writers saw language models trained on books they never licensed. Voice actors heard digital replicas of their tone and cadence. Photographers discovered fragments of their work embedded in datasets they never consented to join.

Close-up of a person in a red and black spider-themed suit against a dark background, showing a spider emblem on the chest. — Photo by Hector Reyes on Unsplash

The arguments were loud, emotional and often messy. Creators warned that their intellectual property was being harvested without permission. AI companies insisted that training data fell within legal grey areas. Lawsuits were filed. Statements were issued. Panels were held.

But systemic change moved slowly.

Then Spider-Man appeared.

Not in a cinema release or on a Disney+ platform, but inside a viral AI-generated video created using ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0. Within days of its release, social feeds were filled with highly realistic clips showing Marvel and Star Wars characters in scenarios that looked convincingly cinematic. Lightsabers clashed. Superheroes fought across recognisable cityscapes.

And this time, the response was immediate.

Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter accusing ByteDance of effectively conducting a “virtual smash-and-grab” of its intellectual property. Other studios followed. Industry bodies demanded the platform halt what they described as infringing activity. Even the Japanese government opened an investigation after AI-generated anime characters began circulating online.

ByteDance quickly pledged to strengthen safeguards.

The speed of that reaction stands in sharp contrast to the drawn-out battles fought by independent creatives over the last several years. And that contrast raises a difficult but necessary question: why does meaningful pressure seem to materialise only when billion-dollar franchises are involved?

The Uneven Battlefield of Copyright and AI

The legal tension around generative AI has always centred on training data. Most AI systems are built on enormous datasets scraped from publicly available material. Whether that constitutes fair use or copyright infringement remains one of the most contested questions in modern technology law.

When the alleged victims were individual artists or mid-tier studios, the debate felt theoretical. There were court filings and opinion pieces, but not immediate operational shifts from the tech giants.

Now the optics are different.

Seedance is not accused of vaguely echoing an artistic style. It is accused of generating recognisable characters owned by one of the most powerful entertainment companies in the world. Spider-Man is not an aesthetic. He is a legally fortified intellectual property asset supported by decades of licensing agreements, contractual protections and global brand enforcement.

That changes the power dynamic instantly.

Where independent creators struggled to compel transparency around training datasets, Disney commands it. Where freelance illustrators waited months for platform responses, multinational studios can demand immediate action.

The issue itself has not changed. The scale of the stakeholder has.

What This Means for AI Video

AI video is still in its infancy compared to image generation, but the implications of this dispute could accelerate its regulation dramatically.

If platforms are found to be generating content too closely resembling copyrighted franchises, expect tighter content controls. Prompt filtering will become more aggressive. Character names will be blocked. Visual similarity detection tools may be deployed to prevent outputs that mirror protected designs.

In short, the open playground phase of AI video may end sooner than expected.

There is also another path emerging: licensing.

Disney’s existing billion-dollar partnership with OpenAI signals a model where AI tools are not eliminated but contained within approved ecosystems. Rather than preventing AI from generating Marvel characters altogether, studios may instead seek to monetise that capability under strict agreements.

That would create a bifurcated future for AI video. Corporate-approved generative systems operating inside licensing frameworks on one side, and heavily restricted public tools on the other.

Independent creators could once again find themselves navigating a more tightly controlled environment shaped by corporate negotiation rather than broad creative consensus.

The Transparency Question

One of the most significant unknowns in this entire situation is training data.

ByteDance has not disclosed what Seedance was trained on. That silence is not unusual in the industry. Most generative AI companies treat training datasets as proprietary assets.

But as legal pressure increases, so too does the demand for transparency. If studios begin demanding to know whether their content was scraped, regulators may soon follow.

For years, artists have asked for opt-in systems, compensation structures and dataset audits. If this moment forces platforms to adopt more transparent practices, it may indirectly validate those earlier demands.

It would be a bitter irony if the turning point for creator protection comes only once global media conglomerates feel threatened.

A Defining Moment for AI and Creativity

There is something symbolic about this dispute.

AI innovation has been framed as disruptive, democratising and unstoppable. Copyright law, by contrast, is territorial, slow-moving and rooted in decades-old legal frameworks. For a time, it appeared that generative AI might simply outpace enforcement.

But intellectual property remains one of the strongest legal shields in modern commerce. When AI tools move from stylistic imitation to recognisable franchise replication, the shield activates quickly.

This is not necessarily an anti-AI moment. It may instead be a recalibration.

