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

Elon Musk’s Controversial Salute and Trump’s Inauguration: A Polarising Start

Connor Banks
Jan 21, 2025
3 min read

Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th President of the United States was marked by sweeping executive actions and a controversial appearance by billionaire Elon Musk, whose gestures at the event have sparked widespread backlash.

A Contentious Start to Trump’s Presidency

Hours after being sworn in, President Trump announced a raft of executive orders aimed at undoing key policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Addressing supporters at an indoor parade event in Washington, D.C., Trump promised to reverse “80 destructive and radical executive actions” from the previous administration.

Among his first actions, Trump issued pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot. This included shortening sentences for 14 members of far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, some of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. Trump also declared illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border a national emergency, reinstated policies barring citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and designated drug cartels as terrorist organisations.

On the international front, Trump announced the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing concerns about the nation’s energy independence. He further ordered the repeal of a Biden-era memo barring oil drilling in the Arctic and began the process of withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation, criticising the agency’s financial demands on the US compared to China.

AI image of Elon Musk and Donald Trump shaking hands. — Image generated by Leonardo AI

Elon Musk’s Controversial Salutes

The inauguration also drew headlines due to the actions of Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X. Musk, a prominent Trump supporter and donor, appeared onstage before Trump’s address and delivered remarks praising the audience for their contributions to the administration’s victory.

During his speech, Musk made a gesture that has been widely criticised. He placed his right hand over his chest before extending it outward in a motion many likened to a Nazi salute. “My heart goes out to you,” Musk told the crowd. “It is thanks to you that the future of civilisation is assured.” He repeated the gesture moments later, prompting a storm of reactions on social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs

Historians and advocacy groups were quick to condemn Musk’s actions. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian of fascism, described the motion as a “Nazi salute” and “a very belligerent one too.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a statement calling the gesture “awkward” and advising restraint, though critics, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, accused the organisation of minimising the incident.

Musk responded on X, dismissing the controversy. “Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired,” he posted, adding a yawning emoji. He also reposted memes mocking the backlash, further fuelling the debate.

A Polarised Reaction

Supporters of Musk and Trump dismissed the outrage as overblown. “Can we please retire the calling people a Nazi thing?” one user wrote on X. Far-right groups, however, appeared to embrace Musk’s actions. Neo-Nazi leader Christopher Pohlhaus celebrated the gestures, stating, “I don’t care if this was a mistake. I’m going to enjoy the tears over it.”

Musk’s appearance added to the already divisive atmosphere surrounding Trump’s return to power. For many, it symbolised a normalisation of far-right rhetoric at the highest levels of influence, while others viewed it as a distraction from Trump’s ambitious policy agenda.

Trump’s inauguration has set the stage for a presidency marked by aggressive policy reversals and deeply polarising optics. Musk’s controversial gestures underscore the fraught political landscape, where symbolism and ideology often overshadow substantive debate. As the administration moves forward, the tension between unity and division will remain a central theme in American politics.