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

Landmark Negligence Cases That Changed Personal Injury Law

Toby Patrick
Nov 6, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Nov 12, 2025

Personal injury law is vital for those who have suffered from negligence or a lack of care with their injury and therefore seek compensation. Over time, several landmark cases have completely transformed personal injury law. Below, we look at some of the key cases that have shaped modern legal principles and how they continue to impact lives today.

Classical building with ornate columns and statues under a cloudy sky. Weathered stone and detailed sculptures convey a historic feel.

Palsgraf vs Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

One of the oldest and most famous cases in personal injury law is the claim of Helen Palsgraf against Long Island Railroad Co. In this case, Helen was injured when a package containing fireworks exploded on the railroad tracks. The explosion occurred as railway employees were assisting a man boarding a train.

Helen Palsgraf sued for her injuries, which led to a major debate over liability. The court ultimately ruled that the railroad company was not liable, as the harm was not foreseeable. This decision introduced the concept of foreseeability into the doctrine of negligence, emphasising that liability depends on whether harm is a reasonably predictable consequence of the defendant’s actions.

Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932)

Another landmark case from the early 1930s, this one transformed personal injury law across the world. May Donoghue became ill after drinking a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. Although her friend purchased the drink, Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for damages.

The court concluded that Stevenson had a duty of care to ensure the safety of their products, even without direct contact between the manufacturer and consumer. This case established the modern principle of negligence and influenced similar legal doctrines internationally.

Baker v. City of St. Louis (1967)

In this case, Baker sued the City of St. Louis after being injured while attempting to board a bus. He argued that the city failed to ensure proper maintenance of its buses and adequate training of drivers. The city claimed sovereign immunity, meaning it could not be sued.

However, the court ruled that the city could be held liable under the doctrine of negligence. This case reshaped the modern understanding of government liability, ensuring that cities cannot rely on sovereign immunity when negligence or personal injury is involved.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Although best known as a landmark decision in reproductive rights, Roe v. Wade also had implications for personal injury and medical law. Jane Roe challenged Texas laws that prohibited abortion, arguing for her right to privacy.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. While primarily focused on bodily autonomy, the case reinforced the importance of medical rights and personal safety, principles closely related to personal injury and negligence law.

Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (1978)

In this case, Berg sought compensation from Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company under his insurance policy. The dispute centred on how the company interpreted policy coverage. The court ruled that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to victims based on technicalities or unclear wording, describing such behaviour as professional negligence.

This case transformed the way insurance contracts are written, reinforcing the need for fairness and transparency between insurers and policyholders.

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case: Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994)

Perhaps the most famous personal injury case of all time, this lawsuit involved Stella Liebeck, who suffered third-degree burns after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s. She was hospitalised and incurred serious medical expenses.

The jury found that McDonald’s had acted with gross negligence by serving coffee at a dangerously high temperature. The case sent shockwaves through the legal and corporate world, leading to stronger consumer protection laws and the introduction of visible safety warnings on hot beverage containers.

It also sparked global debate about corporate responsibility, personal accountability and public perception of compensation claims.

Summary

There are a number of professional negligence claims and court cases that have changed the world we live in. That being said, there are a lot of people who really try their luck, and they don’t always win. The McDonald's case seems very self-explanatory: a coffee will have hot liquid will burn you. Nevertheless, McDonald’s did lose that case.