The creative economy depends on ownership, licensing and consent. AI systems that ignore those principles are unlikely to survive prolonged legal scrutiny. The question is whether reform will apply evenly across the creative landscape or remain reactive to whoever has the loudest legal voice.

If the Seedance dispute leads to clearer boundaries, transparent datasets and fairer licensing models for all creators, it could mark a maturation phase for AI video.

If it simply results in selective enforcement that protects corporate assets while leaving independent creators in grey areas, the imbalance will persist.

For now, one thing is certain.

AI video has crossed from experimental novelty into serious legal territory.

And it took a superhero to force the conversation into the open.

Current Most Read

Measles Is Rising Again: What Is Happening in London and Around the World

The UK’s new deepfake laws: what is now illegal, what it means in practice, and what could come next

Economic Instability and Political Extremism: Then and Now

Paul Francis
Jan 29, 2025
3 min read

Part 1: The Parallels of Turbulent Times

History, with all its twists and turns, often feels like a mirror held up to the present. As we explore the turbulent years of 1920–1924 and 2010–2024, one striking thread binds them together: economic instability, coupled with the rise of political extremism, creates fertile ground for upheaval. Yet, by examining the past, we can better understand—and perhaps avoid—the mistakes that shaped history.

Woman in fur coat holds a cigarette in a holder, exhaling smoke. Black and white image with a glamorous, vintage mood.

The Economic Struggles of a Century Ago

The world of 1920 was one in recovery mode, but the scars of World War I were fresh. Germany’s economic devastation was particularly profound, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. War reparations, demanded by the Allied powers, placed an unbearable burden on the German economy. By 1923, hyperinflation reached a point where citizens carried wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread. The collapse of the German mark wasn’t just an economic event—it was a societal trauma.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, recovery looked different. The United States entered the Roaring Twenties, a decade of unprecedented economic growth, yet one that masked growing inequalities. The wealth gap widened as industrial expansion benefited the upper echelons of society, leaving rural communities and lower-income workers struggling to keep up.

This contrast of roaring prosperity and crippling despair set the stage for future instability. In Germany, it created a breeding ground for anger and desperation, leading to the rise of radical ideologies.

Modern Echoes: 2010–2024

Fast-forward to the 2010s and the parallels are hard to ignore. The global financial crisis of 2008 had left economies reeling. Governments implemented austerity measures to stabilize finances, but the social toll was high. Unemployment soared in countries like Greece and Spain, and public services were slashed.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought the global economy to a grinding halt. Governments scrambled to inject life into their economies through massive stimulus packages, but these measures came at a cost. Inflation surged globally, with households struggling to keep up with skyrocketing food and energy prices. The economic aftershocks have deepened inequalities—just as they did a century ago.

Steam train crossing an arched stone viaduct, releasing white smoke. Scenic backdrop of hills and trees. Black and white image.

The Role of Economic Despair in Political Extremism

In the early 1920s, desperation made radical ideologies appealing. Benito Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome marked the birth of fascism as a political force. In Germany, Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 may have failed, but it signalled the rise of the Nazi Party. These movements thrived by exploiting economic hardship and national humiliation, presenting themselves as saviours in a time of chaos.

Today, the political landscape shows a similar pattern. The aftermath of the financial crisis and the pandemic created fertile ground for populist leaders who thrive on polarization. Movements like Brexit, fueled by economic and cultural grievances, reflect a world where people are disillusioned with traditional politics. Meanwhile, the rise of far-right and far-left parties across Europe mirrors the ideological battles of the 1920s.

The lesson here is stark: economic despair fuels extremism, but it is often the failure of mainstream politics to address these grievances that allows radical ideologies to flourish.

Global Crises and Societal Fractures

In both eras, global crises served as accelerants for unrest. Just as World War I’s aftermath destabilized economies, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of modern systems. Supply chain disruptions, soaring debt, and political infighting have left many nations struggling to recover.

Moreover, the interconnected nature of today’s world amplifies these effects. What begins as a localized crisis—whether financial or geopolitical—quickly becomes global, much like how the Great Depression of the 1930s rippled across the globe.

Concluding Thoughts

A century apart, the years 1920–1924 and 2010–2024 show us the dangers of ignoring the warning signs of economic instability and political extremism. While history cannot predict the future, it can illuminate the paths we should avoid.

As we reflect on these parallels, one truth stands out: societies that invest in fairness, accountability, and resilience are better equipped to weather turbulent times. The past may echo loudly in the present, but the choice to break the cycle remains ours.